 |
Re: [RC] LD/Endurance - Barbara McCraryMy experience over the 33 years I've been in this sport is that 35 miles is about the break-point of comfort for a horse. He can do that with relative ease; it's the next 15 miles that tests the horse. I've read ALL the posts about lowering the distances to include 25 miles as a true endurance ride, I've read all of them suggesting having levels of accomplishment, i.e. master, grand master, etc. I'm disheartened by it all. I personally don't see anything wrong with the definition of endurance riding as it stands, nor the points and awards system. I don't know whether there is REALLY majority pressure to change the definition and standards, but should this happen, endurance riding and AERC will no longer mean very much to me. The labeled levels of accomplishment sounds too suspiciously like horse shows to me, and time and time again people have said they got into endurance riding as an alternative to horse shows. I spent 21 years as a board member upholding the values of AERC against various critics within our sport, and I would be sadly disappointed to see the sport's requirements changed. Barbara McCrary AERC #2079 Lifetime member ----- Original Message ----- From: <heidi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: <dleblanc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: <jlong@xxxxxxxx>; <tprevatt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <DVeritas@xxxxxxx>; <ridecamp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2004 12:29 AM Subject: RE: [RC] LD/Endurance An endurance ride is defined by its length, and that definition is 50 miles or more in one day.But this is somewhat a circular argument. Somewhat like how sometimes we get a bug reported in software and the developer says that it was "by design". Perhaps so, and maybe the design was even correct at the time, but it may not be the best design now.So far, everything having to do with the HORSES still suggests that the design, in this case, is still correct. Some RIDERS may want the change--but this sport is about the HORSES, and the difference between LD and endurance is about the break point between that which can be done by pretty much any horse any time (granted, not wisely) and that which requires a degree of either fitness or special talent (or, preferably, both).Language changes, and trying to fight that is tilting at windmills. For example, I'm a hacker. I'm a hacker in the recent sense of the word as being someone who programs computers and someone who pokes at computers to see how they work. There's a much older meaning - someone who crudely makes furniture, and I'm not that. Unfortunately, the press has turned "hacker" into someone who is a computer criminal and I'm not that, either. I can correct people all I want, but if I'm sitting next to someone on the plane and they ask what I do, if I tell them I'm a hacker, they get worried. I think that to many people, "endurance riders" are all of us and maintaining the distinction will be about as effective as my trying to claim that I'm a hacker, but not a computer criminal.For the purposes of this sport, though, "endurance" is precisely defined in our bylaws. It is more than just language--it is a concept. You could certainly call it something else--but this really isn't about language, it is about trying to dilute the concept.We've discussed this before. I don't think doing one 50 is a sufficient accomplishment for a title change. It just isn't that hard, or that big a deal. If we wanted to have rankings like novice, master and grandmaster and then made these ranks based on say mileage - maybe to graduate from novice, you need > 250 miles - then that would be worthy of making a distinction. I worked very hard for several years, then got to add a few letters after my name, worked harder for longer and now get to add more letters. That's an accomplishment worthy of a title change. It isn't a matter of making anything easier. It's a matter of either making distinctions over something that matters (doing it right), or not at all.If I have run a marathon, I can say I have done that. When I have ridden a sanctioned 50-miler, I can likewise say I have ridden an endurance ride--and hence I am "an endurance rider." What is so difficult about that?Actually, it can happen just by people commonly using the term to describe anyone doing rides sanctioned by an endurance body. You'll argue they're incorrect, just like I can argue that I'm really a hacker in the "true" meaning of the word (conveniently ignoring the original meaning of a furniture maker), and others will dismiss us as archaic (in the language sense).Certainly people can erode the terminology--but as long as the concept is still defined in the bylaws and the rules, it still exists as such.Do you really think one 50 is a worthwhile challenge? I don't. I think getting to 1000 miles is a worthwhile challenge. 5000 miles is really impressive. A 3000 mile horse is really something. Not everyone can manage that. Managing to complete one 50 is a pretty low bar. I'd even go as far as to say that someone with 1000 LD miles and zero miles 50 and greater probably knows more and deserves more respect than someone that did one 50 and hasn't done anything else.We all have our "challenge" level--and that's another great thing about the sport. Meanwhile, those who have watched literally thousands of horses complete rides over the years can still see the clear difference between what we call LD and the next plateau of 50 miles--there IS a dividing line there, and physiologically, for the horses, it is an appropriate "baseline bar." I agree that from the perspective of one who has completed many, it is a low bar. But it is a very clear bar as opposed to doing 25 or 30 miles, and as such, is a valid bar for defining the individual events of the sport.IMHO, if we're going to do that, then we ought not make distinctions that don't effectively show a significant level of achievement, and we ought to set up a system to recognize those with a real level of achievement.We still have to define what the increments of the sport (the rides) are. And again, there IS a pretty clear bar between going 25-30 miles in one day and going 50 miles in one day.Many other sports have several classes within the ranks and a well-organized way of distinguishing between them. We don't really have such a system.Huh?? I see "classes" galore in the yearbook and in EN--you move up a "class" with each increment of 1000 miles, your horse likewise moves up a "class" and each increment is published and rewarded (with a chevron for the rider, and a medallion for the horse). It is very well organized. Each increment is one more challenge, and one bar higher.I think we should either have a really thoroughly laid out, logical system that recognizes significant achievements, or not bother. My mother must have said 10,000 times, "If it isn't worth doing well, then it isn't worth doing at all." Drove me nuts, but she was right.I agree. And I think the AERC system is one of the most logical laid-out systems of any sport in which I've had the privilege of participating. I know of NO other sport that so carefully tracks your career accomplishments and provides incremental recognition each and every time you accomplish another milestone (pun intended). Having struggled for 11 years to achieve my next mileage chevron, I was so tickled when I got my completion on the 75 at Purple Passion (and passing the 6000 mile mark that has loomed like the impossible for several years) that I was laughing and crying and actually almost energized as I toddled back to my rig alone in the dark. My poor horse probably thought I had really flipped, as his only thought was "get this saddle off me and bring me my dinner, woman!" But heck, I felt like I had just graduated with honors. (Of course, now I have to set my sights on the next increment and on some of my other goals--such as actually getting back to doing 100s...) But back to the topic--AERC provides MANY levels of organization or goals to set for one's self and one's horse, and one pursues the degree of excellence that one sets within those parameters. (My 6000 miles is paltry to some with several times that many, but nonetheless, it is a concrete illustration of the well-organized way that AERC has of distinguishing levels and goals.) Heidi ============================================================ The only thing worse than crewing for a female Endurance rider is crewing for a wet, tired female Endurance Rider! A good crew person has patience, a sense of humor, and knows that sometimes it's best to say nothing at all! ~ Jim Holland ridecamp.net information: http://www.endurance.net/ridecamp/ ============================================================ ============================================================ Riding alone is when you teach a horse all the "tools" and "cues" he needs to handle the trail, to hold a speed, deal with hills, etc. It's also where you develop the "bond" that causes him to "defer" to you before losing his cool. ~ Jim Holland ridecamp.net information: http://www.endurance.net/ridecamp/ ============================================================
|