Weight classes for races (running)

[Louis]

NYT Story (http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/weight-classes-aim-to-balance-races/)

Makes sense for cycling too.

Clydesdale running dates to the late 1980s when a Baltimore-area accountant analyzed 20,000 runners in 10-kilometer races and marathons. The analysis showed that once men reach about 170 pounds, their performance declines relative to athletes of about the same age with a slighter build. The findings suggested that, compared with his peers, a 210-pound man who runs a 10-kilometer race in 51 minutes (about an eight-minute-per-mile pace) is performing as well as a 150-pound man who runs the distance in a speedy 38 minutes (about a six-minute-per-mile pace).

[djg]

Yep, that way people like Thor H would have a fair shot at winning something.

I mean, maybe, but are we short of categories? Sunday's cross race offered men a Cat 4 race, a 3/4 race, a 3/4 masters race, an elite masters race, a 55+ race, and an elite (1,2, 3) race. One could add a Clydesdale race, but the power/weight thing might confound easy attempts to define a Clyde category and we've already got a fair number of choices. As it is, there are courses (and categories) for horses, and not just horses for courses.

[William]

I always had fun beating the Lil' guys. :D




William

[dogdriver]

Whenever some 145 pound A-Teamer challenges me to a hillclimb, I tell him that the results of the competition will be equally weighted with the wrestling match that will be held immediately following the bike ride.

190# on a good day, Chris

[BryanE]

Sorry Louis it makes no sense.
Weight bearing sport VS non weight bearing sport.
The playing field is equal for big guys in cycling.
Not so in running.
Bry

[thegunner]

Sorry Louis it makes no sense.
Weight bearing sport VS non weight bearing sport.
The playing field is equal for big guys in cycling.
Not so in running.
Bry

you still hold that opinion for a clyde on a long hill?

[rugbysecondrow]

230#er and a solid Clydesdale weighing in here.

I am not sure about a weight division in cycling as I am not aware enough of the impact weight has on bike racing. I can say that in Triathlons, weight is a big deal. With me at 230 pounds, and a fit-spry 230 at that, I have almost zero chance of beat someone who weighs 150#, regardless of their fitness level. I weigh 50% more than they do so I will always be working much harder to achieve what they can with much less effort.

Lastly, when I race, if I try to catch/beat every 160 pound feller out there, it will just not work for me and I will burn out quickly. I enjoy beating them if I can, but I focus on the other big guys. I don't get passed by them on the bike or the run and I catch quite a few of them after the swim. When I got 2nd place in my age group a few weekends ago (even though it was not a very competitive field) I looked woefully out of place claiming my medal.

I think many slight of build fellers out there might not understand the effort us big fellas exert to keep up. If they did, they would understand the reason for a separate field. Frankly, there are some races I sign up for just because there is a clydesdale division. Many of these races do not have a separate wave or start time, you race with everyone else, the times are just sorted afterwards into the clyde and age-group catagory.

[rice rocket]

Does this mean we'll have height based basketball leagues too? And weight based football teams? :rolleyes:

Everyone's gotta have their chance...it's only right.

F'in liberals... ;)

[fiamme red]

Sorry Louis it makes no sense.
Weight bearing sport VS non weight bearing sport.
The playing field is equal for big guys in cycling.It's not. You're very rarely (if ever) going to see someone weighing over 200 lbs. competing in the Tour. A heavy rider may perhaps win a flat criterium, but on any hilly race, he won't be competitive.

[kinofaucet]

With the majority of the races here being crits, weight classes wouldn't help here.

Now if they classified races into watt classes, then we might have something :beer:

[Louis]

For all you guys who say that weight does not affect cycling, I think I'd like some of that anti-gravity lotion you've been slathering on your torso before hilly rides.

[rugbysecondrow]

Does this mean we'll have height based basketball leagues too? And weight based football teams? :rolleyes:

Everyone's gotta have their chance...it's only right.

F'in liberals... ;)


I know you are joking, but race organizers add these catagories because it brings people in. Their goal is overall participation and so adding a catagory achieves that goal.

I must also say that the down side is that us Clydes drink more water, eat more food. We are also much more fun than the skrawny kids. I did a Tri race once where it was a Clydesdale only wave start and we were all talking about the food and beer we were going to consume after the race...Fried Chicken w/ mashed potatoes and gravy was the consensus.

[rice rocket]

Yeah, understood. It makes sense for amateur sports, where participation is key. But I'm 5'5, I know I shouldn't be pursuing a career as a wide receiver, or a center in basketball.

[AndrewS]

you still hold that opinion for a clyde on a long hill?
Uphill, or downhill? Bigger people descend faster, smaller people ascend faster, all things being equal.

If someone is 230 of muscle, that's one thing. But a special category for someone who has 20% body fat is just kind of insulting to other athletes. There aren't any really heavy Tour riders because it is almost impossible to ride like that and maintain extra fat or muscle. Both just burn off when you're riding that much.

Personally, I'm heavily built for someone my height, but well under 170. Do I get some sort of "bulldog" category???

[merlincustom1]

Sorry Louis it makes no sense.
Weight bearing sport VS non weight bearing sport.
The playing field is equal for big guys in cycling.
Not so in running.
Bry

Not so. Force equals mass times acceleration. All things being equal, a heavier rider needs to put out more watts than a lighter rider if they are climbing side by side.

[fiamme red]

I must also say that the down side is that us Clydes drink more water, eat more food. We are also much more fun than the skrawny kids. I did a Tri race once where it was a Clydesdale only wave start and we were all talking about the food and beer we were going to consume after the race...Fried Chicken w/ mashed potatoes and gravy was the consensus.Well, most "clydesdales" that I know could afford to drop a few pounds. In other words, they're not just built large, they're usually fat. ;)

[AndrewS]

Not so. Force equals mass times acceleration. All things being equal, a heavier rider needs to put out more watts than a lighter rider if they are climbing side by side.
But ONLY if they are climbing. Bigger people have less frontal area per mass, so they have less drag on flats and descents.

It all evens out. That's why there are pro cyclists riding everything from 50cm frames to 60cm. Cycling makes up for body size.

[rugbysecondrow]

Well, most "clydesdales" that I know could afford to drop a few pounds. In other words, they're not just built large, they're usually fat. ;)
Are these the people who were 170 pound cyclists in their 20's and are now 200 pound cyclists in their 40's? ;)


Uphill, or downhill? Bigger people descend faster, smaller people ascend faster, all things being equal.

If someone is 230 of muscle, that's one thing. But a special category for someone who has 20% body fat is just kind of insulting to other athletes. There aren't any really heavy Tour riders because it is almost impossible to ride like that and maintain extra fat or muscle. Both just burn off when you're riding that much.

Personally, I'm heavily built for someone my height, but well under 170. Do I get some sort of "bulldog" category???

My man, we are talking about social and charity races/rides, nothing pro. The goals are to have fun and to get people out to exercise and train. If a Clydesdale catagory helps, then great. I have a formally fat friend who was a chubby 240 when he entered his first clydesdale triathlon race, he finished his first Ironman a year ago at 180#s.

Weight is not the greatest factor in achievement as I have beaten and been beaten both while running and riding by skinnier and heavier folks, but it is not accurate to say it is a even wash. It is an obvious disadvantage to be a bigger rider.

[AndrewS]

Unless you're a professional, nothing is really all that serious. But these subdivisions to get to hand out more awards are frankly silly. Should I have gotten spotted a foot in high school pole vaulting because I'm short? The records would be meaningless, but the self esteem would rock.

If you mean by "bigger": fatter. Yes, carrying fat or other extraneous weight around is not advantageous. But two cyclist of radically different weight and size - but with similar body composition - are going to even out on a hilly ride. On a flat the bigger guy is going to win.

I'm sure we could put everybody in a windtunnel with a tube in their mouth and figure out what their cycling handicap would be. Then we could have classes for weak knees, for people who can't find a comfortable saddle or shoes, for people scared of aerobars and clipless pedals. Yay! More prizes for everyone!

In a country rampant with obesity, do we need special prizes so the fat guys can feel better about exercising?

Well, yeah, maybe we do...

[Mark McM]

Another sign of the rampant "self-esteem" movement. Hey, everybody should have the opportunity to be the best, right? Even if the categories get so sub-divided down that I'm the only one in it, I'm still a Champion, aren't I?

Another sign is found by looking at the marathon running times over the past few decades. Average marathon times at the biggest events are actually going down, rather than up. That's due to many runners entering events that they have absolutely no chance to do well in, just for the sense of self-validation of having "competed".

[AndrewS]

Mark - I love watching the Madison Ironman. However many hundreds of people with absolutely no chance to even place, but they need pro level equipment, aero doo-dads, etc. All wrapped up in something that just amounts to completing the event.

I ran one Marathon in my life. I did it unaided on the streets near my house, and I didn't feel the need to talk incessantly about my "achievement".

[Dekonick]

I think they should have groups based on blood type... but then again Tyler wouldn't know where to fit it ;)

If it is just a 'fun' race what is the harm in having many different groups and an overall winner?

:beer:

[rugbysecondrow]

Another sign of the rampant "self-esteem" movement. Hey, everybody should have the opportunity to be the best, right? Even if the categories get so sub-divided down that I'm the only one in it, I'm still a Champion, aren't I?

Another sign is found by looking at the marathon running times over the past few decades. Average marathon times at the biggest events are actually going down, rather than up. That's due to many runners entering events that they have absolutely no chance to do well in, just for the sense of self-validation of having "competed".

Come on fellas, nobody is stealing your thunder here. Of course I will use your twiggy frame as an excuse for me being slower than you, but it doesn't mean it is true (it likely is though :) ). I just get mad that an XXL in cycling jerseys stll looks like I should be going to a club in "Boystown" rather than a club ride. We all know this is a skinny guys world and we are just living in it, so don't get all defensive and upity...we love you skinny bastards. :beer:

But seriously, where is the line drawn? Why have CATs in the first place, just throw everybody in. Why have age groups at all?

As a clydesdale, if I win I know I am not the best, the overall First Place finisher is the winner...what my clyde win is saying is that I am king of the Big Men. In the main race I do, there is a pro catagory, various age and sex groups, clydesdale/athena, relay and special needs (handicap). For the clydesdale group I raced in, it had about 80 competitors, so it was essentially a race within a race. The race also has 2600 participants so they have a draw that is far and wide, should it just be one open field? I guess I fail to see the fault in bring people into a sport who wouldn't otherwise participate. It is not like everybody gets a winners medal...you are still competing and competing hard.


Mark - I love watching the Madison Ironman. However many hundreds of people with absolutely no chance to even place, but they need pro level equipment, aero doo-dads, etc. All wrapped up in something that just amounts to completing the event.

".
Dude, it is an Ironman. People spend much more money with much less purpose, so I can't even begin to make fun of people who do an Ironman. Those races take approx 40 hours+ a week of training, years to train for and that all requires equipment that is solid. If spending $5K helps these athletes, whatever their physical profile might be, complete this...more power to them.

Again, not sure what the issue is here. Seems we should be encouraging more people into the sports we enjoy, not poking fun and being jerks about it. Didn't this come up in another threads about cyclists and their attitudes? Sounds familiar...


Mark - I love watching the Madison Ironman. However many hundreds of people with absolutely no chance to even place, but they need pro level equipment, aero doo-dads, etc. All wrapped up in something that just amounts to completing the event.

I ran one Marathon in my life. I did it unaided on the streets near my house, and I didn't feel the need to talk incessantly about my "achievement".

Congrats on your achievement...it is really great you were able to do that, to bad you don't have a t-shirt to show for it. You know it doesn't count unless you get the t-shirt.

[AndrewS]

Divisions are understandable when you can actually draw a discernable division between the performance of groups of people. In amateur bicycling the differences between people who train similarly is minimal, even across age and sex.

Prizes are nice, but why not just give a trophy to the 1st place, the 20th place, the 40th place, etc. Then you're being rewarded for competing against your equals, rather than some arbitrary division like body weight.


And my point about the Ironman is, why park your prostate on the nose of a tri-bike saddle for years when the only time you need to beat is your own. 90% of the bikes in the Ironman should be built for long distance comfort, not aerodynamics.

[Clydesdale]

I am fairly large by cycling standards and my experience is that just about the only place a 220+ cyclist has an advantage over the smaller guys is in a 30+ headwind that demands brute strength to turn the pedals, (oh yeah, and straight-line descending). A big guy can hold his own on the flats but rarely, if ever, actually ride away from strong lighter riders. On the uphills it's "dead man pedaling."

There's a reason you don't see a 200lbs anywhere on pro team rosters. Or on podium stands at marathons for that matter.

I don't care much about classifications or racing or medals, nor do I think the average guy should, but if people are motivated by competing or accomplishments, more power to them. Put them in whatever category they want. Kind of like a handicap in golfing?

PS - Andrew - I vaulted in HS also... not many Clydesdales can say that. :)

[54ny77]

Yeah, I'd be thrilled about coming home with a placing in the "Lard Ass" category. :rolleyes:

Umm, no thanks.

[AndrewS]

I kindly submit that no one who exercises as much as a pro cyclist could retain enough muscle or fat to remain over 200 lbs for long.

[William]

Know your strengths.

I can only speak for myself.....

I'm 6' 6" and weigh in at a fairly lean 250 - 260. I have a freakishly large strength to weight ratio and I have endurance. When I was racing a lot of folks thought they could drop me on climbs only to find I could hang with them on anything but the steepest grades. Then if I didn't drop them on the decent there was a good chance I would bag them on the sprint.

But, there was no way I was going to be a Tour rider. Any race more than three days/stages long and my energy level would plummet. One day races and three day type Omniums I was in the hunt.




William

[rugbysecondrow]

Agreed clydes. I race all sorts just to have fun but I think it is funny to hear little guys acting put upon by a division that has nothing to do with them. It's akin to a heavy weight boxer complaining about the feather weight. I think we can setup a virtual pee wee division for you little guys. You guys can yip yip yip it up ...we can get little beanies to wear after the race and maybe soy mocha lattes for you all to drink. :banana:

[fiamme red]

I have a freakishly large strength to weight ratio and I have endurance.Since you're talking about cycling, I assume that you mean "power-to-weight."

[William]

Since you're talking about cycling, I assume that you mean "power-to-weight."

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'll bet you're friends with those little Squirrels. :butt:


;) :D :)

William

[rugbysecondrow]

Yeah, I'd be thrilled about coming home with a placing in the "Lard Ass" category. :rolleyes:

Umm, no thanks.
Sorry man, but that is a pretty douchey perspective. Many guys I know came to cycling qnd trathlons from football, rugby or other physical sport that requires muscles that pro cyclists could likely never achieve. Some are police officers or firemen and require actual muscles and strength to perform their jobs.

No offense, but most cyclists couldnt hold the jocks of these lard asses.

[Mark McM]

Even if the categories get so sub-divided down that I'm the only one in it, I'm still a Champion, aren't I?

By the way, this isn't just a hypothetical example. I know someone who has won several national age group championships by simply being the only one in her 5 year age group to show up at the championships. She now gets free entries and wears the stars and bars Nation Champion jersey in local races.

I've heard of some things where 50% of it is just showing up, but in this case, just showing up was 100%.

[Mark McM]

Sorry man, but that is a pretty douchey perspective. Many guys I know came to cycling qnd trathlons from football, rugby or other physical sport that requires muscles that pro cyclists could likely never achieve. Some are police officers or firemen and require actual muscles and strength to perform their jobs.

No offense, but most cyclists couldnt hold the jocks of these lard asses.

So, award them medals in football, rugby (or policing or firefighting) or other activities where they actually excel. Reserve the cycling medals for those who excel at cycling.

[AndrewS]

Agreed clydes. I race all sorts just to have fun but I think it is funny to hear little guys acting put upon by a division that has nothing to do with them. It's akin to a heavy weight boxer complaining about the feather weight. I think we can setup a virtual pee wee division for you little guys. You guys can yip yip yip it up ...we can get little beanies to wear after the race and maybe soy mocha lattes for you all to drink. :banana:
Why not? I assume you'll be wearing your Santa suit for the Jolly Fat Man division.

To bad William can climb. It takes him right out of your "sluggishly big boned" club, despite weighing more than any of you. It is a good theory, though.


Anybody else going to the Scorpios only ride tonight? I'm gearing up the non-vegetarian class crit this Saturday hosted by the No-Irish Cycling League. Ain't bicycle partisanism grand?

[flydhest]

Divisions are understandable when you can actually draw a discernable division between the performance of groups of people. In amateur bicycling the differences between people who train similarly is minimal, even across age and sex.



You have to be kidding me. This statement bears so little relationship to reality it is incredible. Even simply within my team, there is a huge range of difference for people who train similarly. We have guys who train together all the time, same rides, same workouts, and a couple ALWAYS kill some of the others.

[rugbysecondrow]

So, award them medals in football, rugby (or policing or firefighting) or other activities where they actually excel. Reserve the cycling medals for those who excel at cycling.
I think you are not paying attention or you are arguing against a point I didn't make. I am talking about social and charity races. Nobody is suggesting a parallel circuit for big guys at an amateur or pro level. Theese categories are good to get people out and exercising. I still fail to see how this is a bad thing.

[fiamme red]

You have to be kidding me. This statement bears so little relationship to reality it is incredible. Even simply within my team, there is a huge range of difference for people who train similarly. We have guys who train together all the time, same rides, same workouts, and a couple ALWAYS kill some of the others.How about a separate category for the genetically non-gifted? ;)

[fiamme red]

I am talking about social and charity races.What kind of races do you mean? Can you give some examples?

[nm87710]

does this mean we'll have height based basketball leagues too? And weight based football teams? :rolleyes:

Everyone's gotta have their chance...it's only right.

F'in liberals... ;)

+1

[rugbysecondrow]

What kind of races do you mean? Can you give some examples?
Sure

Pocomoke triathlon, YMCA race

Columbia triathlon

Celebration sprint

Crystal beach triathlon

Nanticoke triathlon

I don't know which of these have the Clyde divisions, but they are all social, two or three help raise money for the YMCA.

[Tom]

Weight based running categories are bulls--t. "Running" a marathon in five hours is bulls--t. A "13.1" sticker on the back of your car is bulls--t. I was a runner before I failed, structurally, so I know what I'm talking about. The standard is a marathon. Shut up about your running unless you can do 2:30 like I could never do. You aren't built right for the sport? Tough s--t. Your joints fail? You can't breathe as well as the next guy? Life's tough. Get a helmet. I wanted to be the left fielder for the Red Sox but I fell to the ground and cried mommy when I saw my first curve ball. So am I going to say no breaking balls? Hell, no. I'm going to break the balls of all the losers that want things built their way to make them happy... like conservatives.

Love, A Progressive.

[54ny77]

I can't say I've ever seen the weaving of feminine hygiene and an overly enthusiastic admiration of male jocks, all within the context of bicycle racing, here on the Serotta forum. ;)

To your point, yes I do happen to know some large cyclists, including some former teammates, who are now racing just fine at national caliber Cat 1-2 and Masters level. And I'm sure they'd laugh at the notion of weight-graded handicapping.

Sorry man, but that is a pretty douchey perspective. Many guys I know came to cycling qnd trathlons from football, rugby or other physical sport that requires muscles that pro cyclists could likely never achieve. Some are police officers or firemen and require actual muscles and strength to perform their jobs.

No offense, but most cyclists couldnt hold the jocks of these lard asses.

[rugbysecondrow]

I can't say I've ever seen the weaving of feminine hygiene and an overly enthusiastic admiration of male jocks, all within the context of bicycle racing, here on the Serotta forum. ;)

To your point, yes I do happen to know some large cyclists, including some former teammates, who are now racing just fine at national caliber Cat 1-2 and Masters level. And I'm sure they'd laugh at the notion of weight-graded handicapping.



Interesting because the context wasn't bicycle racing, was it?

I think it is hard for many of you to compare that which is amateur competition vs. that which is social competition. Think MLB verses beer league or church league softball, or college sports vs. intramural. You want to win and do well, but in intramural there are no mistaking your winning team for winners of the Big Ten? There are so many levels of competition, why not let people compete on whatever levels suits them? Nearly all triathletes, road riders and runners do it for fun, not because they expect to be the best.

The perspective seems to be you either race or shut the F--- up. That is a crappy attitude.

[AndrewS]

That's not my perspective.

I'm a short, strong guy who sinks in water and runs slow(ish). A bicycle transforms me into a good athlete who competes with a variety of other body types - because the bicycle is a mechanical device that doesn't care how you're built. It takes what you can put out and turns it into speed.

I see bicycling as athletic egalitarianism. I can go out and hammer, but the guy or gal riding next to me is might be +/- 20 years of my age, a foot taller, skinny, chunky, muscled, black, white, whatever. I have seen all different people perform at very high levels. All you really need to bring to the sport is fitness. None of that would be true if we were running or playing basketball.

So when I hear people trying to subdivide us into handicaps it bothers me because that goes against a reason we are bicycling in the first place - because we can all ride together. Without silly qualifiers and excuses.


I would prefer we leave the weight categories, gender and age stuff in the sports where it is germane, or at high competition levels. Let's avoid this baseball stats view of the universe and just be treated as cyclists when we're out riding.

[Louis]

But ONLY if they are climbing. Bigger people have less frontal area per mass, so they have less drag on flats and descents.

It all evens out. That's why there are pro cyclists riding everything from 50cm frames to 60cm. Cycling makes up for body size.

But the drag force is non-linear, so in the descent the big guy can't make up all the time he lost on the way up, and the little guy ends up ahead.

It doesn't' all just even out. If it did there would be a much larger range of weights and body sizes in the top echelons of cycling. As it turns out, for TDF-type courses most of them are pretty teeny. (I say that without actually having the data in front of me, so I'm not 100% sure, just guessing.)

It would be interesting to see the numbers on the statistical distribution of racer heights and weights in the pro peleton.

[pbjbike]

All I know is Miguel Indurain was the "biggest" winner of the TDF. Correct me if I'm wrong. Dude had class, and kicked butt on climbs and TT's.

[AndrewS]

Well Louis, as I keep saying, you aren't going to weigh over 200 at ANY height if you're a TDF rider. That amount of caloric use will burn meat and fat off of anyone. I went to OCS with a SEAL that was a powerlifter. 3 months of constant calisthetics and running made him lose 30 pounds of just muscle.

And pros are using bikes as small as 50cm and as large as 60+. There was even a picture one year of the tallest and shortest riders swapping bikes. You might point out that most riders are around 5'8-10", but most European males are around 5'8-10", so no surprises there.

Pro sports levels are extremes, and tend to select against outliers. But the variation in height and weight (but NOT body composition) among cyclists is broad enough that lots of different size people are pros - the highest level. That is not the case in just about any other sport - swimming, track, football.


Small people climb better because they have a higher ratio of lung capacity to weight. Larger people have a lower ratio of frontal area to mass, due to the inverse square rule. That helps on flats, too. When we have a discussion on this forum about what makes a wheel competitive, most people say aerodynamics over weight. So why is it better to be small, again?

[William]

A few observations from a big guy....

On decents, if I'm with a group that is basically coasting a decent I have to either constantly hit the brakes or pull out and pass. I will always start to overtake the the group. My momentum will always build faster then smaller riders.

When hammering a decent, skill and balls are what allows folks to make up time or drop folks. Many times if someone did build a gap on me on a climb, I could make it back up on a decent. Mainly because I love to decend. Blasting down switch backs or long winding mountains is fun to me. But add to that I don't have to work as hard to maintain my momentum.

Another comment I got a lot was that on the flats I didn't punch as big a hole in the wind as people would expect. When I was in the drops or resting my forearms on the top of the bars and hammering I could motor in all but the stiffest headwinds. basically in the drops my frontal area catching the wind isn't that much bigger then a smaller rider, but my power to weight ratio is.

True that a 200+ pound guy is not likely to be competitive in the Tour, but much more possible in one day events. Also, look at track racing. Bigger guys make up a larger proportion of top riders then smaller guys.




William

[rugbysecondrow]

A few observations from a big guy....

On decents, if I'm with a group that is basically coasting a decent I have to either constantly hit the brakes or pull out and pass. I will always start to overtake the the group. My momentum will always build faster then smaller riders.

When hammering a decent, skill and balls are what allows folks to make up time or drop folks. Many times if someone did build a gap on me on a climb, I could make it back up on a decent. Mainly because I love to decend. Blasting down switch backs or long winding mountains is fun to me. But add to that I don't have to work as hard to maintain my momentum.

Another comment I got a lot was that on the flats I didn't punch as big a hole in the wind as people would expect. When I was in the drops or resting my forearms on the top of the bars and hammering I could motor in all but the stiffest headwinds. basically in the drops my frontal area catching the wind isn't that much bigger then a smaller rider, but my power to weight ratio is.

True that a 200+ pound guy is not likely to be competitive in the Tour, but much more possible in one day events. Also, look at track racing. Bigger guys make up a larger proportion of top riders then smaller guys.


William

I agree with what William says, but I am not sure how universal his experience and mine (on a more limited basis) is applicable.

What is interesting are the responses. It seems they can be summed up as:

Weight doesn't matter

Weight matters, but don't make extra catagories

Weight matters but clyde catagories might be applicable.

I agree with the general sentiment that weight shouldn't matter, but even though William and other riders are able to overcome their size doesn't mean it is a non-factor. By Williams own description he has a freakishly strong strength to weight ratio...that is atypical of many big guys.

I don't understand the physics of it to be able to say anything other than what I anecdotally understand, but it seems that in a sport that drives weight or equipment down, ignoring the weight of the rider by saying "it is doesn't matter" is not intuitive.

With all that said from what I understand, the Cat system works because it is merit/achievement based which is fair. I would also submit though that those races have a very different purpose than the races that have weight or age catagories. You local YMCA 10k or Boys and Girls Club Triathlon are different than a cycling race that is part of a series that might have points tallying for both individuals and teams. We are really not talking about the same thing here.

It all comes down to training and I know if I want to be better I have to train harder than others who are smaller or weigh less. I can do it and I am just as good as or better than others who are smaller (all the guys I ride with are smaller than me) but per hour invested in training, big guys have to invest more to attain similar results as are skinny brethren.

[cassa]

I like the idea of getting more people involved in cycling (not just racing). So, I think organized centuries and other events are great. And more social races are great. But, I'm not sure about going further and adding weight classes to the social races.

Would weight classes be close to equivalent to classes based on how seriously one takes cycling training and diet? I mean, the guy with too much fat could be skinnier if he worked at it and the guy with too much upper body muscle could train and diet to better approximate a "cycling physique". I know I'm a clydesdale now because I haven't consistently had the right training or diet to be otherwise.

But we already basically have race classes based on "seriousness":
You local YMCA 10k or Boys and Girls Club Triathlon are different than a cycling race that is part of a series that might have points tallying for both individuals and teams.
The Cat 1/2 guys who could win a race in the points series are not going to bother with the social race, so it already takes a lower athletic achievement to win the social race. So, if I was driven by competition for medals, but not serious/good enough to do well in categorized races, I could enter the less competitive races. And if I still wasn't good enough to medal in those races, maybe that would be motivation to train and diet better.

[rugbysecondrow]

But we already basically have race classes based on "seriousness":

The Cat 1/2 guys who could win a race in the points series are not going to bother with the social race, so it already takes a lower athletic achievement to win the social race. So, if I was driven by competition for medals, but not serious/good enough to do well in categorized races, I could enter the less competitive races. And if I still wasn't good enough to medal in those races, maybe that would be motivation to train and diet better.

Again, not sure about cycling as that is not what I have been referencing, but many of the sprint and olympic races get some pretty serious folks, even for a social race, because they use it as a tune up for upcoming Half and Ironman races. Your logic may apply to cycling, but not so much other events, IMO. The winning times are not far off so it takes the same athletic ability to win those as it would to win many other races. What makes a race more social is the depth of top competition and the number of new racers. Instead of maybe 10% serious athletes vs. 40% serious athletes.

[Karin Kirk]

Another factor here is what people are looking for when they participate in competitive sports. Some folks are extrinsically motivated and really go for results, medals and recognizable achievements. Others have a more intrinsic perspective and drive themselves by their own personal accomplishments.

Seems like the extra categories are nice if you are extrinsically motivated and it is important to compare yourself to others like you. I also think the extra categories make it more fun and less intimidating because you are in a group of similar people.

But then we all have our own way of reflecting on our results. I know I am not the only one who does this. I can look back on a day and think, well I did pretty good considering I have a job/don't have many base miles/didn't use aero bars. When we make our own categories, it doesn't matter so much what the official categories are.

People bring all kinds of different motivations into their sports. Some are healthy and some aren't. Categories and awards are appealing to some, and trivial to others - all of that reflects on one's personal motivation.

[cassa]

What makes a race more social is the depth of top competition and the number of new racers. Instead of maybe 10% serious athletes vs. 40% serious athletes.
I don't know bicycle racing much myself (I'd rather ride than race, anyway), but I would think that there would be "even more social" races one could enter if driven by a desire for medals. And if you thought those "even more social" races weren't worth it because of the lower prestige of competing against a less-competitive field, then

that would encourage you to work harder so you could do better in the higher-level social races and/or
wouldn't you feel the same about competing against other clydesdales?


I guess I'm trying to image the guy/gal who is driven by the chance of medals and doesn't compete now, but who would compete if there were clydesdale classes. You've said you compete even though you don't expect to medal, so it doesn't sound like you're the kind of person this would encourage. I have trouble imaging such people, though I'm not really driven by the chance of medals anyway. (So maybe I shouldn't have weighed in in the first place :) )

[EDS]

Again, not sure about cycling as that is not what I have been referencing, but many of the sprint and olympic races get some pretty serious folks, even for a social race, because they use it as a tune up for upcoming Half and Ironman races. Your logic may apply to cycling, but not so much other events, IMO. The winning times are not far off so it takes the same athletic ability to win those as it would to win many other races. What makes a race more social is the depth of top competition and the number of new racers. Instead of maybe 10% serious athletes vs. 40% serious athletes.

I think a race is a race. If you are doing it to be social than placings shouldn't matter to you. I can undertand a first timers race as it might have virtues for safety reasons.

Most local cycling races are not much more than glorified social events so there are plenty of parallels to running events and local triathlons. Biggest differences are that a bike race is more dangerous and requires some basic skills and going at your own pace is not an option, unless you are off the front.

[Dekonick]

This all is interesting - but to me the cat system is no different - cat 4's crash lots -

cat 3 you are more experienced

cat2,1 you can almost make it to the pro level

pro - another world

So - aren't you competing with a group of like individuals? A race without any cats would mean the 1/2's would win every time - would you still race?

Wrestling without weight classes - you can be a lardass and still get your tail handed to you by someone 50 pounds or more smaller than you in the heavy weight division. I know because I wrestled and our heavyweight was lean and kicked a lot of lard ass. Interestingly, I wrestled 119lb... somehow I didn't grow until college... shoulders that is...

Weight divisions - if it is a social deal why do you care? Anyone who is 'serious' probably won't be in the race anyway... let there be more categories. You will always have the overall winner!

The argument that anyone can size down to race does not take into account other factors. I lift and carry a lot of muscle bulk because my life depends on it. I also have excellent cardiovascular conditioning. I know this because we have annual stress tests and it is quantitative data. I also know I am much slower on the bike than just about any of you - and I will always be slower. I just am packing more junk to carry around and that is life. I don't race (I know I don't have a chance in hell of placing much less winning... so why risk a crash that could jeopardize my job? I had a co-worker who was much smaller than me. He was one fast sonofabitch - but in two years, he crashed and fractured a clavicle, and a radius on another occasion. He also had several falls with road rash etc... Guess what? He did lots of time on light duty... many months! No thanks. (I did not become a firefighter to drive around and check on smoke detectors in schools...)

Back to the OP - who really cares? Are you really concerned that an ectomorph is going to crush an endomorph? In junior high I would be worried if I were an endomorph - lockers seem just the right size for ectomorph's to shove endomorphs into... so... is this all really just a case of Napoleon syndrome? That is how it is looking to me. In the grand scheme - anyone who wins any clyde category is unlikely to get a sponsorship to ride for confidis...

[AndrewS]

So if the Clydes want to play special interest group, it's okay because people who think it's a silly division have a Napoleon complex?

Yeah, I'm the one with the complex. ;)

[Dekonick]

That's just how it is looking to me. I don't mind sharing the sandbox with the other kids. If I were concerned about image and had a 'complex', I wouldn't be riding a bike in spandex with hairy legs. What I don't understand is the hostility toward opening a category to give others a chance to compete -

I guess I am calling the naysayers star bellied sneeches.

[rugbysecondrow]

So if the Clydes want to play special interest group, it's okay because people who think it's a silly division have a Napoleon complex?

Yeah, I'm the one with the complex. ;)

With halloween coming up, might I suggest a few costumes.

[rugbysecondrow]

I am partial to this one...all I need is a towel and some socks...comfy and cheap :banana:

[BobbyJones]

I haven't read through all of the posts, but how about a new class for those are VO2 Max challenged?

Weight classes for endurance sports are ridiculous.

[Clydesdale]

Weight classes for endurance sports are ridiculous.
Bobby- But why are they any more ridiculous than weight classes for wrestling or weightlifting... or categories for bicycle races?

Are you saying that endurance sports don't favor a certain body type, all else being relatively equal? Or are you just saying that everyone has to compete within their limits and live with the results?

I would disgaree with the first statement but I'm ok with the second.

[Mark McM]

Bobby- But why are they any more ridiculous than weight classes for wrestling or weightlifting... or categories for bicycle races?

Are you saying that endurance sports don't favor a certain body type, all else being relatively equal? Or are you just saying that everyone has to compete within their limits and live with the results?

I would disgaree with the first statement but I'm ok with the second.

Some sports naturally have some limitations on the numbers of competitors competing in each round, heat, match, game, etc. For example, you can't have 100 people all wrestling each other at the same time. Since these sports must divide up the competitors anyway, it just makes sense to group them by some factor(s) that makes each match more closely balanced. In wrestling, the most obvious variable to use is weight.

Even in cycling, there often needs to be sub-division of the participants, since most course have field limits. For example, if you have 500 registered racers on a course that can only handle 100 at a time, you have to divide them up somehow. To balance out the fields a categorization system naturally follows.

However, there are some sports were no division of competitors is required for the execution of the event, such as running. Especially with the advent of timing chips, it is possible to have thousands of people on the course simultaneously. If there is any sub-division of racers in the event (based on electronic timing, presumably), it is done on paper after the event - during the event, runners are in fact competing directly with each other simultaneously. Such after-the-fact sub-division becomes artificial.

[gdw]

I really don't care if they add more categories to events, cycling or running, if it doesn't cause the race fees to go up. Give the big folks, red heads, indigo kids, etc an attaboy and an ass pat but no prize money or trophies.

[EDS]

Bobby- But why are they any more ridiculous than weight classes for wrestling or weightlifting... or categories for bicycle races?

Are you saying that endurance sports don't favor a certain body type, all else being relatively equal? Or are you just saying that everyone has to compete within their limits and live with the results?

I would disgaree with the first statement but I'm ok with the second.

There is no question endurance sports don't favor certain body types. Some people lost the genetic lottery in that respect.

[fiamme red]

I really don't care if they add more categories to events, cycling or running, if it doesn't cause the race fees to go up.How about a separate "hairy legs" category for rugbysecondrow? ;) :p :)

[djg]

Er, yeah, weight matters. But honestly, what is one trying to accomplish?

Different sports favor different combinations of physical traits -- many of these get swept up under some abstract label of "talent" and many do not.

Cycling events call on a few physiological attributes, some of the key ones going to the familiar power/weight ratio. Different cycling events treat this differently. The best stage racer is not necessarily the best classics rider, except when it's EM; the best climber is not likely the best sprinter, etc. We can parse things all sorts of ways -- even if we stick to the track, say, different riders are suited better or worse to different events. There are horses for courses. And there are courses for horses.

At the professional/elite level, we might imagine that people sort themselves into different sports, and different events or roles within sports, according to their abilities -- including those imposed by gross morphology -- and not just by their druthers. Past all the divisions we have already, and the gender split in most sports, how many additional divisions do we want? I might want to play in a soccer league for 50 year-old policy dorks who have lost a step or two, and I might find such a league, but it's not likely that the world wants to pay to watch, not even in these days of hundreds of channels, micro-payments, etc.

At the amateur level, are things not divided finely enough already? Earlier in the thread I mentioned that, last week, I had my choice of multiple cross events. A C4 rider my age could ride in the 4 race, the Masters B race (3/4), or the B race (3/4). A C3 rider my age could race in the Masters B race, the B race, or the elite (1, 2, 3) race. If we were making cuts for weight, where would we make them? Would they be tied to height? How many weight categories would you add and how would this impact the promoters of amateur races and the race schedule?

[Dekonick]

Again - I don't think it really matters how you categorize folks as long as it doesn't impact the field. The whole point for many of these events is to have a good time - hence the 'social' bit. We aren't talking about worlds, or anything that really 'matters' are we? We are just talking about a way to get people out and participating in an event that they might not otherwise get involved with. I personally don't have the need or desire to compete but I certainly do not see any problem having several categories for folks who do. What I do find interesting is how defensive the kids in the sandbox become when someone mentions new kids or toys.

The OP was also referring to running events...

http://sessybelle.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/sneetches.jpg

[BobbyJones]

Bobby- But why are they any more ridiculous than weight classes for wrestling or weightlifting... or categories for bicycle races?

Are you saying that endurance sports don't favor a certain body type, all else being relatively equal? Or are you just saying that everyone has to compete within their limits and live with the results?

I would disgaree with the first statement but I'm ok with the second.

I can't comment on the wrestling and weightlifting statement but I can about the bicycle racing. Categories in cycling are presumably based on skill level, not on physical attributes so including it isn't even relevant to my statement.

Like the rest of life, success in certain activities usually favors a particular set of characteristics in a person. Why should heavier people get the pat on the back?

[rugbysecondrow]

:p I can't comment on the wrestling and weightlifting statement but I can about the bicycle racing. Categories in cycling are presumably based on skill level, not on physical attributes so including it isn't even relevant to my statement.

Like the rest of life, success in certain activities usually favors a particular set of characteristics in a person. Why should heavier people get the pat on the back?

Who is saying this? Who is getting a pat on the back? If a clyde beats other clydes, does that somehow subtract from a non-clyde winning or losing? There is nobody saying that a clyde is equal to others, by definition they are saying they are lesser by entering into this catagory.

About CAT and other merit racing, one can opt to compete at higher levels, but can't a mediocre CAT 2 racer enter into a CAT 3 race with better hopes of winning? If somebody is going to buck the system to get a medal, no matter how it is sliced, it is possible to manipulate, isn't it?

I think this clyde issue is somehow unearthing an inferiority complex. Do we need a Napolean emoticon? :) :D

[EDS]

Who is saying this? Who is getting a pat on the back? If a clyde beats other clydes, does that somehow subtract from a non-clyde winning or losing? There is nobody saying that a clyde is equal to others, by definition they are saying they are lesser by entering into this catagory.

About CAT and other merit racing, one can opt to compete at higher levels, but can't a mediocre CAT 2 racer enter into a CAT 3 race with better hopes of winning? If somebody is going to buck the system to get a medal, no matter how it is sliced, it is possible to manipulate, isn't it?

I think this clyde issue is somehow unearthing an inferiority complex. Do we need a Napolean emoticon?

I am not sure by what you mean with an inferiority complex. Everyone has their own set of limiters when it comes to a given sport. Trying to parse them all out makes little sense. Some people are limited by motivation, some genetic talent, some time, some money, etc.

A Cat 2 cannot race in a Cat 3 only race.

[BobbyJones]

Who is saying this? Who is getting a pat on the back? If a clyde beats other clydes, does that somehow subtract from a non-clyde winning or losing? There is nobody saying that a clyde is equal to others, by definition they are saying they are lesser by entering into this catagory.

I agree I used the wrong choice of words. I was really trying to emphasize how I think that being heavier than "the norm" really isn't a different class, yet somehow there is a separate category that should be recognized and rewarded. I feel it's indicative of the "everybody's a winner" attitude that's prevalent in our country for all the wrong reasons.

The irony is that weight is one of the few physical attributes that an person can control. (obviously to a point)

And yes, I always wanted to be a Basketball player but there was no special division or league for those of us under 5' 8" and I just couldn't hang with the 6' 2" and up guys. So maybe it is a complex afterall :)

[rugbysecondrow]

I am not sure by what you mean with an inferiority complex. Everyone has their own set of limiters when it comes to a given sport. Trying to parse them all out makes little sense. Some people are limited by motivation, some genetic talent, some time, some money, etc.



I agree. As you can see, I don't know cycling as well as I have never competed in that arena.

I think what you see are Running and Triahtlon races and catagories setup for all the limiters you describe. There are social races (just like social softball, basketball, rugby, soccer etc etc, these are often for people who have little time or motivation but want to have fun and stay in some shape. There are church and intrameral leagues or YMCA and Club groups and races that are little money. My point is that nobody is suggesting a parellel race structure accross the board nor even at the competitive level, but why not at a social/psuedo competive level? If a 225# guy, is motivated more to train to beat other guys their size (something more attainable) than they would be to beat somebody 5'8" 150 (something less attainable), then what is the harm in that? In one race I competed in this year, there was a clydesdale field of 80+ people...there was no gimme there.

Also, and this likely varies from cycling, but most triathlons give "Finisher Medals" because they view it more as an achievement event. So, in many respects it is a different environment. I would say it is similar to a century for some, something to train for and work for, but all different types of folks with all different types of motivators. The vibe is very similar. Some compete hard core. Others (me) always stay in Sprint Tri shape, work hard at staying in shape, but due to little kids, work, lack of desire, will not train as much as the hard core folks. Then there are those who want to check the box on their "Bucket List". You would not believe the number of people who go straight from the couch to a tri in a matter of months. Many become hard core riders, runners and athletes...isn't that what we want?

[rugbysecondrow]

As an aside, this is what popped into my head when William described his racing.
:beer: