Walt: 210 watts (not 200 as you wrote) at 60 kg is 3.5 watts per kilogram, which is somewhere between a strong Cat IV and a decent Cat III. Do you sneer at anyone weaker than a Cat II?
You've certainly got the legs for sneering, according to your own posts. You claim you casually crank out an impressive 5.3 watts per kilo, and assert that you hit that number in your second season of riding a bicycle: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=146424&p=1338637#p1338637
That makes you a solid Cat II (in the US system). Good for you! I used to be a Cat II, but that was a long time ago; now I'm fat and slow. It took me a long, long time to get that fit...I was a junior, and I happen to be the exact same racing age as George Hincapie. He was easily the fastest junior on the east coast, and even making about 5.3 watts per kilo, it was all I could do to hang onto his wheel. And that was after I had been racing for six years!
You hit that number in your second season? Well, damn! You're a prodigy! Surely you're weeks away from dropping Nairo Quintana on the climbs and Tony Martin on the flats. Promise me you'll wave to me when you win at Ventoux, OK?
A friend of mine, a US Army Ranger (special forces, but low-level special forces) once laid this nugget of wisdom on me: the guys who talk about it didn't do it, and the guys who did it don't talk about it. He was referring to commando raids and things like that, but I think it applies to bike racing too: if you really are a rising star in the amateur ranks (as 5.3 W/kg after two years strongly implies) you wouldn't feel the need to piss on some random Cat III on an internet forum. You'd be too busy recovering from today's Breckenridge stage of the Colorado Classic to waste your time on Weight Weenies.
You're either not as fast as you claim to be or way more insecure than anyone has a right to be. Or maybe both (no offense).