I never said that a Challenge of Champions should have the same qualification criteria of the past ROC. My point is/was that there was no question that horses entered in the ROC were experienced 100 mile horses that had meet a minimum number of rides and had placed in a certain percentile. Because most riders had to work to qualify to enter the ROC - just being able to enter it and participate "made the ROC a big deal".
In my opinion, you can't say the same for the AERC 100 mile championship. To me, it is just another 100 mile ride for any horse that has 1000 miles and NO 100s. At least with the AERC 50 mile championship we know that all the horses that enter are at least experienced 50 mile horses and/or have shown some kind of competency at the 50 mile distance.
I realize that in AERC's effort to be "more inclusive" and to get enough entries for the 100 mile distance that concessions like this have to be made to make a ride feasible for the ride manager and to keep the membership happy. But just as a multitude of weight division champions dilute the meaning of "AERC champion" so does having a "championship" that has the bare minimum of qualifications. What this does is actually make the AERC champion just the one day weight division winner of a particular ride. It is no wonder most feel this is no big deal for many AERC members. At least if there were qualifications that meant something, all horses/riders qualified would have accomplished something BEFORE entering the championship.
You are probably right that a ROC type ride would be much better off in the hands of a private party instead of ANY organization. At least that way you can stay true to an idea or ideal and not get bogged down by trying to be all inclusive or meet the burden of every member's definition of "champion".
If private individuals or groups were able to resurect a "ROC" type ride, AERC might be better of naming their champions through a point system. It may turn out to be a trailer race some years but then again if someone has an exceptional horse that can place high and do a fair number of rides, that team can be crowned "champion". I have always liked the idea of "points" because it gives those that race and those that complete a strategy within the same system to come out on top. The best part is that a horse that can race/place and do several rides will usually always be on top. At least, this would eliminate the "one ride AERC champion" which many seem to be against. It would also eliminate the need for a champion in every weight division.
Endurance riding is NOT a fair sport. Some riders have better horses than others, some riders are more talented riders than others, some have more oportunities to attend more rides, some riders have nice living quarter rigs while others are in tents, some riders have more available cash to put towards the sport. The list can go on and on how endurance isn't fair. Why do we want to make a "level" playing field for the AERC championship when there are so many inequalities in our regular rides and within our ranks.
Perhaps it is time that AERC gives up the idea of a championship race and put on a ride that is just a celebration of endurance or a festival of endurance. All AERC members can enter, everyone is special and all are invited even LDers. It would give membership an opportunity to meet in one location, ride together, celebrate the sport together, and showcase different trails every year. They can give lots of goodies, awards, etc. to make everyone feel special. AERC can put the money for the championship ride in this feel good kind of experience that all members can enjoy. Why keep trying to make a "championship" ride when most members don't participate, there are minimal qulifications to enter the championship, and many AERC members do not know or care who the champion is. Many can't even agree if the AERC champion should be based on a one day ride or the overall competitive record for one ride season.
