One thing I don't get about athena/clydesdales

Houstonrider - 2009-07-16 3:24 PM I'm not the original poster but this is a good explanation.  I believe it was originally posted by ratherbesnowboarding.....

"This question seems to come up about once a month.

First, you need to understand what the category of Athena/Clydesdale was intended for and not what it has become (or the perception (yours, as the OP) of what the category is)

This is a Clydesdale: 

Big, strong and muscular, but kind of slow..

and racing against this:


The Clydesdale will have a hard time beating a smaller, faster, leaner horse (most of the time), which is why the category was created.  To give big people (like football players and body builders) a chance to compete against people of similar stature and not just against the smaller, leaner marathon runners that are in the same age group and 50 pounds lighter.

This is not a Clydesdale:

but according to your question, (How do you feel about people entering a division they may not need to be in), is what you think should only be racing the category.   Because I bet the Clydsale horse above would beat this horse in a race.

Second, and most importantly, Its a race - not a self esteem event where you get a reward for just showing up.  You never should be upset if someone who qualifies for your category, is faster than you, wins.  It would be like a 44 y/o complaining that the person who won the AG is really 39 but b/c their birthday is 12/30, that puts them in the 40-44 AG."

In the end we are all competing against ourselves.

Houstonrider - 2009-07-16 3:24 PM I'm not the original poster but this is a good explanation.  I believe it was originally posted by ratherbesnowboarding.....

"This question seems to come up about once a month.

First, you need to understand what the category of Athena/Clydesdale was intended for and not what it has become (or the perception (yours, as the OP) of what the category is)

This is a Clydesdale: 

Big, strong and muscular, but kind of slow..

Pector55 - 2009-07-16 3:50 PM



I think I get it... Clydesdales are the dudes wearing the big white puffy slouch socks? 

dmckeen - 2009-07-16 4:47 PM The weight criteria seems arbitrary to me. This debate would still exist if the thresholds were set at 210/160. And if the threshold was set even higher, say 250/175, then some people would be arguing that it should be lowered!

And if some other criteria was used (such as BMI) then people would be debating whether or not the category should start at 24, 25, 26 or whatever.

For the record, I weigh 199 or 201 depending on the day. So all I need to become a Clyde if I'm 199 is to drink a big glass of water.

dmckeen - 2009-07-16 2:47 PM
For the record, I weigh 199 or 201 depending on the day. So all I need to become a Clyde if I'm 199 is to drink a big glass of water.

dmckeen - 2009-07-16 4:47 PM The weight criteria seems arbitrary to me. This debate would still exist if the thresholds were set at 210/160. And if the threshold was set even higher, say 250/175, then some people would be arguing that it should be lowered!

And if some other criteria was used (such as BMI) then people would be debating whether or not the category should start at 24, 25, 26 or whatever.

For the record, I weigh 199 or 201 depending on the day. So all I need to become a Clyde if I'm 199 is to drink a big glass of water.

I'm not complaining about not being in the category - for me I just want to finish, I'm not going to be placing anywhere - it just seems odd to me that height is not a factor

rcav8r - 2009-07-18 8:53 AM Nobody else has said it, but BMI is a terrible indicator of anything except lazy thinking on the medical community's part.

arbucklemicah - 2009-07-21 10:09 PM "Suffer the pain of Discipline or suffer the pain of Regret"