In general endurance riders ride within their region. In the SE for the
most part it is humid - in the west it is for the most part dry and
even on the humid days, it's no comparision to the SE (or even CT and
parts of the MW in the summer) on dry days.
In FL you ride in sand - some deep some not so deep but it is sand. In
general one man's throw away may be another man's dream horse. I am not
saying endurance is a different sport in different areas or conditions
but a sport that places different requirements on a horse based on the
conditions. If I were going to ride primarly in the mountains in the
West I would have be looking for a different horse than if I were going
to ride mostly in the flat sandy trails of FL.
If I wanted to ride in both I would look at a compromise between what
would do well in each.
Truman
Lif Strand wrote:
At 06:39
PM 7/20/2004, Truman Prevatt wrote:
The number of variables in this sport are
large and I suspect at the end of the day there is not one best type of
endurance horse. In truth endurance is not one sport that requires one
type of horse. It is a multitude of sports - depending on the climate
and terrain that requires a multitude of different talents in a horse.
That is true about track horses - some do well in mud, some on turf,
some on a dry track, etc. But we don't say they are different "types"
of flat track horses, we say they excel under certain conditions.
If flat tracks aren't considered different sports depending on climate
and footing, which do require different talents, why would endurance be
considered "a multitude of sports" when there's different climate and
terrain. This is so frustrating! Do we have any studies which would
support one point of view or another?
_
-- "It is necessary to be noble, and yet take humility as a basis
"It
is necessary to be noble, and yet
take humility as a basis.
It is necessary
to be exalted, and yet take modesty as a foundation."
