View Single Post
Old 10-19-09, 05:52 PM
  #14  
ChristopherM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 84

Bikes: 2006 Trek 1000

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I'm not sure that this definition fits the consensus on the term (if a consensus exists).

I'd never call someone a Clydesdale just because they were 6 feet tall. There are guys out there that are 6 feet and 130 pounds. I don't quite think they belong in the same group as someone who is 6'6" and 280 pounds.

Weight (at least in my opinion) almost solely defines the term Clydesdale.


Although I'm not sure what we do with the extremely tall, extremely skinny people. At 7'6" and 210 pounds, Manute Bol would hard to call a Clydesdale. Maybe we need another category for them thats more flattering than "beanpole".
ChristopherM is offline