Should I go Clyde or AG?

evomike1 - 2008-08-10 11:51 AM I am 22, 6'4" and my weight fluctuates from 190 to 200 pounds. I haven’t taken a body fat test for a while, but the last time I was around 4-5%. I just competed in my fourth sprint, but its my first with my Tri bike. The other three I rode a MTB, and competed in the MTB class. At the most recent sprint I got 2nd in my AG, with a time of 1:08ish. If I entered the clyde group I would have got first. I didn’t enter the clyde group because I don’t feel that I should be put in a special group because of my size. I don’t see it as a disadvantage. The guy who won the overall looked to be about my size also. Sure, the guy who won my AG was a lot smaller than me, but he won because he has more experience, and has trained more than me. Not because he weights 160, and I weight 195. So I pose the question to you’all -my trusted forum friends- should I register in the Clyde group? Thanks, Mike (sorry if this feels like a rant)

ohiost90 - 2008-08-10 1:53 PM

A few thoughts on the subject.

1st - enter what ever division you want and qualify for.  Many clyde division are 200+(varies by rd).  So if you are under 200, then you have to race AG for those races.

2nd.   You ARE at a disadvantage in endurance sports to people that weigh less than you.  Its a fact.  Yes you can beat many people that weigh less, but it takes much more energy to move 200 lbs on the bike and on the run(mostly the run) than a 165 pounder.  Many of the elites here are are sub 150.  At 200, I'll never match them. 

3rd.  it depends on who shows up.  You say that you would have won your sprint if you had been a clyde.  I may have taken you, or atleast it would have been a great race since in my last sprint I was sub 1:09 and I didn't have anyone pushing me on the run.