New weight rules for Athena & Clydesdale in 2013

Thanks, I just found that link as well. I also noticed that some races are already using those standards for races this year. 

I think it is a good thing overall, but since I'm at 220 and losing weight right now it makes me kind of nervous. I've always thought of myself as a Clyde and it's kind of weird that I might not be able to compete that way.

My wife just caught me eating some of the kids' Easter candy so I told her that I didn't want to lose my Clyde status. I'm not sure she appreciates the new rules. 

Won't make much difference to me.  Even at the height of IM training, the best I could do was 238.  I'm back at 250 (and dropping), so I figure I'm good either way.

That being said, I'm with Don.  I didn't get into the sport for the medals but for the lifestyle.  Unlike Don, I'm still a Clyde.  Reckon I always will be, so you're stuck with me.

Now I really change my user name (Been in the 199-210 area for a while).

I don't know, it is kind of like vanity sizing at stores. 

"Hey I'm a medium now!"

"Really, did you lose weight?"

"No, my shirt just got resized."

It would be different if there were 1000 people signed up as Clyde/athena, but as it is there are often <3 in some races.... not sure this is a good thing.

I agree with you. And it's gonna be a paradigm shift for me next season, racing in AG

I registered as a clyde last year for my first half Ironman, but won't do that again.  Clydes start in the last wave.  I'm not running to place, just to have fun.  Starting in my AG, I was with the "pack" and I was fueled by the crowds that were still out cheering.

As far as Athena's, most women will not admit their weight, no matter what their BMI is.

does not matter to me as this is the last year i am racing a race in the Clyde division, and only cause i expect 50-60 clydes to race the division at the one race i did sign up as clyde.

More than half the races i do, do not have clyde anyway, and the last 2 years i have been close to podiuming in the 40-44 at the races i did, so i see no reason to race clyde anymore, i would rather beat the small doods.

Really?  All the races I've done as Athena have a fair number of people signed up.

The most Athenas I have seen signed up for a race was 14, only 9 or 10 started, this was a 5150 race with under and over 40 Athena divisions.

Interesting, I always thought that this was a race specific decision that the RD made.  For example, one race here has 3 "clyde" divisions, 185-199, 200-224, and 225+

I don't plan to be a clyde next season anyway

Those same races usually have 40 Clydes though (I don't remember if I raced Clyde or AG for that one).  

Really, I think the question is can a Clyde/Athena who is 200/150 lbs compete fairly with the AG group.  I don't mean the person who is still losing weight either, I mean the guy who is in great shape, just weighs 205 because they are 6'2.

Are they competitive with the guy who is 5'5 and 150? (I'm sure that isn't correct porpotionatly but you get the idea).

Because I always believed that was the original intent of the categories.

Lastly, if we don't like the proposal, what can we do?  Is there a method for feedback to these proposed changes?

I hear you Randy, many more Clydes always. But when you compare to A/G when there were 300-400 in Ken's AG in Galveston it is still small potatoes.

Yes, they can to answer your question just look at Greg Colvin who used to race Clyde, won consistently now races A/G and still wins. He took overall at Eastside Saturday but it is rare and seems to happen more with men than women for whatever reason. Not very often you see a 150+ pound female on an A/G podium. It can and does happen but it is rare.

If you want to let USAT know how you feel go to their website and click on the comments link just don't expect to ever hear back from them or assume your comments are read. I sent them a note long ago regarding something else and never heard a word. Oh and this is no longer a proposal but a new rule. It was proposed in March and passed last week. Apparently they were not looking for public opinion or we would have heard about it before it passed.

Can on occassion, and are generally competitive with are 2 different things though.

I really don't have a dog in this race though as I was pretty close to moving out of the category, however it would feel better to move out on my own, than due to a rule change.

New rule effective in 2013, so time to reverse it, but unless there was a large uprising (see what I did there) then I don't see comments being helpful.

Well take a look at Greg's bike and run splits and you tell me.

I agree with you though. If there are folks who want their voices heard contact USAT. I do wonder though if this is their first step in eliminating the weight classes all together. I will drop them a note to share my thoughts. I honestly like the way the sport is going to the 'common man' if you will and feel the weight categories encourage some folks to sign up who may not have otherwise. It is nice to be recognized.

There are weight classes in wrestling and boxing. Everyone knows you don't put a welter weight up against a heavy weight. In some sports weight is an advantage and some it is a disadvantage and weight classes recognize that fact.

yes they can and do all the time, just because they are not racing in the Clyde division does not mean that they are not 200lbs guys. There are lots of competitive bigger guys, especially where the races are flatter in nature.

you wanna get hilly or sooper hot like St George, Quassy or Kona, well that is one thing, but a flat/rolling terrain race, where weight is not a handicap and there are lots of bigger guys giving the skinny guys a run for their money.

Not sure how it translates from sprint to longer distances, but at Dewey Beach sprint last year, the Masters Clydesdale (so fat and old to boot) was 12th overall (out of 400 men).

I'm not sure how I see the existence of the category being helpful for getting people to sign up who need to exercise and lose weight. I'm squarely in that category, but when I found myself so slow that I couldn't keep up with other fat guys, I was even more disheartened. Luckily a need for speed has not been a driving factor for me. But just thinking of it from a common psychological perspective, if a person is discouraged by being at the back of the pack, seeing the winners as skinny people just makes sense I would think. Being last place in the category stigmatized for being the fatties, oh man, even worse.

I was at a local 5k with a Clyde division (don't see that much) and thought I didn't see many Clydes in the running. Maybe I could fall into a 3rd out of 3 AG award. Not that I thought it would mean anything, mind you, but I had a laugh about that situation early that year. (All my peers ran the 10k apparently.) The winner of the Clydes was a bodybuilder. I teased him about going inside the Y for a weigh in, but it reminded me of the fact that the category is not designed for the "fat and slow" (this is me folks) to get a pat on the head. We have finishers medals for that. (Which I love, love, love.) 

This topic has my brain going in several directions. I guess a parallel is the movie The Ringer, with Johnny Knoxville. The basic idea is that they will rig the Special Olympics by putting in a "normal" guy acting "special" and he'll clean up. Turns out the special olympians are very athletic, and the assumptions from others are challenged. Special Olympics actually approved of their name to be used in the movie. Just forget that it's the guy from Jacka$$: Great movie.

I never knew that THAT South Park episode was a take off of a movie.