At > 300 pounds you are in the less top 1% of clydesdales
I do think one of the great things about clydesdale categories is that they can provide motivation to keep with training. I ran my 1st weight category race in 2004 at Twin Cities Marathon - that winter would have been the end to my running, but I did pretty decent in the weight category (Weight 232), so I stuck with it.
200 Lbs is 200 lbs whether you're 5' 6" and 256 or 7' and 265. You're clydesdale. I had hoped to stay out of the category when I hit 224 but I rebounded to 302...back to building up my runs and doing my first 5K as a run in a while.
Is the question "Should we create a category for 300 LBS. or more? NO!
JUST BE GLAD THAT YOU'RE NOT COMPETING IN "AGE" BRACKETS. I was in the USTA as a 3.0 player and when I hit my senior years I could have competed in my age bracket....Who knows...I could have played a 4.5 rated player.
Want recognition...Finish FIRST through THIRD overall or in your age category or DEAD LAST!
Stanley (stanleighco1 on Yahoo Messenger)
I don't really understand the people on this thread who are offended by "Athena" and "Clydesdale" categories. It has nothing to do with fitness it has to do with weight. If you weigh 225 pounds, no matter how fit, you cannot be competitive with people of equal fitness levels who weigh 140 pounds. Sure, someone who is 225 can beat someone who is 140 but an elite 225 runner CANNOT keep up with an elite 140 runner. There is nothing offensive about it. Boxing, martial arts, wrestling, crew, bodybuilding, weightlifting, and yes, running. I weigh 256 pounds but I have a lean body mass of 216 pounds. That means with zero body fat I would still weigh 216 pounds. I just can't compete with equally fit athletes who's lean body mass is 135 pounds. Not in running at least. I happily enter races (tris and road races) in the Clydesdale categories when offered.