Ridecamp: Re: [RC] the way we win/redefining endurance

It sounds an awful like Competitive Trail Riding/NATRC.  I've only done a
few NATRC rides which I did to have fun with some friends.  I can tell
you though, from my experiences at those rides and from observing the
Competitive Trail rides held concurrently with the endurances rides at
Shore to Shore in Michigan last August, that what you get is extreme
pickiness which looks like arbitrariness.
     In discussions with friends last summer, I suggested that among the
riders at any endurance ride, there are at least 2 mindsets.  The people
out in front are often focused on external goals and rewards but there
are others, who may be just as "competitive," who set their own goals and
rewards.  It's probably obvious that I'm in the second group.  I really
don't care what the folks up front are doing; their race is not my ride.
I do care when horses suffer though!
    My friends and I hope very much that AERC can continue to include
both kinds of riders and hopefully broaden  its reward emphasis from
exclusively on "racing" to include those whose focus is on longevity.
Endurance as a sport already includes a variety of events from
international to multiday.  Maybe the time has come to work towards the
development of vet and completion criteria specific to each type of event
at the same time continuing to emphasize the safety and wellbeing of the
horse at all times.
    Matthew Mackay Smith has done our sport a great service by starting
the discussion.  Even though we are horsepeople and therefore highly
opinionated, I hope we can truly "discuss" and not rant and rave.
    Opinions?
Laney

"A. Perez" wrote:

>  I read the "Way We Win" site by Matthew Mackay-Smith.
> It seems to me that as long as whatever criteria is
> used to rank or rate riders involves time/speed, over-riding
> will occur.  ...  The ranking system he proposes is still based on
> time to complete, that is: speed.  And it seems to be the speed
> that kills.
>
>  One way to eliminate 'racing' would be to rank horses/riders
> on accumulated distance and the condition of their horses: NOT
> for the speed in which they finish a race.  I can imagine a
> system where the only scoring that takes place at a specific
> ride would be a numeric represntation of your vet score (all
> A's on your vet card would get you a score of 100, etc) so
> EVERYONE who brings their horse through fit to continue gets
> the same recognition, ... I suppose there could be rankings for horses,
> riders
> and horse/rider combos, all based on accumulated distance.  In
> this system what gets rewarded is keeping your horse fit, and
> going the distance: period.  Faster riding gets you nothing....
> Thoughts?
>


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.
 Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/Ridecamp
 Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://www.endurance.net/ridecamp/logon.asp

 If you are an AERC member - PLEASE VOTE in the upcoming By-Laws 
 Election!!!! (it takes 2/3rds to tango!!)

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=