Steve_B said:I think that the fast people in every region pretty much terrorize the local clan. It's all relative. If they all go to nationals, assuming a level playing field (altitude, etc.) then you would see a good contest.
I agree generally, but tons of guys at Masters win local and even regional stuff -- but "dominate" to me doesn't even mean winning --- I'll call it top 5, maybe 10, in each age group/event ---- and that pecking group really doesn't change much from year to year at Nats. The finish order may but the same riders are in there, year to year, for the most part. Just don't think that being a top guy from Co/Cali necessarily equates to a top finish at Nats. Maybe, maybe not. The rest of Nats field wouldn't be pack fodder anywhere.
Steve_B said:Here in New England, the depth of the masters racing field has always been "good" but over the past 5 years, the general consensus is that it has become much deeper and the racing much harder. On any given day, in the 35+ alone there are about 10-15 top-tier guys who can dominate (including the recently retired ex-pros), all of whom are legitimate cat 1-2 riders but also another 20-30 who aren't top tier but you can't count out.
I think this is happening everywhere and it's great. It's a lifetime sport. Guys who started out years ago are still going strong. As for how hard the racing is -- last year at US Nats, the guy who won the 35-39 Masters road race rode the Elite race a few days later and won. (And I am not passing judgment on that or even want to get in the middle of that debate.)
Now if the junior field would just grow.