Re: Qualifications for Nationals/How about 500 LIFETIME MILES

[Deanna German <finishis2win@columbus.rr.com>]

Tammy wrote:
>"It seems a solution would be to make a mandatory 500
>LIFETIME mile (any distance) minimum to go to
>Nationals, instead of horse/rider combo."

A few years back as a newcomer to RC (and distance riding), I remember
someone posting that until the rider had done 1,000 miles, they should
consider themselves a newbie. I had a problem with that then. I don't
anymore. As a newbie who is doing more crewing and observing than
participating in rides, I'm understanding more why that person posted that.

At every ride I've been at, I've seen a top competitor who has been around
for a while (and many, many miles) do what's right for the horse on that
day, even if it means (gasp) not winning.

OTOH, I've seen newbies with not much more experience than me burn up the
trails. On LD *and* endurance. I've seen a marginal "fit to continue"
completion more than once. I've seen some of the "oldbies" (riders and vets)
talk to some of the trail burners and I've seen some of what they are saying
start to sink in.

And I think that's the whole point of what the "oldbies" are saying. There's
no reason for any of us to repeat mistakes they've made or have seen others
make.

The organizers and AERC have to decide whether this is going to be a "club"
ride (a great ride sponsored by AERC that is accessible to a lot of members)
or a true championship ride. A club ride just won't have the prestige no
matter what it's called, *if* prestige is the goal. The Boston Marathon is a
prestigious event that has qualifications for entry. Most who run it are not
capable of winning it, but I've heard it's a great race and it's a goal for
many marathon runners. I don't think they have a problem of lack of
attendance. >g<

If prestige isn't the goal, then call it whatever and set the qualifications
low enough that a lot of horses and riders qualify. It can still be a great
club sponsored ride.

BTW, the handful of people I know personally who either did the ride or were
qualified for it will be qualified for it under the new rules.


> Make the horse/rider 250 mile minimum...including LD rides.

LD rides shouldn't be included in qualifying because they aren't endurance.
Marathon runners trying to qualify for the Boston or NY marathons don't
qualify by running half-marathons. They qualify by running marathons in a
certain amount of time. (I'm an CTR and LD rider right now, so I do support
the LD concept.) Using your suggestion of qualifying mileage, I could ride 5
back-to-back LD's (essentially two-day 50's) or 10 regular LD's and meet the
other requirements and be qualified. Doesn't seem enough to me.

The posters who object to someone purchasing a "made" horse have a point.
It's for the horse's safety and it also keeps someone from buying their way
into the event. 


Nancy Mitts wrote:
>Monte considers this whole discussion to be like cutting the top off Mt
>Everest so more people can say they reached the summit.

Great statement! 

I don't see a problem with raising the entry requirements incrementally to
build participation in the ride as it is being done. The ride managers have
to be able to make money so they need entrants. At some point in time
raising the entry requirements will result in diminishing returns due to the
lack of entrants at that level. I don't think we're there yet. I just don't
have the same dire feeling that there will be diminished participation that
Tammy does.

At least one naysayer is saying that she won't recognize the winner of this
race as THE National Champion. She's entitled to her opinion, but a lot of
the rest of us would like to see the top riders in the country face off
against each other. The winner of that race will certainly be the champion
of the National Championship Race. There are plenty of awards already for
placings, BC's and miles.

Deanna (Ohio) M30478