Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Results 1 to 15 of 15
  1. #1
    Captain Big Ring tractorlegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Locked by the Door
    My Bikes
    The Black Knight
    Posts
    2,027
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    I'll Always Be a Clydesdale! WOOOOO!!!

    At 6'5" tall, my ideal weight is about 205 to 210 lbs. Right now I'm at about 265, but losing weight on Weight Watchers. When I reach my goal weight, I'll still be heavy enough to qualify for this forum! You'll never get rid of me! Muhahahahaha!!!
    **************************************************
    The El Paso Bicyclist/

  2. #2
    Senior Member IBOHUNT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Western Maryland - Appalachian Mountains
    My Bikes
    Motobecane Fantom Cross; Cannondale Supersix replaced the Giant TCR which came to an untimely death by truck
    Posts
    2,113
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I've found that even though I am no longer considered a 'proper' Clyde I'm still welcome at 185 lbs.

  3. #3
    SuperGimp TrojanHorse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Whittier, CA
    My Bikes
    Specialized Roubaix, Merlin Road, Bianchi Campione
    Posts
    7,632
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Clydes are also riders taller than 6 feet... regardless of weight.

    Regardless, this forum is a pretty friendly place here at bikeforums.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Big Pete 1982's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Chelan, WA
    My Bikes
    Cannondale CAAD-10
    Posts
    389
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I hear ya! I'm 6'7 myself so it's pretty unrealistic to think i'll ever be much less than about 225. Even that may be a pipe dream as I'm currently 290!

  5. #5
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    9
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    6'4" 230lbs here. I last year I was under 200 lbs I was in high school

  6. #6
    Neil_B
    Guest
    At barely 6'1" I qualify, but even if I shrank an inch and dropped below 200 I'd stay here. Too much fun going on to leave.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    509
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by TrojanHorse View Post
    Clydes are also riders taller than 6 feet... regardless of weight.
    I've never heard this one before.

    I am curious to the begining of the "clydesdale" moniker. The earliest I can remember is the mid 90's at regional/state level MTB and enduro race series where it was a category based on weight. I don't remember it ever being a NORBA class but I only raced a handful of those events.

    I wonder if anyone whose been in the sport longer than that can shed some light on how this term started getting used in cycling?

  8. #8
    Banned. Mr. Beanz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Upland Ca
    My Bikes
    Lemond Chambery/Cannondale R-900/Trek 8000 MTB/Burley Duet tandem
    Posts
    20,031
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    I have no desire to lose Clyde status and if I wanted, don't think I could. Back in 04/05 I had watched my weight religiously for 3 years or so. Rode my butt off but the lowest I hit is 220. 20 years ago I exercised and play a whole lot more sports and the best I could do was 205.

    At 6'1 these are the lowest weights I've hit. In order to maintain these weights I had to avoid fast foods, salad dressings, goodies, butter and mayo over a period of 3 years. It is too tough for me to watch my weight year after year since I am an eater. Now if somebody challenges me on a rid that is months/year away, it's on but I still won't drop below 220.

    On the flip side of the coin, I ride through the bad parts of town and nobody bothers me, why would Ii want to leave Clyde status?



    2004/5 (?)...220 lbs



    1992...205 lbs


  9. #9
    Senior Member goldfinch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Minnesota/Arizona and between
    My Bikes
    Trek Madone 4.7 WSD, 1969 Schwinn Collegiate, Cannondale Quick 4, Terry Classic, Gary Fisher Marlin, Dahon Jetstream XP
    Posts
    3,889
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Googling about I found this:

    Craig Smith Seattle Times (Wash.) (Feb. 9) “The Weigh To Go—Clydesdales Starting To Leave Their Hoofprint On Racing” p. D8: The Clydesdale Runners Association has been founded to lobby for the weight-division awards. “I’m obsessed with this, and it’s driving my family crazy,” said Joe Law, founder of the organization.…Law said the name Clydesdale was a natural because of its connotation of “strength and power.” He said before the name was adopted, people turned up their noses when he approached them about creating “heavyweight divisions.…They thought I was just talking about overweight people.”


    http://www.doubletongued.org/index.p...ry/clydesdale/

    From Run Big Chicago

    The concept of weight division competition and the moniker “Clydesdale”, can be traced back to a Baltimore area statistician name Joe Law who founded the Clydesdale Runners Association in the mid-1980s. Joe Law convinced the race director of the Marine Corps Marathon and several other local races to include a field on race applications for competitors to record their weight. This data provided the basis for Joe’s statistical analysis of running performance vs. weight, and he determined with mathematical precision, that a runner’s weight and speed in road races are inversely proportional. Above 160 or 170 pounds there is a sharp drop off in times. This observation provided the basis for concept of weight division competition, so that big runners could compete amongst their peers, on a more level playing field. The concept is analogous to offering age-division competition in road races and has gained grudging support through the years. Joe coined the term “Clydesdale” to identify big athletes. Clydesdales are big and strong horses—perhaps not the fastest, but certainly amongst the most determined of the workhorses. Weight division competitors relish being compared to their equine anima. Sadly, Joe Law passed away in 1991 and the national Clydesdale movement stalled.
    http://clydesdale.org/wherearetheynow/

    References to Law and the Clydesdales can be found here too: http://clydesdale.org/wherearetheynow/

    It sounds like the initial use of the term was simply for people who were big, tall and strong. On this board it also includes the overweight who may or may not be a Clydesdale (or Athena) when they are at their normal or ideal weight.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    cherry hill, nj
    Posts
    5,917
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    I will always be a Clydesdale and proud of it.

  11. #11
    Pedals, Paddles and Poles Daspydyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Btw the Mohave desert and AREA 51
    My Bikes
    Scott Spark 20, Orbea Orca
    Posts
    5,182
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Last year I had some health problems that took my weight down to 185, I'm 6'3". My wife likes me best @220. So do I, Clyde for life and what my wife says is more important than some chart.
    I think its disgusting and terrible how people treat Lance Armstrong, especially after winning 7 Tour de France Titles while on drugs!

    I can't even find my bike when I'm on drugs. -Willie N.

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    509
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by goldfinch View Post
    Googling about I found this:

    Craig Smith Seattle Times (Wash.) (Feb. 9) “The Weigh To Go—Clydesdales Starting To Leave Their Hoofprint On Racing” p. D8: The Clydesdale Runners Association has been founded to lobby for the weight-division awards. “I’m obsessed with this, and it’s driving my family crazy,” said Joe Law, founder of the organization.…Law said the name Clydesdale was a natural because of its connotation of “strength and power.” He said before the name was adopted, people turned up their noses when he approached them about creating “heavyweight divisions.…They thought I was just talking about overweight people.”


    http://www.doubletongued.org/index.p...ry/clydesdale/

    From Run Big Chicago

    The concept of weight division competition and the moniker “Clydesdale”, can be traced back to a Baltimore area statistician name Joe Law who founded the Clydesdale Runners Association in the mid-1980s. Joe Law convinced the race director of the Marine Corps Marathon and several other local races to include a field on race applications for competitors to record their weight. This data provided the basis for Joe’s statistical analysis of running performance vs. weight, and he determined with mathematical precision, that a runner’s weight and speed in road races are inversely proportional. Above 160 or 170 pounds there is a sharp drop off in times. This observation provided the basis for concept of weight division competition, so that big runners could compete amongst their peers, on a more level playing field. The concept is analogous to offering age-division competition in road races and has gained grudging support through the years. Joe coined the term “Clydesdale” to identify big athletes. Clydesdales are big and strong horses—perhaps not the fastest, but certainly amongst the most determined of the workhorses. Weight division competitors relish being compared to their equine anima. Sadly, Joe Law passed away in 1991 and the national Clydesdale movement stalled.
    http://clydesdale.org/wherearetheynow/

    References to Law and the Clydesdales can be found here too: http://clydesdale.org/wherearetheynow/

    It sounds like the initial use of the term was simply for people who were big, tall and strong. On this board it also includes the overweight who may or may not be a Clydesdale (or Athena) when they are at their normal or ideal weight.
    Interesting articles which explain where the movement started. This has been something I have always been curious about. However, the one thing those articles mention multiple times is that weight is/was the determining factor, not height. Is there now a "height factor"? I only ask because if I line up as a clydesdale at a local MTB race(which I would like to do a couple of times this year) can I expect to see a 6'3" tall 160 pound guy in my group based on the fact that he's over 6 ft tall? That's a bit ridiculous to consider him a clydesdale, and seems like it would beg for people to sandbag the weight divisions.

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ontario Canada
    My Bikes
    Opus Andante/Parleez5i/Burley Tosa Tandem
    Posts
    2,117
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm 6'1" and two years ago got below 200 for the first time in 20 years, and I loved it but the weight came back when I hit a dark chapter in my life. I'm now working my way out of that chapter and the weight is coming off with it. I don't want to be a clyde and will not be truely happy till I'm not and that's what really matters. Be happy, if that's 230lbs then that's what it is.
    Best thing about cycling is when I'm at work I'm thinking of cycling, when I'm cycling I'm thinking about cycling.

  14. #14
    Senior Member goldfinch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Minnesota/Arizona and between
    My Bikes
    Trek Madone 4.7 WSD, 1969 Schwinn Collegiate, Cannondale Quick 4, Terry Classic, Gary Fisher Marlin, Dahon Jetstream XP
    Posts
    3,889
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by paisan View Post
    Interesting articles which explain where the movement started. This has been something I have always been curious about. However, the one thing those articles mention multiple times is that weight is/was the determining factor, not height. Is there now a "height factor"? I only ask because if I line up as a clydesdale at a local MTB race(which I would like to do a couple of times this year) can I expect to see a 6'3" tall 160 pound guy in my group based on the fact that he's over 6 ft tall? That's a bit ridiculous to consider him a clydesdale, and seems like it would beg for people to sandbag the weight divisions.
    I think that it would not be height alone.

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    330
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The lightest I've been in my 6'5" adult life was 115kg (250ish lbs), during my hardest season playing rugby where I was playing full 80min games week in week out. I finished rugby and pushed up to 140kg and hovered there for a few years. I took up cycling 2 1/2 years ago and after getting into racing, I have come down to 120kg and will be heading lower still, but I've lost a fair amount of muscle I once had from doing heavy weighlifting. I plan to have a good go at track cycling for next summer season, and that will involve getting back into weights. Even though I could lose 15kg or so in fat, I think I will probably hover closer to 110kg if I can stick to my planand build some muscle.

    I've never really thought of myself as a clydesdale per se but more see myself under the super clydesdale monniker. Despite my weight, which went up to 150kg while I was doing heavy weights, I have always been fairly fit. When I was 150kg I was doing weights 6 days a week, as well as up to 12 hours of half court basketball spread over 3-4 days. Back then I could because I was a uni student.

    Like the OP, unless I suffer some serious health problems, my height and build dictate that I will always be a clyesdale.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •