In Reply To:
When these divisions first started in running races, I swear the female version was called "Filly," not "Athena," in keeping with the horse theme. Does anyone else remember that?
I have no opinion on the existence of these categories--I agree it's kind of silly to try to eliminate the natural advantages of certain body types for certain sports, but I like the points some have made about being drawn into the sport through Clydesdale. But speaking for the women, the weight itself is silly. I'm 5'8" and about 136 lbs, but I've been a pretty fast runner when I've been closer to 150 lbs. 5'8" isn't even that tall for a woman. I've also seen running races that use 140 as the cutoff for Athena, which is utterly ridiculous (Somerville Jingle Bell run, anyone?). If you would like to perpetuate unhealthy body image among women athletes, suggesting that 140 or even 150 lbs is "heavy" regardless of height is a good place to start.
I've seen filly before, and always thought it made more sense. "Percheron" might make even BETTER sense, but I doubt anyone would know WTF was up with that ;-)
5'8" is tallish--average height for an adult american male is 5'9.5"; for a female it's 5'4". (Which makes me taller than your average d00d. yay, me.
As of this afternoon, I weighed 135.7... I was a much faster runner when I was lighter (low to mid 120s). OTOH, I am a much faster cyclist when I am heavier.
I've seen several races where athena was 140. That's silly, I think. And no, I've never entered, even when I can qualify.
mmm-mmm-Momo Charms Handmade beverage charms, jewelry, and miscellanea http://momocharms.wordpress.com