Endurance.Net Ridecamp Archives

> Heidi,
> The "old system" you speak of was before my time endurance wise, so
> correct  me if I'm wrong. By that system everybody participated by
> default, as their  year end total points determined the winner. Of
> course that would make for a  high participation rate. Anyone having a
> good year and the available funds  could decide to push for the title at
> any point in the year. The subsequent  systems have required some effort
> on the part of the riders to specifically  prepare for and enter
> designated competition(s).
You are correct about the "default" aspect--however, I'd beg to differ
about the old system not requiring some effort on the part of the rider to
specifically prepare.  It takes a LOT of preparation and elbow grease
(never mind a good horse) to be able to keep a horse sound and healthy to
continue going to rides.

As for the "default" aspect--although it is true that anyone who rode was
included, there also seemed to be a lot more attention paid by a lot of
people to where they were in the standings, and a great many riders were
paying attention to who else was in the standings, even if they weren't. 
One of the aspects missing in the current system is the degree to which
other riders pay attention to and KNOW who is running up front.  As
Maryben and others have pointed out, under the old system, people
remembered who the front runners were for years to come--which is a part
of being an overall champion, IMO.  It MEANT something.

> My personal preference was the 3 ride series. Success meant having to
> keep  your horse sound and healthy through 2 or 3 rides. The financial
> outlay  could at least be planned for once the locations of the rides
> were published  and was limited to the three rides. You couldn't get
> beat simply because you  ran out of money one ride before the end of the
> season. If you planned you  season accordingly (IMO one trademark of a
> champion) it didn't encourage  keeping a horse going that really needed
> some time off.
Funny thing--most of the champions of yesteryear were able to keep on
going in subsequent seasons.  I don't see as much of that today as I did
then.  So I think the concept of keeping a horse going that needed time
off as a detractor for the old system is a red herring.  Yes, we saw some
overconditioned horses then--few of them were successful, and all would be
weeded out by current vetting practices.  And frankly, I saw more of them
in the old mileage "races" than in the overall points standings.

Furthermore, if you don't think seasons were carefully planned under the
old system, you are mistaken.  ALL of us alter our plans as things
develop--adaptability, too, is the hallmark of a champion--but under the
old system, it was far easier to map out rides within distance of home,
take less time off of work for travel, etc., because one didn't HAVE to go
halfway across the country to get there.  The year I ran for the Top 25, I
never left the state of Oregon, and never had to take more weekdays off of
work than pre-ride Fridays.  The system encouraged participation by
allowing one to acrue points close to home, instead of encouraging the
fuel companies by making us drive halfway across a continent.  The miles
ridden per miles driven was WAY higher--JMHO, but as an endurance rider,
that seems to me to be a much higher quality of life.

> The lack of popularity for this method had several causes.  For one
> thing,the rules, point system, etc were changed several times in an
> attempt  to increase participation. In actuality it confused people to
> the point they  gave up trying to figure it out. The other big problem
> was finding a ride  manager in each reason to put one on. Again, there
> was confusion about what  was required. I know a lot of people who were
> planning to participate in the  future when the final ride was in a
> closer region, if they had a horse ready  at that time. That same
> problem (location) will limit participation in the  one day event as
> well.
The entire thing has been based on people who are "gonna" participate. 
The old system was based on people who DID participate.  Big difference.

> People need to think about what ability/qualitites the national champion
>  should demonstrate and design a competition to reflect those
> qualitites.
AMEN!  And to me, an endurance champion is not a horse that can go win a
single race, or even Top Ten three races.  It is a horse that can endure
for an entire season, and still be sound, healthy, and participating in
rides.  That is the bottom line of endurance, and that quality should be
recognized in the horses that we put on the marquee and call Champions.

Heidi



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

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

Ride Long and Ride Safe!!

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