Awards Proposal

[guest@endurance.net]

K S SWIGART  katswig@earthlink.net


I believe that Angie is correct when she speculates that what has many
AERC members’ knickers in a twist about the AERC National Championship
Ride and its format is indeed associated with bestowing of the title “AERC
National Champion” on the winner(s) of the ride.  And this, to my
understanding, has been the problem (and the cause of the incessant
bickering among members for decades) of ANY of the “National Championship”
formats.

It one listened to the Duck at the awards ceremony of this year’s 2001 XP
ride, he very eloquently expressed the dilemma that anybody would
encounter in attempting to give an award for (what he even more modestly
called) the “Best Performance.”  That because he had a saddle to give away
he had to pick somebody to give it to, but at the same time, it was truly
inappropriate to distinguish among the many more than stellar performances
of countless people who participated (John and Dolly go my vote), not the
least of which was ride management itself (as is true of every ride) and
the first person to get mentioned in the Best Performance Award
presentation was Annie.  And yes, he did rather choose the recipient of
the award in similar tradition to Thoroughbred racing’s Eclipse Awards, by
taking a vote (although nobody but him actually knows the outcome of that
vote).

We in the AERC, I think, understand that there are many definitions of
greatness in endurance and that not all these definitions can be measured.
We understand, I think, that more goes in to accomplishing great things in
endurance competition than just riding a horse for 50 or 100 miles (no
matter how many times or how often it is done).  That different people
choose different ways to endure with their equine partners, and even many
of those who do not complete can be considered among the great, but the
very fact that they chose not to compete at the expense of their
horse...and that this IS one of the things that makes endurance riding and
the AERC membership great horsemen.

So, here is my proposal...

Since doing it the TB way and taking a vote could very well just turn into
a popularity contest because many of the voters will not be sufficiently
well informed to know what every endurance rider in the whole country is
accomplishing with their horse.

I propose that the AERC do away with the concept of bestowing the title of
champion on anybody.

That henceforth all of the prizes that the AERC gives out at the year-end
awards banquet are call just that...

Awards.

So we can have the National Best Condition Award
The National Mileage Award
The War Mare Award
The Pioneer Awards
The National Hundred Mile Award
The Regional Points Awards,
The Jim Jones Stallion Award
The Bill Stuckey Award
The Bill Thornburg Family Award
The Husband Wife Team Award
The Regional Best Condition Awards

And...in keeping with how the first AERC National ride was billed:

The AERC Classic Award.

I do not deny that there are some people in the AERC who are excited about
the idea of having a nationally publicized, well thought out, well
planned, challenging course (with some kind of qualification criteria???),
party that they can go to, that roves around the country (although how
exactly that differs from a ride such as the Old Dominion still escapes
me—except for the part about roving around the country).

And if some people consider this a good format because it is easily
accessible (relatively cheap, doesn’t take too much horse, doesn’t take
too much dedication of time competing, and doesn’t take too much physical
condition of the rider) for much of the general membership, while at the
same time allowing people to participate in the quite different
preparation and strategy of getting a horse ready to peak for a single
ride, I do not deny that this is a challenging goal and is valuable
because much of the pursuit can be done at home and on your own
schedule...e.g. all the “pursuit” can be done in the middle of the night
out the back gate, which is not true of the other mentioned awards.

I just deny that this is an appropriate way to define “The AERC National
Champion.”

_I_ deny that there is ANY way to appropriately define THE AERC National
Champion.  The bickering will stop immediately if everybody just accepts
that there is no way to earn that particular title, because no matter what
criteria are chosen to define it, there will be some other great horse and
rider who has equal claim to the concept of champion.

This does not mean that the AERC cannot continue to bestow year end
awards, just that none of them will have the inflammatory effect that
comes with the title Champion.

This does not mean that the AERC cannot continue to support and publicize
information to assist members in pursuit of any such awards (including the
roving national ride).  It does, after all, dedicate a great deal of
magazine space to the promotion of all the other "year end" awards by
publishing the current standings for all these awards in every issues.
Information on location, requirements, deadlines, contact numbers, venue
of the national ride to facilitate participation by those members who wish
to pursue it is equally as appropriate.

I, personally, am of the opinion that one of the things that is so
ATTRACTIVE to many people about endurance is that greatness is recognized
in so many different ways.  That it is inclusive of everybody and that at
any give ride anybody can turn in a great performance and that the other
participants will recognize it as such (even if the rules have not
specifically defined this person as the “winner”).  You don't have to go
to one particular competition and you don't have to meet one particular
set of criteria.

Depending on which definition of champion that is used (“a fighter in a
worthy cause”, or “the defeater of all combatants”) we are either all
champions even those who never finish a single ride (in the first
definition) or none of us are (in the second) because no matter who you
pick there will be somebody else who may have achieved just as much and
the two of them never contended with each other (for whatever reason).

kat
Orange County, Calif.

p.s.  As a slightly separate issue, I am also of the opinion that NONE of
the cost of the year end awards ought to come out of the general
membership fund.  That the year-end awards ought to be self-funding.

But if they are to come from the general membership fund, the costs should
be born mostly by those who are pursuing them.  The fact that any of the
contenders for the high mileage awards have, through per-rider/per-ride
sanctioning fees, contributed more to the general fund than those who are
not contenders, is worthy of note.

So maybe it does make sense for the AERC National Classic (to use the name
for the ride that I have chosen) to have a higher “per rider” sanctioning
fee in order to pay for the chance of winning the award.  I do not think
that it is appropriate for the AERC to charge for the use of its name in
its own “national” ride.  But I don’t necessarily think that it is
inappropriate for the AERC to charge participants for the chance of
winning a special year-end award (which can then be bought with the money
collected).  I guess that doing so would kind of make it a “stakes race.”

But, as I said, exactly how the awards are funded is a slightly separate
issue from which ones to bestow.