Re: RC: winning mentality was reply to Tom Ivers re: re FEI

[CMKSAGEHIL@aol.com]

In a message dated 8/31/00 1:40:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
dgerman@earthlink.net writes:

<< Continue plugging away, but please stop the moral outrage when you
 encounter someone who's not content with that. It's OK to want to win.
 Really. >>

The outrage, as I read it, is not at those who want to win.  It is at the 
continual put-down of those who do not share the same goals or the same 
definitions of winning by a few for whom winning the few individual 
world-class events seems to be the ONLY acceptable goal.  (And I note that it 
is NOT the riders who do the work and earn the gold who are doing the 
slamming...)  Yes, it is fine to want to win!  And it is admirable to pursue 
the conditioning, etc. to be able to do so.  BUT--even those who "Go for the 
Gold" spend their time working horses up through the ranks--that is part of 
the conditioning program.  Yes, a lot of that occurs at home--but a lot also 
occurs at local rides, as the horse must not only be fit but must also "learn 
the ropes" about camping and competing, going through the routine at vet 
checks, etc.  Those potential world-class horses go through a lot of events 
as "non-winners" before they reach their potential--if one defines winning as 
being first at every event entered.  That's part of conditioning and part of 
the learning curve, just as much as slogging through those lone miles at home 
is part of it.

And as others have articulated so well, there are different goals set by 
different riders, and "winning" is a matter of meeting those goals or not.  
Trilby, for instance, is often last at rides.  But to her, "winning" means 
setting a career mileage record that will go a long time before it is broken. 
 And she is certainly winning at that goal.  For others, "winning" means a 
year-end mileage award--which means going out weekend after weekend and 
completing--and not jeopardizing next weekend's completion by an all-out 
effort to "win" (ie the first-place definition) on a given weekend that would 
require a longer rest period to allow the horse to be fit and able to compete 
another weekend.  The "winner" of a multi-day often does not "win" any 
individual day.  And for many, simply beating the terrain and completing with 
a sound and healthy horse is "winning."  Are any of these people losers 
because they didn't finish first??  Not by a long shot.  And the outrage is 
not at those who strive to "win" in the first-place sense, but at those who 
would label those with different goals as losers, even if they succeed in 
meeting their goals.  Endurance riding is an example of a "life sport" from 
which all who strive to better themselves and their horses can benefit, even 
if "first place" is not a part of that equation.  The horse and rider who 
have improved themselves from stall and couch potatoes to the level of being 
able to complete an LD in a healthy manner have gained something of worth, 
even if they never strive to go on to greater things.  The only "losers" in 
this sport are the ones who aspire to levels for which they have not 
prepared, and who can far too easily do damage in the process.  This is not 
"feely good" philosophy--this is just plain old reality.  Any 
honestly-achieved level of fitness and accomplishment is a whole lot better 
than not having achieved anything at all.

Heidi