Just got the new issue. Love it! (And I liked the last Ladies issue, too. ...And all the others! :) )
I'm somewhat new to CX but am interested in this sanctioned vs nonsanctioned debate, but not for the reasons mentioned in the article. So I'll mention them here! :)
I'm from Michigan where we have Kisscross, an unsanctioned series. This may or may not be relevant.
From what I can tell, a sanctioned event means you need a course that follows certain rules. These rules seem oriented to creating *dirt crits*. So if a promoter wants to have longer run-ups or more barriers or just plain more running -- more sand -- then maybe they can't be sanctioned.
I suppose this fits in with the debate as to whether folks want to race each other or race the course. But I'm not sure it's so cut'n'dry. If there's more running it might just mean that those who are good at running could move up. Or if there's more dis/remounts then that skill moves up. Sure, you want a balance, a good mix, but maybe there should be more room on the skills/run side of the range while still letting an event be sanctioned. ...Who knows, maybe there is. I'm just going by what I've heard, read, and seen so far.
The article seemed to frame it as "far away" series being hesitant to sanction. ...And then there's alleycats. It seems more complex than that.
-- Jeff Potter
http://outyourbackdoor.com ... HQ for indie outdoor action