Weight Division Points

[renegade12@juno.com]

The three posts attached below have some merit and I do understand the
argument to keep the weight division calculations the same.  However,
AERC has nearly twice as many members now as when the rule was written in
1990 (and subsequently changed without authority in 1995).  The rides
have doubled in size, if not more, and endurance is gaining it's place
alongside other horse disciplines as a respected and admired
sport...evidenced by all the articles found in Arabian Horse World,
Western Horseman, et al.  AERC is moving from a "kitchen operation" to a
business like organization and the sport of endurance riding is moving
forward at great speed.  

With all that said, I go back to my comparison of "apples to apples"  vs 
"apples to oranges".  How can one equate to the other, except in the
overall comparison?  No one would say (or get away with)  " ..all I can
come up with is an 85 mile trail so lets call it a 100 miler and everyone
gets 100 mile points."   We categorically state we only allow a 5% flux
in actual mileage of the sanctioned distance.  Yet we consider HWTs as
FWTS, MWTs as LWTs and all of them as one and the same in some rides---
and at other rides they are completely different categories.

There are so many examples that compare to what we are discussing...here
is one more - In college basketball, just because an opponent couldn't be
scheduled,  we wouldn't substitute a woman's team to play the men's team
and then count the win/loss towards going to the NCAA Tournament (men's
or women's).  (Hey now...in no way do I want to hear this twisted into a
gender argument.)

In another post to ridecamp, Teresa felt these points discussions were
unimportant compared to trails and horse welfare.  I disagree with that
statement.  I think every issue involving AERC and endurance is important
and they are interwoven.  Without points and competition, AERC and
endurance would not be getting the abundance of positive publicity we now
see in the above referenced national and international magazines.  Some
AERC members are working on relationships with TV for AERC.  All this new
and "glamorous" publicity and public relations helps increase our numbers
and numbers are what help make us strong and stronger.  A large, strong 
membership base will get noticed by the entities that control our trails.
 

Randy

    


Joe wrote this:

"That was not accepted; instead the system of reducing both overall and
weight division points based on the total number of senior riders (all
weight divisions added together) was adopted.  The reason for this was
that otherwise a majority of AERC rides would have reduced points, and
those people competing in the small rides would have no chance at
Regional points awards.

I understand the unfairness of a rider finishing second against 20 or
50 or more competitors getting fewer points than a rider finishing
first against two or three competitors.  But the problem is that no
point system where there is a large disparity between the numbers of
competitors can be fair.  The object is to minimize the overall
unfairness and give the most people the best chance to participate.

In the system you propose, you could be the best rider in the world,
with the best horse in the world, and if you lived in an area where
you could not attend the "big rides" you would have no chance at all.
You could finish first by a wide margin at every ride you attended,
and you still could not earn enough points to have any chance at a
Championship -- those would go, every year, to the people who could go
to the big rides.  At least under the current system everyone has a
chance, and if you are the best rider with the best horse you will
come out on top regardless of whether you compete in big rides or
small."

and Bob wrote this:

"I will agree it is not perfect! But then no rule is ever perfect! Unless
you
can construct a better formula, and prove out that formula, you are not
doing anything except changing for the sake of change!

Yes, I speak a bit from pride of authorship. But that authorship has
withheld the test of a fair number of years. I again ask that you discuss
this change with those associated with the original rule establishment."

and George wrote this:

"
Consistency is a minor virtue.

It's not broke so why fix it? There is no perfect solution as Steph has
pointed out and this procedure has served the organization well for a
number
of years. Better the devil you know.  Leave it alone in my opinion."