Re: RC: Thoughts on Nat Champs & ROC

[Truman Prevatt <tprevatt@mindspring.com>]

Rides 2 Far wrote:

> > There will never be the excitement of the ROC-type format...seeing  the
> greatest horses in the sport, head to head >>without weight divisions,
> in one location!  It was worth going just to see these horses and their
> riders "in the flesh". People busted their tails to get qualified  cause
> it was such an honor to compete there.
>
> Never say never. :-)  I was a wannabe back when the ROC was around, but I
> went to one as a worker and had that awe.  It will be back this year.
> Will it be the same? The qualifying criteria is lowered.
>
> Remember when people used to run ads for horses and say "ROC" qualified"
> Was it because people wanted a horse to ride in that ride or because that
> was a shortcut to saying, "This horse has completed 5 100 milers and one
> of those in the top 10"?  Reminds me of Mathew's "The Way We Win"
> proposal.  Was "ROC Qualified" not just another way to say: "Gold Level
> Competitor" or whatever?
>

But those were back in the days that it was the only game in town. The ROC
was more of an option for most than the NC in the format it was in at that
time. And how many people did you know that even talked about riding
international - a few but not many. It was surely not the numbers you see
showing interest today.

In I think 95, the east team had trouble filling six slots.  Look at today.
If the ROC had not been discontinued, would there be as much interest in FEI
as there is today? Can't say one way or the other but it seems that the Pan
Am just moved into the spot the ROC enjoyed.

The criteria for the long list for the Pan Am or World is not that strict
compared to the ROC. The horse is only required 500 miles with two one day
100's and horse and rider 200 miles with at least one one day 100. That's it
- no placement criteria - no 5 100 mile races with two top 10's for the
horse.

Meet these criteria in the ETZ this past year and you were on the long list
and in the running. This criteria would have not gotten you entered into the
old ROC - or even meet the requirements which have been scaled back for the
ROC in 2002.

But these "lax" criteria ( compared to the ROC criteria) did not keep the
east and central from fielding top notch teams. Should we say the Pan Am was
less a race because of the qualifications criteria were not a strict as the
ROC?

So I really don't know what all the hopla is about the NC qualifications.
The NC 100 was a very exciting race with some very talented horses and
riders. It was a tough race. I would wonder who else could have shown up in
the 100 to bring it more status? You did have the bronze and gold metal
winners from the Pan Am there plus quite a few from the ETZ Pan Am team.

>
>
> I really don't know what my position is on all this.  I really like the
> AERC having one "Big Daddy of All" ride per year featuring 50 & 100 mile
> distances.  I'd want them to continue the practice even if they gave it a
> name other than National Championship.  And by the way, I LOVED the
> canvas bag I got for a rider packet...and I think that all those "extras"
> that the ROC showered every entry in was part of what made it so special.
>
> Angie & Kaboot (who'd be ROC qualified under the old rules! :-)

Give it time - it will grow. If there are not a sufficient number of people
qualified - the RM's will lose money and it will die.  Life time
qualification on horses - similar to the ROC's along with season
qualifications will get the numbers up so the qualifications criteria can be
raised. The concept of moving it is a great concept since there will be no
home field advantage as you will probably see if the ROC stays in one
location. Because it is moved you will also see that in any year it will be
comprised of mostly riders who don't have to travel the length of the country
to get there.

Truman (who has a ROC qualified mare - now a broodmare - in the pasture and
his buckle :-)  )