 |
RE: [RC] [RC] re: LD, 50, 100 - Kitley, Carrie E Civ USAF AFSPC 30 MDSS/SGSLFA horse that has been consistently ridden doing SOMETHING and having SOME trail time can usually complete 50s, even if the weekly mileage is inconsistent or not very high. See, in all honesty, I did not know this when I started. I thought you had to put in so many miles per week, so many hours in the saddle, etc in order to venture into a 50. I felt my riding time was too limited to ever attempt a 50. Thanks to this forum, I'm learning otherwise. Carrie Kitley <\_~ // \\ carrie.kitley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -----Original Message----- From: ridecamp-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ridecamp-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of heidi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 9:37 AM To: Cindy Collins Cc: Ridecamp Subject: RE: [RC] [RC] re: LD, 50, 100 Cindy, well-said as usual. I'm one of those "old-timers" who started right off with a 100-miler. That was always the point of it. My second "season" (2 years later) was two 50's and a 100. That was in the mid-70s. College got in the way for awhile, but in the mid-80s I managed to do a 1000+ mile season that included four 100s (yes, all on one horse). Later life and health managed to intervene. I still dream of doing another 100--but realistically, it may never happen. Still, that is the "goal" even if it is unreachable at this point in my life. It IS true that 100s represent more of a challenge than 50s. That's part of the point of it all. If they didn't, why would they be special? That said, there is a lot more than completion rates that make a difference between LDs and 50s. Just because the completion rates are similar does not mean that the work involved is the same. Virtually any sound horse can do LD with some preparation, and many can do LD with minimal preparation. And as Angie pointed out, they can skin through LDs without ever really learning to eat or drink, or any of the other "survival" skills that go into the making of an endurance horse. Moving up to 50s can be a very sobering experience for horses that have gotten used to breezing through LD rides without learning very much. Most horses need at least some preparation for 50s--but a lot of that is education and mental preparation, not just conditioning miles. It really concerns me to see "miles per week" being the criterion by which so many are judging preparedness. A horse that has been consistently ridden doing SOMETHING and having SOME trail time can usually complete 50s, even if the weekly mileage is inconsistent or not very high. What counts more is how he takes care of himself--if he has learned to do that (in whatever you do with him) you can probably complete 50s. That is why seasoned horses can usually do 50s just fine even coming off of long lay-offs--they know the drill, and they know how to manage themselves on the trail without wasting energy and without getting into hydration and energy deficits. In this sense, Cindy is absolutely right--50s are within the reach of most people. It is the 100s where the price in terms of preparation, personal health, etc. is so much more dear. That said (and I've said this before!) LDs are for people. Most horses do not need them at all, although they can be used as part of a training program if one so chooses. For many horses, there is such a thing as doing too many LDs--and for that reason, the idea of giving incentives to riders to stay at the LD level may do more harm than good FROM THE HORSE'S PERSPECTIVE. Nonetheless, LDs are great confidence builders for PEOPLE, and also serve to allow those of us who just flat can't do it anymore to come out and enjoy the trail and the camaraderie. In the former situation, many people these days are daunted by the prospect of riding 50 miles, and LD gives them the opportunity to get their feet wet and to find out that they CAN do this. That's wonderful! But if you can comfortably do LDs and have horse left over, your horse, at least, is ready for 50s. He will be able to move up as soon as YOU are ready to move up. If, on the other hand, your own health or life situation dictates that you can't ride any further, well, viola! LD is the distance for you, even if your horse could do more. But it should not be the SPORT that gives you incentives to stay at that level--it should be your own limitations that keep you there. If you just needed the LD as a confidence builder, then the SPORT should be giving you every incentive to move up. There are many of us out there who have had our day in the sun doing longer distances, and can't, for whatever reason. We don't need incentives--we ride with our limitations and just thank goodness that we can still fork a horse and get out there, while remembering that we could once ride at the pinnacle of the sport. But the pinnacle is still the pinnacle--and that is where the incentives should still be pointing, for those who are able to move upward and onward. Heidi This one quote below probably summarizes the huge divide between the old timers and many of the younger generation of riders (though not all). It's why we have such a hard time with this issue and why we keep hurting each other's feelings even when that's not our intention and why we just "don't get" the other side. Most of us that started out in the 70s or early 80s had one day 100 milers as our goal, period. We were "taught" that "that" was endurance riding. The goal was always Tevis, Old Dominion, Big Horn, etc. You did 50s just to get ready for the 100s. There was no LD, that was considered a training ride you did at home. People are taking offense where none is intended, it's just two totally different views of the word "endurance." When I started, there weren't alot of independently wealthy folks, either...a few, of course. But, most people doing one day 100s were working poor folks with families and jobs. Endurance riding was a huge sacrifice in time and effort and money that took a lot of family support and understanding. I never heard people saying that they couldn't do 100s cause they couldn't find time to condition until the last 10 years or so. I heard people talk about not having a 100 mile horse, or having personal injuries that kept them side lined or having to go to less rides because of money or because they were pregnant or had a new baby or a new job and had to wait a year, etc. Lots of people only did one or two rides a year and for MANY of them, that one ride was a 100 miler. So, because of "when" some of us started riding endurance, it's really difficult for us to understand the incessant whining about how 100 milers are permanently out of reach. I've had my own health problems since 2002 that have prevented me from doing any one day 100s or multiday XP rides (which I also love), but that doesn't mean I want to get bigger awards for doing lesser miles. I honestly don't get it. I truly don't mean it to be arrogant or put down anyone, in any way, and I don't think other people mean it that way either. I've "run" in 5Ks and in 50Ks and I don't expect the same recognition or feeling of accomplishment from the two distances. I don't feel put down when I ride a 50 miler, instead of a 100 (though I am sad:) and I don't feel "put down" when I hike 5 miles vs. running a 50K. I certainly don't consider them equal, though. To me this is about how we feel about ourselves. Cindy "Personally, I started endurance with a 100 as my goal which I'd hoped to reach in a year or two." Cindy Collins <mailto:c_collins@xxxxxxx> c_collins@xxxxxxx =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 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!! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- bujǫ' 'vڝǍzm ۫jw H+bs'2+ zm ۫jw F'^qJr{'rzmvڝǧzלjj()F'^.jwQגi
|