login
competing as a Clydesdale or Athena when not necessary (Page 2)
-
No new posts
|
 2009-07-04 3:36 PM in reply to: #2261782 |
Extreme Veteran  335   Herriman, Utah |  Subject: RE: competing as a Clydesdale or Athena when not necessaryxarhelm - 2009-07-04 2:03 PM Bottom line is if you are 200+ welcome to Clyde. You can run with the Big Horses or can prance with the race horses its up to you but you are welcome in the tri community either way. I agree completely. I was just curious because some guys are so adamant that that's why it was created, and I don't disagree with your message at all. Just wondering. As for me, I've been trying to get out of the Clydesdale Division, because as a 5-foot-8 dude I'd have to have a whole lot more muscle than I currently do to be in this group without being quite chubby. Lastly, I would've won the Clydesdale Division at a race a few weeks ago - would've been a first for me in any division - but I entered the age group because I didn't like that I still weighed over 200 pounds. It was my punishment for not eating better and losing more weight. The next race I didn't "punish" myself, and I placed second in the Clydesdale Division. Cool stuff. Glad this group exists, regardless of what body sizes are in it... Edited by mrwrite 2009-07-04 3:38 PM |
| 2009-07-04 3:42 PM in reply to: #2092708 |
Regular 157 Bay City, MI | Subject: RE: competing as a Clydesdale or Athena when not necessary I think sometimes its more frustration at times, as it seems this exact same topic thread restarts about every 2-3 weeks. |
| 2009-07-06 10:15 AM in reply to: #2261805 |
Master 1517  Western MA near the VT & NH border on the CT river | Subject: RE: competing as a Clydesdale or Athena when not necessary mrwrite - 2009-07-04 4:36 PM xarhelm - 2009-07-04 2:03 PM Bottom line is if you are 200+ welcome to Clyde. You can run with the Big Horses or can prance with the race horses its up to you but you are welcome in the tri community either way. I agree completely. I was just curious because some guys are so adamant that that's why it was created, and I don't disagree with your message at all. Just wondering. As for me, I've been trying to get out of the Clydesdale Division, because as a 5-foot-8 dude I'd have to have a whole lot more muscle than I currently do to be in this group without being quite chubby. Lastly, I would've won the Clydesdale Division at a race a few weeks ago - would've been a first for me in any division - but I entered the age group because I didn't like that I still weighed over 200 pounds. It was my punishment for not eating better and losing more weight. The next race I didn't "punish" myself, and I placed second in the Clydesdale Division. Cool stuff. Glad this group exists, regardless of what body sizes are in it...Congratulations on coming in second - that's awesome. I'm sorry if you feel like I was the adamant one. like xarhelm said, its the frustration that some people think that those who qualify shouldn't be racing the C/A division because they're 'fit'. It's a race and no one should feel bad or chastised because they qualified, didn't cheat, followed the rules and won. So getting back to the OP's question - if you lost your podium spot because a 'fit' person did better than you, how would you feel? If you were to get upset w/ that person, then that's what the issue is. If you say "Hey, I got beat, I'll do better and get 'em the next time" then I have all the respect for you in the world. Because that's what racing is all about. FWIW, you (mrwrite) could probably beat me in a race. I wouldn't be upset w/ you because at your ideal weight you wouldn't be in this category. That's the same thing IMO. It's a race. You qualified. You beat me. Kings to you. I too am glad this group exists. The more people that enter and make it competitive the better the category is for everyone. |
| 2009-07-06 11:51 AM in reply to: #2260984 |
Expert 1186 North Cackalacky | Subject: RE: competing as a Clydesdale or Athena when not necessary mrwrite - 2009-07-03 10:53 PM I keep hearing that the Clydesdale division was created for the muscular, taller, 200-plus pounders. Anybody have a link or documentation of that or is it just considered truth because it's said so often? I don't know of any documentation. However, I think it's implied in the name "Clydesdale," since those are big, strong horses. The post on page 1 showing the pictures of the horses is the best explanation I've seen yet. |
| 2009-07-06 3:21 PM in reply to: #2092708 |
| New user 403 | Subject: RE: competing as a Clydesdale or Athena when not necessary I've been watching this thread for awhile and like the discussion. I believe, which I know has been stated, that triathlons are competitions, in which the best person on that date wins. In a competitioin, one peson wins and everyone is ranked behind them. Changing the clyd or ath specifications would be like changing age groups. exp. I'm in the 31-35 group. The guy who was 31 and 2 days took third overall and I took 50th. Thats not fair, they should cut it to 34 and 35 year olds so I'm competing with my age group, so I can do better without improving myself. We compete in races, which are competions. I'm glad the clyd. division exists. When I started triathlons, I was barely in the top 50% of the clyd. Over 2 years of training, swim lessons, healthier eating and determination, I've got a 3rd this year and a 2nd this far. The third was also in the race where the clyd winner took second overall. I've got a new goal (unrealistic, but a goal) to work harder and be competative with that guy. I think changing the qualification only cheapens the respect that we clyd and athenas have obtained from our fellow triathletes. I usually run into great athletes in both divisions and it has only pushed me to keep improving. |
| 2009-07-19 8:50 PM in reply to: #2092708 |
Master 1585 Folsom (Sacramento), CA | Subject: RE: competing as a Clydesdale or Athena when not necessary I have one issue with the Pony/Clydesdale post. I understand that tall, barrel chested men are at a disadvantage, thus the reason for the category. My question is this, arent short guys with a similar build in the same position. I'm 5'5 and currently not in great shape. Even if I was get down to my true ideal race weight, i would be lucky to touch 155. My brother is 5'6, in great shape and is at 165. Wouldn't short stocky people with short legs have just as much difficulty as tall stocky people with long legs? I'm not saying that we need to change the category necessarily, but I think people ignore the fact that it is a completely arbitrary number. If the category is really to give people a chance to compete that otherwise wouldn't be able to, why do only tall people get that chance? |
| 2009-07-20 10:42 AM in reply to: #2260984 |
Champion 8540  the colony texas | Subject: RE: competing as a Clydesdale or Athena when not necessary mrwrite - 2009-07-03 11:53 PM I keep hearing that the Clydesdale division was created for the muscular, taller, 200-plus pounders. Anybody have a link or documentation of that or is it just considered truth because it's said so often? there used to be info on the USAT site, it might not be there but I'm sure you could call them and they will tell you the same thing |
| 2009-07-20 10:46 AM in reply to: #2294957 |
Champion 8540 the colony texas | Subject: RE: competing as a Clydesdale or Athena when not necessary uclamatt2007 - 2009-07-19 8:50 PM I have one issue with the Pony/Clydesdale post. I understand that tall, barrel chested men are at a disadvantage, thus the reason for the category. My question is this, arent short guys with a similar build in the same position. I'm 5'5 and currently not in great shape. Even if I was get down to my true ideal race weight, i would be lucky to touch 155. My brother is 5'6, in great shape and is at 165. Wouldn't short stocky people with short legs have just as much difficulty as tall stocky people with long legs? I'm not saying that we need to change the category necessarily, but I think people ignore the fact that it is a completely arbitrary number. If the category is really to give people a chance to compete that otherwise wouldn't be able to, why do only tall people get that chance? most likely a 5'5" person at less than 10% body fat has a better chance at being under 200lbs than a 6"5" guy with the same Body Fat |
| 2009-09-02 8:51 AM in reply to: #2092708 |
Master 1517 Western MA near the VT & NH border on the CT river | Subject: RE: competing as a Clydesdale or Athena when not necessary *** Bump back to page 1 **** |
| 2009-09-02 12:49 PM in reply to: #2294957 |
Champion 5376 PA | Subject: RE: competing as a Clydesdale or Athena when not necessary uclamatt2007 - 2009-07-19 9:50 PM I have one issue with the Pony/Clydesdale post. I understand that tall, barrel chested men are at a disadvantage, thus the reason for the category. My question is this, arent short guys with a similar build in the same position. I'm 5'5 and currently not in great shape. Even if I was get down to my true ideal race weight, i would be lucky to touch 155. My brother is 5'6, in great shape and is at 165. Wouldn't short stocky people with short legs have just as much difficulty as tall stocky people with long legs? I'm not saying that we need to change the category necessarily, but I think people ignore the fact that it is a completely arbitrary number. If the category is really to give people a chance to compete that otherwise wouldn't be able to, why do only tall people get that chance? Wouldn't the difficulty be more in the fact that larger and heavier guys have a lot more resistance in the water, have a lot more rolling resistance in the bike (as well as a dramatically higher amount of wind resistance), and then be a lot more prone to injury in the run? Regardless of height, less weight would still a bit easier to move? I don't have the ability to compete in a Clyde class near me so it's not that big a deal to me. I'm just throwing out some thoughts. |
| 2009-09-02 1:15 PM in reply to: #2248859 |
| New user 214 | Subject: RE: competing as a Clydesdale or Athena when not necessary Chaderbox - 2009-06-28 7:16 PM Neilman - 2009-06-28 7:14 PM Up here our triathlons don't have a Clyde divsion just AG divs, can anybody explain what a clyde division is I think its for larger participants like myself although I am dropping my weight. The Clydesdale division is for any male at 200 pounds or over. The Athena group is for any female at 150 pounds or over. As was mentioned earlier in this thread, the original intent for the groups were for taller and more muscular people to compete in a division that was set for them. Take one of our fellow BT Clydes, Aikidoman, he's 6'8" and in great shape. But he won't ever be under 200 lbs unless his legs fall off. He will just need to be heavier because he's got so much more body. With more people getting into the tri world, people tend to think of C/A being for new or overweight people who are slower. Ultimately though, it's for fast people that are big, we slow chubby people (me, for example) just get to race with them in a special division. Oh, also the division being available to race in is up to the RD. There's no obligation to have them. Whay can't it be for both? I raced clyde at chicago this weekend and passed a guy in my group who was rather tall and built while I was clearly plump and juicy. The thing is the argument of who it really is for is pointless. I like to train and so. I also like the big bacon classic at Wendy's and when you put the two together you get me racing at 255 pounds. I have no problem racing in the same group as tall and lean athletes or muscular athletes as well. I don't expect to place but if I do, I'm happy. The division is clearly set up based on poundage. At Chicago they have some other weight divisions due to the large number of people racing and the fact that we like our pizzas thick. |
| 2009-09-02 1:24 PM in reply to: #2385373 |
Champion 5376 PA | Subject: RE: competing as a Clydesdale or Athena when not necessary kblahetka - 2009-09-02 2:15 PM Chaderbox - 2009-06-28 7:16 PM Whay can't it be for both? I raced clyde at chicago this weekend and passed a guy in my group who was rather tall and built while I was clearly plump and juicy. The thing is the argument of who it really is for is pointless. I like to train and so. I also like the big bacon classic at Wendy's and when you put the two together you get me racing at 255 pounds. I have no problem racing in the same group as tall and lean athletes or muscular athletes as well. I don't expect to place but if I do, I'm happy. The division is clearly set up based on poundage. At Chicago they have some other weight divisions due to the large number of people racing and the fact that we like our pizzas thick.Neilman - 2009-06-28 7:14 PM Up here our triathlons don't have a Clyde divsion just AG divs, can anybody explain what a clyde division is I think its for larger participants like myself although I am dropping my weight. The Clydesdale division is for any male at 200 pounds or over. The Athena group is for any female at 150 pounds or over. As was mentioned earlier in this thread, the original intent for the groups were for taller and more muscular people to compete in a division that was set for them. Take one of our fellow BT Clydes, Aikidoman, he's 6'8" and in great shape. But he won't ever be under 200 lbs unless his legs fall off. He will just need to be heavier because he's got so much more body. With more people getting into the tri world, people tend to think of C/A being for new or overweight people who are slower. Ultimately though, it's for fast people that are big, we slow chubby people (me, for example) just get to race with them in a special division. Oh, also the division being available to race in is up to the RD. There's no obligation to have them. ROFL... what is the "juicy" indicator?  |
| 2009-09-02 2:55 PM in reply to: #2385373 |
| Veteran 206 Canton, GA | Subject: RE: competing as a Clydesdale or Athena when not necessary kblahetka - 2009-09-02 2:15 PM Chaderbox - 2009-06-28 7:16 PM Whay can't it be for both? I raced clyde at chicago this weekend and passed a guy in my group who was rather tall and built while I was clearly plump and juicy. The thing is the argument of who it really is for is pointless. I like to train and so. I also like the big bacon classic at Wendy's and when you put the two together you get me racing at 255 pounds. I have no problem racing in the same group as tall and lean athletes or muscular athletes as well. I don't expect to place but if I do, I'm happy. The division is clearly set up based on poundage. At Chicago they have some other weight divisions due to the large number of people racing and the fact that we like our pizzas thick.Neilman - 2009-06-28 7:14 PM Up here our triathlons don't have a Clyde divsion just AG divs, can anybody explain what a clyde division is I think its for larger participants like myself although I am dropping my weight. The Clydesdale division is for any male at 200 pounds or over. The Athena group is for any female at 150 pounds or over. As was mentioned earlier in this thread, the original intent for the groups were for taller and more muscular people to compete in a division that was set for them. Take one of our fellow BT Clydes, Aikidoman, he's 6'8" and in great shape. But he won't ever be under 200 lbs unless his legs fall off. He will just need to be heavier because he's got so much more body. With more people getting into the tri world, people tend to think of C/A being for new or overweight people who are slower. Ultimately though, it's for fast people that are big, we slow chubby people (me, for example) just get to race with them in a special division. Oh, also the division being available to race in is up to the RD. There's no obligation to have them. YUMMY....Pizza! =) |
| 2009-09-02 3:22 PM in reply to: #2092708 |
| Veteran 217 | Subject: RE: competing as a Clydesdale or Athena when not necessary I was at a race this past weekend and the 1st and 2nd place winners were all Gabriel Reese fit. I was upset because I compete as an Athena and thought wow that's not fair so I sent a message to USAT and this is what a representative said.
Hello, My name is ....., member # ....; I am requesting my free rule book. Please mail same to my mailing not billing address for the summer of... Also, I compete in the Athena division and do not understand how USAT defines an Athena. Is it based on just weight or is it an overweight triathlete division? ..., USAT does not define an Athena, that is left up to the race director to define and implement. You might want to contact the race director and see how they classify the event. I am also mailing you a rulebook. ....| ….. | USA TRIATHLON
. . . FUELING THE MULTISPORT LIFESTYLE . . . Upcoming National Championships: September 19 – Long Course Triathlon Halfmax National Championships – Oklahoma City, Oklahoma September 19-20 – Halfmax Club National Championships - Oklahoma City, Oklahoma For Complete Event Information: www.USATNationalEvents.org
|
| 2009-09-02 5:34 PM in reply to: #2385373 |
Regular 157 Bay City, MI | Subject: RE: competing as a Clydesdale or Athena when not necessary QUOTE] Whay can't it be for both? I raced clyde at chicago this weekend and passed a guy in my group who was rather tall and built while I was clearly plump and juicy. The thing is the argument of who it really is for is pointless. I like to train and so. I also like the big bacon classic at Wendy's and when you put the two together you get me racing at 255 pounds. I have no problem racing in the same group as tall and lean athletes or muscular athletes as well. I don't expect to place but if I do, I'm happy. The division is clearly set up based on poundage. At Chicago they have some other weight divisions due to the large number of people racing and the fact that we like our pizzas thick. This is actually what most people here are saying. noone is asking why are these juicy athletes in clyde/athena though. The issue is when those who are in good shape and over the weight. I hope to be one of those someday as I will never be below 200lbs. The original post was asking about competing in clyde/athena when you "don't need too" which is what sparks the debate. Most everyone would like to see these catagories more competitive but if everytime an over 200lbs very athletic person wins we hear people saying " hey this catagory is for out of shape people" then it just stupid. So what you see with the who this group was designed for argument is really the validation of the taller built athlete being in the group. |
| 2009-09-02 6:36 PM in reply to: #2385286 |
Master 1585 Folsom (Sacramento), CA | Subject: RE: competing as a Clydesdale or Athena when not necessary Pector55 - 2009-09-02 10:49 AM uclamatt2007 - 2009-07-19 9:50 PM I have one issue with the Pony/Clydesdale post. I understand that tall, barrel chested men are at a disadvantage, thus the reason for the category. My question is this, arent short guys with a similar build in the same position. I'm 5'5 and currently not in great shape. Even if I was get down to my true ideal race weight, i would be lucky to touch 155. My brother is 5'6, in great shape and is at 165. Wouldn't short stocky people with short legs have just as much difficulty as tall stocky people with long legs? I'm not saying that we need to change the category necessarily, but I think people ignore the fact that it is a completely arbitrary number. If the category is really to give people a chance to compete that otherwise wouldn't be able to, why do only tall people get that chance? Wouldn't the difficulty be more in the fact that larger and heavier guys have a lot more resistance in the water, have a lot more rolling resistance in the bike (as well as a dramatically higher amount of wind resistance), and then be a lot more prone to injury in the run? Regardless of height, less weight would still a bit easier to move? I don't have the ability to compete in a Clyde class near me so it's not that big a deal to me. I'm just throwing out some thoughts. Taller guys actually have a huge advantage in the water. Longer objects are far more hydrodynamic. As far as the bike goes, yes, i imagine a higher total weight would amount to more work on the bike, especially ona hilly course. Then again, the bike is typically where the clydes and athenas are the most competitive. I guess the way i think about it is this. There are alot tall skinny fast people and there are alot of short skinny fast people. Fast clydes are less common and so are fast short stocky guys. Clydes have their own division, short stocky guys dont. |
| 2009-09-02 7:32 PM in reply to: #2385985 |
Sensei Sin City | Subject: RE: competing as a Clydesdale or Athena when not necessary Crap, another clydesdale thread.... If you finish top 3 overall, you don't get a division award... Even if you did, I don't care. I would be proud of the clydesdale for finishing top 3 overall and it gives me hope that it is possible for us big guys to be competitive overall too. |
| 2009-09-02 8:44 PM in reply to: #2385985 |
Champion 5376 PA | Subject: RE: competing as a Clydesdale or Athena when not necessary uclamatt2007 - 2009-09-02 7:36 PM Pector55 - 2009-09-02 10:49 AM uclamatt2007 - 2009-07-19 9:50 PM I have one issue with the Pony/Clydesdale post. I understand that tall, barrel chested men are at a disadvantage, thus the reason for the category. My question is this, arent short guys with a similar build in the same position. I'm 5'5 and currently not in great shape. Even if I was get down to my true ideal race weight, i would be lucky to touch 155. My brother is 5'6, in great shape and is at 165. Wouldn't short stocky people with short legs have just as much difficulty as tall stocky people with long legs? I'm not saying that we need to change the category necessarily, but I think people ignore the fact that it is a completely arbitrary number. If the category is really to give people a chance to compete that otherwise wouldn't be able to, why do only tall people get that chance? Wouldn't the difficulty be more in the fact that larger and heavier guys have a lot more resistance in the water, have a lot more rolling resistance in the bike (as well as a dramatically higher amount of wind resistance), and then be a lot more prone to injury in the run? Regardless of height, less weight would still a bit easier to move? I don't have the ability to compete in a Clyde class near me so it's not that big a deal to me. I'm just throwing out some thoughts. Taller guys actually have a huge advantage in the water. Longer objects are far more hydrodynamic. As far as the bike goes, yes, i imagine a higher total weight would amount to more work on the bike, especially ona hilly course. Then again, the bike is typically where the clydes and athenas are the most competitive. I guess the way i think about it is this. There are alot tall skinny fast people and there are alot of short skinny fast people. Fast clydes are less common and so are fast short stocky guys. Clydes have their own division, short stocky guys dont. Either way, neither of us are winning AG anytime soon. I am 5'10, 215 and I consider myself short and stocky as well. At least we are healthy, right? |
| 2009-09-02 9:23 PM in reply to: #2092708 |
Veteran 293 | Subject: RE: competing as a Clydesdale or Athena when not necessary This thread has been informative and helpful to me. I noticed that if I registered Athena in the last two tri's I did I would have gotten a 2nd and a 3rd. I am tall and muscular. I am 5'9" and 188 pounds. Because of this thread I went for it and registered Athena in my last tri. I came in first in my division on my very last race this year! I have worked so damn hard and it is a fact that for every 5 pounds lost we statistically cut 1-2 minutes off of a 10K. It's a hell of a lot easier to ride my bike when I'm NOT pulling my 30 pound child in the bike trailer and as for swimming...well, that's the great equalizer but I kick butt there  Anyway, we race pulling a lot of extra weight whether it be in the form of muscle or fat or both. It's nice to compete against our own selves and also to have that additional challenge recognized.Edited by gcoller 2009-09-02 9:24 PM |
| 2009-09-03 8:27 AM in reply to: #2092708 |
Veteran 190 Delaware, OH | Subject: RE: competing as a Clydesdale or Athena when not necessary This thread has been very informative-I debated alot on this issue. I am 5'9" tall, with a large bone structure and develop muscle easily so I weigh 160. The wt/height charts I feel have never applied to me and when the computer tells me my "ideal" weight should be 150 I have to laugh. Not really sure where the 10# is going to come from, unless it is muscle, which I don't want to lose. Now I understand what the Athena class is for and think I fit right in. I would be disappointed (?) to think that there are people out there in the race thinking I do not "belong" in the class and looking "down" on me so I am happy to hear the great attitude in this thread. Makes me all the more satisfied with my decision to race athena in my next race. Thanks!! |
| 2009-09-03 1:24 PM in reply to: #2092708 |
| New user 403 | Subject: RE: competing as a Clydesdale or Athena when not necessary I have to disagree about the swimming part. I find swimming to be alot about technique and not so much on body type. I swim with a fellow Clyd and hes 5'10" and 255, I'm 6'1" and 215, he has consitently beat me by a minute or more in 1/2 mile swims, and I'm regularly top 5 to 10 in the clyd division for swims. The other place you can see it is at Master swim meets. I've been glad to race against in shape "big guys," with any body type. I was getting kicked when I first started and have worked my tail off to get on the podium with "those tall thin guys." It was nice for this former football player to beat them all at the last race. |
| 2009-09-04 2:53 PM in reply to: #2092708 |
| 3 | Subject: RE: competing as a Clydesdale or Athena when not necessary 228 is hard biking up but I can sure smoke um coming back down:0)-- Did tri number 7 last weekend the first repeat and beat last years time by 11 min. Moved up around 30 spots overall - there was no clyds div and I was very close to the bottom of my AG but you know what- I do not care because in one year hardest effort against hardest effort I improved 11 mins. For those who have not done a sprint tri that is a lifetime in a sprint tri. Race the race and not the people you will learn a lot about yourself. |
| 2009-09-06 8:51 AM in reply to: #2386742 |
Member 50 | Subject: RE: competing as a Clydesdale or Athena when not necessary Now I understand what the Athena class is for and think I fit right in. I would be disappointed (?) to think that there are people out there in the race thinking I do not "belong" in the class and looking "down" on me so I am happy to hear the great attitude in this thread. Makes me all the more satisfied with my decision to race athena in my next race. Thanks!! Prepare to be disappointed, you'd be surprised how many times people make commments about a tall lean C/A. My exprience at races has always been people think it's a division for fat people. I used to race at a very lean 6'3 190lbs as an age grouper then started more weight training and bulked up a bit to 210lbs. My first Clyde win I had a couple people complain that I too skinny racing in the fat guy division. |
| 2009-09-07 8:42 AM in reply to: #2092708 |
Member 11 Medina, OH | Subject: RE: competing as a Clydesdale or Athena when not necessary So, what division should I choose? |
| 2009-09-09 6:31 PM in reply to: #2092708 |
| Veteran 217 | Subject: RE: competing as a Clydesdale or Athena when not necessary I am 5 feet tall, 170 and compete as an Athena. It used to bother me when the skinny's use to win but then someone said why? and I said you're right why not. I am proud of my ability to compete in tri's because last year I was 240. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK