Minimum Weight Rules

["Carlos F. Crespo" <ccrespo@nigma.com>]

Glenn Foster articulates a good point that has been overlooked by many.

 

<<I am male, 5' 8" tall, and take some pride in having now reduced
a half-century old body to about 140 lb.   I believe it is biologically 
impossible for me to be light enough to even be allowed on the track
as a jockey in any traditional horse race, and that this would be true 
of the overwhelming majority of male participants in the sport.  But
here I can still participate.>>

I believe that a great deal of the future of this sport depends on the
issue of weight and participation. Lets face it, Endurance is not a
spectator sport. The future of the sport depends on the number of
participants and competitors and not on how many "fans" will come to watch
a race. If the perception ,weather real or perceived, is created that the
rules are prejudiced against a particular gender or physical make-up, the 
only logical outcome will be a diminished  participation by those that feel
prejudiced against. 

<<From what I have read here at ridecamp and read and heard elsewhere,
there does seem to be some consensus that 'small horses' may have
an intrinsic advantage in endurance.>>

Glenn may be new at Endurance but he has grasped some very important
concepts that has escaped most of the discussion regarding the weight
issue. You can not just take the ratio of rider weight to horse weight and
say that so long as the ratio is kept equivalent all things are equal. I do
not think this is a linear relationship. It probably is more of a "S" curve
type phenomenon due to the fact that the smaller horse does have a lager
ratio of surface area to body mass and can therefore dissipate heat easier.
As a result only part of the weight disadvantage can be overcome by getting
a bigger horse. 

<<It would seem that if there were no weight rules at all then the small
horse / small
rider combination would be so overwhelmingly favored that the sport would
eventually evolve into something like 'flat racing', where there is no room
for participation of any males in the normal size range, and therefore,
little remaining connection between the sport and any practical application
of horsemanship, historical or otherwise.>>

<<In other words, the most important purpose of a weight rule
(such as a 165lb rule or the "1/2 point BC rule", 
is to prevent evolution of the entire sport toward an 'artificial' extreme.
>>

A point very well taken.

<<I realize we already have 'weight rules', in different forms at all
competitions.  It just seems that I've seen recurring suggestions
from some that there should be 'no rules',
and couldn't resist 'putting my .02 in'.>>

The situation is more real than most people realize. In the last AERC Intl.
news letter  Lori calls attention to Pending FEI Rule Revisions and states:

"There has been some discussion of the possibility of Endurance requesting
of the  FEI a lowering or elimination of the WEIGHT RULE , similar to what
had been done recently for Three Day Eventers. Presently the FEI
Championships a weight minimum of 165 lbs . (rider and tack) is required. A
change in this rule is not anticipated for the 1998 competition year"

We are at the threshold of some critical decisions that could radically
change the sport of Endurance and possibly have serious impact on its
future. Those of you that want to have your thoughts considered, either
way, better make your statements NOW and get involved with this issues.
Tomorrow will be too late.

I , for one, wonder why we have to take a divisive approach instead of an
integrated approach to this problem. Other sports with weight advantage
issues , such as boxing , wrestling, etc. opted 50 years ago to take an
integrative approach to the sport. Rather than excluding from participation
those that do not conform to their perceived ideal,  they designed
different weight categories so that everyone can participate. This approach
was the formula for success, integrating the participation of all athletes
and creating more competition. The thrill of competition arises when you
have competitors that are as equally matched as possible (Muhammad Ali Vs
Joe Frazier was a great contest Muhammad Ali Vs Sugar Ray Leonard would
never have been one, regardless of  how good Sugar Ray was). 

Endurance is the only sport I know where the first ten to finish are
considered "winners". This has never made much sense to me. I think that it
would be far more equitable to maintain the competition within its
corresponding classes, in this way you would have first, second and third
place finishers and medal winners in each weight class instead of ten
overall winners. This approach would produce  more competition , more
participation and a hell of a bigger thrill. I am all for the Ali Vs
Frazier contests in lieu of Ali Vs Sugar Ray.

Carlos Crespo
Florida
ccrespo@nigma.com