Cat 1 or D1 - which is harder?

I would have to say cat 1 cyclist. I've known a few Cat 1 cyclists and I've heard how hard it is to get to that level and couldn't imagine doing some of that type of training. I've been riding and running for a while and would have to say that Cat 1 cyclist edges out the Division 1 runner, but both aren't easy.

D1 isn't saying a lot. There are a lot of crappy D1 runners at bottom-of-the-conference schools. A better comparison might be to breaking 30 min in the 10k, or running under 1:50 in the 800m, etc...

Cat 1 definitely.

The only way to become a Cat 1 is by beating (a number of times) other Cat 1s and Pros. Its seriously legit.

RRRR wrote:

D1 isn't saying a lot. There are a lot of crappy D1 runners at bottom-of-the-conference schools. A better comparison might be to breaking 30 min in the 10k, or running under 1:50 in the 800m, etc...

That's why I said "typical". Let me more specifically say *median* D1 runner vs *median* Cat 1 cyclist.

RRRR wrote:

D1 isn't saying a lot. There are a lot of crappy D1 runners at bottom-of-the-conference schools. A better comparison might be to breaking 30 min in the 10k, or running under 1:50 in the 800m, etc...

Interesting. So you think a 30 min 10 is roughly cat 1 level?

(New to cycling and just trying to find a comparison)

Oops.. replied to the wrong person.

moosemustard wrote:

That's why I said "typical". Let me more specifically say *median* D1 runner vs *median* Cat 1 cyclist.

What's a 'median' Cat 1?

The only way to become a Cat 1 is to place top 7 (of 9 in some races) in a number of races. To do that you must beat other Cat 1s and Pros. Then you have to petition the regional coordinator for the upgrade. If the race fields are too small or the distances too short (80 mile road races!!), the race might not be 'upgrade eligible'. It's not like you can be mediocre and become a Cat 1. You've gotta be very good.

Of course, there are those that have been cat 1s for a while and stop taking it seriously. Guess they could be pretty mediocre overall. But they weren't when they upgraded.

I'd say Cat 1 is far harder than D1.

To compare, it'd be like a high school kid racing the D1 kids (in 10000m!). That hs kid could only become D1 if they're beating said D1 kids in multiple races.

Cool cool. Thanks for the replies. Anyone know roughly how many Cat 1's there are?

What makes this interesting is that there are far more runners than cyclists. You can come from any background to do running. With cycling, it's not as popular so you even breaking the barrier of entry to the sport will be harder as well as it's not a cheap sport. So, I think there are more natural talented runners compared to cyclists.

But with this comparison, there are so many spots to being a D1 runner compared to cyling that it probably brings the median runner's ability. In cycling, there are so few people who can achieve Cat 1 status, their median level is probably higher compared to running. I feel like many cyclists are who couldn't be the best at running or injury prone that they had to choose cycling.

There are more naturally talented runners than cyclists.

Good points.

I will say that reading on some cycling forums, there are a LOT of former collegiate runners that took up cycling due to injury or just getting older. I was surprised by the number of them who have run 14-15 minute 5Ks.

moosemustard wrote:

Cool cool. Thanks for the replies. Anyone know roughly how many Cat 1's there are?

The numbers are on the usacycling website somewhere but I can't find them.

While there are more runners than cyclists, the average cat 5 cyclist is generally in much better shape than the average runner. But the body types are also very different. Cycling is less about endurance and more about accelerations -- cross country, for example, may be a 30-minute event, but there are very few races in the USA with 30-minute climbs.

I think D1 is closer to Cat 2. Cat 1 is a little better than that, maybe scoring at conferences?

But you also have to do a lot of racing. One of the stronger Cat 1s in the country has a twin who took a long time to upgrade because he didn't race as much -- he raced collegiate and spent more time on school work (I think they're both 1s now but I'm not sure). Even if you're regularly doing well in races, upgrade points expire after one year. So say you race 10 times a year and finish top 5 in three of them -- that's not enough to upgrade. But there are guys who race 50 times a year and upgrade more quickly.

What is median for a D1 Runner??? 14:30? 3:55? 25:00?

If those are median times for a D1 runner, which I am guessing is about right, then I think it is about on par with being a Cat 1 cyclist if not a little better.

ohio_miler wrote:

What is median for a D1 Runner??? 14:30? 3:55? 25:00?

If those are median times for a D1 runner, which I am guessing is about right, then I think it is about on par with being a Cat 1 cyclist if not a little better.

Those are NOT median times for a D1 runner. Jeez. In what conference is 25:00 median for an 8K?! A 14:30 is faster than the auto qualifying time for IC4A's!

But I think I agree that those times are pretty close... I've never been within smelling distance of either the running times or the cycling results so it's hard for me to judge :)

If Cat 1 is the top amateur level of cycling, then it would be about the same as D1 running. D1 runners are the top amateurs in the country.

I was a mtn. biker sponsored by specialized in high school. Raced elite/expert at an underaged level (17). I'm now a 9:08 d2 steepler. Which is better?

deerketchup wrote:

I was a mtn. biker sponsored by specialized in high school. Raced elite/expert at an underaged level (17). I'm now a 9:08 d2 steepler. Which is better?

You're just full of awesome.

Cat 1. No doubt. You've got to race your way to Cat 1. As some others have pointed out, there are a lot of mediocre D1 runners out there hitting >15:30 for 5k.

But I think you might be able to argue it could go either way. Some might find it easier to become a Cat 1 cyclist, some a D1 runner. It might depend on what they did as kids, and where their talent lies. And then some athletes may be able to do both.

RunninginCircle wrote:

I feel like many cyclists are who couldn't be the best at running or injury prone that they had to choose cycling.

Bingo! I am one of these guys.

I completely agree with the posts here, having been a D1 runner and now am competing in cycling events.

As a note, one former NCAA XC champion Keith Kelly is now working his way up the cycling ranks. Here are his results in cycling showing that you have to work your way up which he is:

http://www.road-results.com/racer/30214

I believe he has/is upgrading now to Cat 2, so he is not Cat 1 yet but he has only been racing a year.

For those of you who don't know who Keith Kelly is, here is a link to his bio:

http://www.friars.com/sports/m-xc/mtt/kelly_keith01.html

If you don't know Keith, I have talked to him at a few races that we were both at. Great competitor and super nice guy.