 |
Re: [RC] More on 100 mile riders - heidiThis is a very valid point and maybe at the crux of the demise. The 100's are not always a big bang for the buck. Traveling half way cross country to do a 100 takes a long time when you could get the same "satisfaction" a lot closer in the same amount of off time from a multiday ride. Myself, I rather take a couple of weeks, drive around and do several rides - maybe a multiday that spend the same time going to a 100. The same criteria of supply, demand and value will drive the endurance market as drives any market place. It seems to some extend the 100 mile format and the multiday format appeal to the same set of riders. The riders that have FEI aspirations are required to do 100's to qualify to run FEI. The riders that don't have FEI asperations have a choice hence will chose the best value for their time and dollars. Truman, not all have the same goals and preferences as Karen--or as you. Although I enjoy multidays for many reasons, the main reason I like them is that I can take multiple horses in one trip to do fairly relaxed 50s to get them established. Although I've not been in a position to ride 100s for the past few years, as far as I'm concerned, they are WAY more "bang for the buck" than anything else in this sport, and everything else I do in this sport is in preparation to get back to doing 100s. I may be in the minority with my preference--but nonetheless, you can't make the sort of blanket generalization that you are making. Additionally, although 100s are by far my favorite distance, I had NO desire whatsoever to go to ROC, and never aspired to. Nor do I have any desire to do the AERC National Championship. Simply getting back into shape and getting a horse ready to do 100s again is sufficient incentive for me, as to me, 100 miles IS the ultimate that this sport has to offer. As for your assertion that it is so distasteful to "subsidize" 100s and that it should be voluntary, I am already FORCED to subsidize the AERC National Championship, which to call any single ride such a thing is a concept that I utterly detest. If I HAVE to support such a thing, I see nothing wrong with you "having" to support a subsidy for grassroots 100s--personally, I think the latter would be money far better spent, and far more in keeping with the spirit and purpose of our organization. I do agree that the upswing in multidays has cut into the 100-mile entrant pool--it used to be that 100 miles was the only "ultimate" that this sport had to offer. Multidays provide a different sort of "ultimate." Some people are more attracted to one, some to the other. But when you look at multiday stats, those people who actually go ride every day of a multiday on the same horse are just about as rare as 100-milers--the difference is that a bunch of us can go to the multiday and use it as I described above, as a bunch of single 50-milers. So, the entry numbers are higher, even though the people who actually do the multiday as pioneer rides are in the minority. It is no different than having a one day ride where there are 80 50-milers paying the bills so that 10 100-milers can go ride. 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!! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
|