Cat 1 or D1 - which is harder?

bobonuts wrote:

I am nearly 60 years old and I can still push 1700 watts. And that's not being in the best of shape.

I'm going to go ahead and call b.s. on this one.

No one, not even Boonen or Cavendish, is 'pushing 1700 watts'.

I also don't believe you could come anywhere close to 1700 watts in an all out sprint as a 60 year old.

Sorry, just not plausible.

I don't really think the question is the right one to ask. Nonetheless, as an athlete formerly capable of a mid-29's 10k in a prior life, my brief flirtation with cycling found me immediately riding with and outclimbing Cat 3s within a matter of weeks of training. Now, Cat 3 is pretty insignificant, but these guys were solid at that level progressing toward the next category. I didn't stick with cycling, but I get the sense that good runners will make great cyclists, especially climbers, if they put in the training, whereas I don't see the same transition from cycling to running. There was a former 2:20 marathon guy who quit running because of chronic injury issues and very quickly became pro, riding as a domestique for 7-11 I believe. Can't remember his name. Michael something...

smith. wrote:

I'm going to go ahead and call b.s. on this one.

No one, not even Boonen or Cavendish, is 'pushing 1700 watts'.

I also don't believe you could come anywhere close to 1700 watts in an all out sprint as a 60 year old.

Sorry, just not plausible.

I agree with you about the 60yo, but disagree about Boonen or Cavendish. These guys are definitely over 1700W, which is not an elite pro level field sprint power. 1700W is like a Cat 1 or low pro sprint specialist power. I have a close friend who was a very good Cat 1 sprinter and could do 1800W. I weigh 123lbs and am not a sprinter and have made 1200W several times when I got angry enough in a race (typically in an attack and not the field sprint though).

As to the original question, I think D1 runner is much better than Cat 1. Let's face it, cycling is somewhat of a fringe sport in the US whereas every high school has a cross country program. The number of people who try competing at running is many times higher than the number of people that try a bike race. The number of people trying to become a D1 runner is also many times higher than those shooting to become Cat 1. I do not believe you have to be super-talented to become a Cat 1, especially when you consider that criterium racing has a very significant skill component that can be learned and is unrelated to athletic talent.

Remember this guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Busche

Pretty good story. Great Success!

cyhawk wrote:

I agree with you about the 60yo, but disagree about Boonen or Cavendish. These guys are definitely over 1700W, which is not an elite pro level field sprint power. 1700W is like a Cat 1 or low pro sprint specialist power. I have a close friend who was a very good Cat 1 sprinter and could do 1800W. I weigh 123lbs and am not a sprinter and have made 1200W several times when I got angry enough in a race (typically in an attack and not the field sprint though).

No doubt they're hitting those numbers and a whole lot more in sprints.

No one is 'pushing' that, though, or even maintaining it for more than a couple of seconds.

Maybe I'm just getting hung up on semantics, but he didn't seem to know what he was talking about either way.

A better comparison might be a DI all-american vs. a Cat. 1 cyclist. Just being a DI runner doesn't mean all that much as there are plenty of middling runners in DI programs.

Attaining Cat. 1 status is more akin to an all-american level of performance in XC or track.

It's not about the workload or skill level required, it's about the talent pool.

There are many times more people lacing up running shoes as 15-25 year olds than are investing in expensive road bikes and training seriously as a cyclist. I'll bet there are 1000 high school track athletes for every one high school cyclist training at a similar level.

In the US, very few of the most genetically gifted potential cyclists ever even try it. Same with otherwise difficult endurance sports like nordic skiing or rowing.

I'm sure it's very difficult to train and race well enough to be a Cat 1 cyclist. But overall it's way easier because if you do train hard, you have a much better chance of making it because the talent pool you are competing against is so much more dilute.

Morocco Mole wrote:

It's not about the workload or skill level required, it's about the talent pool.

There are many times more people lacing up running shoes as 15-25 year olds than are investing in expensive road bikes and training seriously as a cyclist. I'll bet there are 1000 high school track athletes for every one high school cyclist training at a similar level.

In the US, very few of the most genetically gifted potential cyclists ever even try it. Same with otherwise difficult endurance sports like nordic skiing or rowing.

I'm sure it's very difficult to train and race well enough to be a Cat 1 cyclist. But overall it's way easier because if you do train hard, you have a much better chance of making it because the talent pool you are competing against is so much more dilute.

ANYONE can run D1. Not ANYONE can be a Cat 1 cyclist.

haha YO wrote:ANYONE can run D1. Not ANYONE can be a Cat 1 cyclist.

I thought we'd moved past this. The OP said "typical" DI runner, not the guy at the end of the roster in a 3rd rate program. I think the earlier poster who suggest 14:30 had it about right--that's what I think of as a "typical" DI distance runner.

Dang.... wrote:

Wait, what?

1700 watts for how long and in what circumstance? That's a pretty ridiculous figure although it makes sense being a former sprinter.

Too bad you didn't race the kilo or something when you were younger.

It is my sole passsion now. And soon as this neck fusion heals I will be out there again. And you are correct about the kilo. I can drill off the front. And I think I can TT at least in the prologue distances.I wish I'd given it a shot.

I still think I can go 1800w. And I know I was way beyond that when I was younger.

You are correct though. Due to my infirmity when I took the reading, I am only at that number for 5 seconds. More than enough for a sprint though and on a slight uphill I can still hit close to 39 mph.

I have had 8 surgeries. 6 on my legs. 5 on one leg. But the bike keeps it mostly aligned so I can crank it up. I hit close to 200 rpm - in real terms not the power tap terms which show much much higher.

But I am a bit of a hummingbird, so when my heart rate pops into the 190's I tend to float a little.

Anyone who wonders about cycling - especially you ex competitive runners - give it a shot.

Morocco Mole wrote:

It's not about the workload or skill level required, it's about the talent pool.

There are many times more people lacing up running shoes as 15-25 year olds than are investing in expensive road bikes and training seriously as a cyclist. I'll bet there are 1000 high school track athletes for every one high school cyclist training at a similar level.

In the US, very few of the most genetically gifted potential cyclists ever even try it. Same with otherwise difficult endurance sports like nordic skiing or rowing.

I'm sure it's very difficult to train and race well enough to be a Cat 1 cyclist. But overall it's way easier because if you do train hard, you have a much better chance of making it because the talent pool you are competing against is so much more dilute.

you are seriously missing the point!

being a DI runner does not in and of itself imply a whole lot about how good you are (regardless of the size of the talent pool)!! whereas achieving cat. 1 status does, that's why it's not a good comparison.

One is a distinction based on the institution you attend, the other is one based on your race results.

I would also point out that many people who were 'once a runner' end up as serious cyclists after their running career is over. So it's not as if these are completely separate subsets of athletes.

midwaste wrote:you are seriously missing the point!

being a DI runner does not in and of itself imply a whole lot about how good you are (regardless of the size of the talent pool)!! whereas achieving cat. 1 status does, that's why it's not a good comparison.

One is a distinction based on the institution you attend, the other is one based on your race results.

I don't think I'm missing anything at all. "Typical DI athlete" is being used in this discussion as shorthand for a certain level of athlete, same as Cat. 1.

Race results are only significant if you are racing a strong field. No doubt Cat 1 cyclists demonstrate a high RELATIVE skill/talent level. But is that significant? Maybe not.

I bet Polo is challenging as all hell (requiring hand-eye coordination, balance, strength, etc.). And the top players have to demonstrate a high RELATIVE skill level to earn a spot on the national polo team (if there is one). But I am in no way impressed by the overall athletic ability of top American Polo players. Who the hell plays polo? Give me a bunch of benchwarming NBA guards, a good polo coach, at least average horses, and 1 year, and I will give you the US Champion polo team.

moosemustard wrote:

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

1379

Those power outputs are good for a VERY short period of time, say 5 to 10 sec.

bobonuts wrote:

Good post.

I was a D 1 sprinter, and not a day goes by that I don't wish I'd gone cycling instead of running. I am nearly 60 years old and I can still push 1700 watts. And that's not being in the best of shape.

I think the cycling world is small. More talent gravitates to running. As my Brother once pointed out when I was thinking of changing sports and I was minimizing the costs "You only need shorts and a singlet to run track." We couldn't afford a bike.

I think that raw physical talent is more abundant in the running group. But I also think that cyclists have greater threshold for crazy stuff. 60 mph down a hill for example.

A cat 1 rider may be no less talented than a D 1 College runner but as in everything, that is a long way from elite.

How did you measure this 1700W? What device? I have done lab and field testing and seen plenty of powermeter files and even 5 sec at 1700W is pretty remarkable for a world class track sprinter (Marty Nothstein, for instance). I am skeptical of a 60 year old being able to do this. If you can do that then I assume you are winning masters world titles in the kilo or even the match sprint.

Morocco Mole wrote:

Race results are only significant if you are racing a strong field. No doubt Cat 1 cyclists demonstrate a high RELATIVE skill/talent level. But is that significant? Maybe not.

I bet Polo is challenging as all hell (requiring hand-eye coordination, balance, strength, etc.). And the top players have to demonstrate a high RELATIVE skill level to earn a spot on the national polo team (if there is one). But I am in no way impressed by the overall athletic ability of top American Polo players. Who the hell plays polo? Give me a bunch of benchwarming NBA guards, a good polo coach, at least average horses, and 1 year, and I will give you the US Champion polo team.

sorry, but I find your argument a bit hard to follow...does your analogy suggest that you're not impressed by the athleticism of cat. 1 cyclists relative to a 14:30 5k runner? Would you contend that you could beat any given team of cat. 1 cyclists with a group of 14:30 5k runners?

Furthermore, does the number of people who participate in running have anything to do with how hard it is to be a 14:30 5k runner? (apparently the metric we are using here)

In general I think that cat. 1 cycling requires a greater degree of athleticism than running, unless perhaps if you are an elite steeplechaser.

Are Cat 1's from California/Colorado be better than other not so cycling abundant states? Or, would it about the same since most of American racing is criterium where it doesn't matter how well you can climb mountains.

Since most racing are crits here in the US, would 400m or 800m runners transfer best to being cyclists in the US? I feel like best 5k or 10k runners would be great at pushing the pace, but if you're a great 400m runner, you can just draft all the way to the end of the race and win the sprint. If there's a breakaway, just have your team do the work to pull back the breakaway.

I wish I lived closer and could show you numbers. I am 220 and can hit 1200w in two pedal strokes on a rolling start.

However. Set yourself up on a power meter and try it out.

Power is a measure of leg speed and force. I have plenty of both, but the people I ride with will tell you I don't have it for long.

Cav and Boonen have plenty of both. Cav has been measured at 1680 w in a sprint at the end of 130 miles of racing. Way out of my class. Haven't seen boonen's numbers but assume he is a round there, though he is more power than leg speed. The big issue with power is not the peak, but the sustained.

Sir Chris Hoy pushes in excess 2300 watts. Most track guys are monsters and many exceed 2000. And as an aside - many many years ago I was a 46.4 second 400m runner. When it meant something. You never lose it.

So believe what you will. But at least set the bar a little higher for yourself.

tough to say...I guess you could try to quantify how well people from different states do at nationals