Thanks for the comments. There are some things I like and don't like
about this system. I'll expound just a little further.
>However, the very fact that you are only judging the first 10 horses
>will still lead to racing. After all, if I were to ride really hard,
>but keep my horse to where he is just this side of the limits, and
>finish in the first 10, then I will win! However, if I make sure my
>horse is really doing well and finish well under the parameters, but I
>finish 11th and therefore am not judged, who knows who is the better
>rider and which is the better horse?
Actually, we usually end up judging more than the first 10, Usually
about the first 12-15 in. Sometimes, but not too often, some don't meet
the PR criteria. However, there are often several lame horses. Those
that are more lame than when they started. These horses are eliminated
from vet scoring in this system.
>
>But, Endurance IS a racing sport, and I suppose your system will at
>least get the (trouble making) riders thinking a bit more about their
>horses. Anyway, it seems to be the best proposal I've read so far.
>
>From my perspective, I really liked the first scoring method we used.
The one where we judged everyone. The problem we had was that the high
vet score was usually won by someone riding very slow. (In my opinion,
very sensibly) The folks who finished the course earlier, were upset
because they said this was no "test" of the horse and that anyone could
do that.
So, our committee discussed it and I caved in to changing the method.
We had fewer complaints the last way, and with the stringent criteria,
we even had fewer "trashed" horses. We get finished a lot sooner this
way too, only having to judge 10 horses.
Thanks again,
LindaVan