Re: RC: Re: past Champions

[Truman Prevatt <tprevatt@mindspring.com>]

Well, well many riders from the western region complaining because the current
system doesn't favor them!  Should the national championship be defined based on
political considerations or who is actually the best!  Endurance is after all a
race, if not then why we have top 10, why do we give bonus points to top 10, and
why do we have first to finish? Quite frankly while I can name the winners of
the 100 for most of the weight divisions over the past two years I cannot for
the life of me think of the winner of any NC before this exciting format
started.  Quite frankly one of the reasons is the old NC was, well, a big yawner
- who cared, I sure didn't.

There are many different perspectives on what endurance is and is not. Bottom
line is endurance is many different things to different people. That's the good
in the sport. The striving to fashion a coveted title such as National Champion
to fit the narrow perspective that one region or one set of riders has an
advantage, then that's the bad side of the wide acceptance of many different
goals. To some it's mileage, to some it's mileage in a single season, to some it
is first place.

What the single race format does more than any other format is to reward the
rider who can prepare, peak and have their horse and themselves at the top of
their game on race day, plan the race and execute the plan.  That is a true art
form and some feel, myself included, a true test of the riders abilities and the
mark of a true champion.

And yes there will be some surprises. A rising start will come forward and beat
the "expected" winner, as happened this year in KY. Me thinks some were too
quick to anoint the winner before the race was run. That's why we run the races.
The year before in NM a crafty old man who also happened to be a HW, crafted a
strategy to win, went on a training program himself so he could execute the
strategy and he executed it flawlessly to be first to finish and BC. This is the
test of a true champion. That's why we run the races to see the cream rise to
the top. And as they say in human track and horse racing, that's we the races
are run - to see who is the best.

So I for one think the format is just fine. It's what the NC should be. With any
other criteria not based on head to head and may the best team win, you don't
have anything different from, well......... figure skating.  I just wonder if
there will be all the hoopla 18 months from now when they are getting ready to
run the NC in the West region?

Off the the FOF, so everybody have a great weekend.

Truman




> At the time we changed to the one day, one race system we have now, many
> riders felt we SHOULD choose the champion based on a one-day, head-to-head
> race.  But I have observed that very few seem to remember who last year's
> champions were, and don't even care.  It's sad, really.  Riders felt the
> "trailer race" wasn't fair, and now they aren't happy with the present
> system.  I can't imagine what other options are available to show who is
> "the champion".
>
> It seems that having a horse/rider team do well, ride after ride, is more
> what we're looking for than a one-day win.  After all, this is supposed to
> be what endurance is all about.  I know what prompted the change to our
> present system, and that was having one rider who rode slowly in MANY rides
> win National Champion, and that upset some.  They figured there should be
> some speed involved and that finishing last in more rides wasn't the way to
> do it.  But when one thinks about it, that IS endurance, because that
> horse/rider team endured....over and over again.  It's just that some felt
> it wasn't "fair" because one rider could afford, in both time and money, to
> do so many rides.  Also, riders in regions other than the west, which is
> generally blessed with about 9 months of competition weather, felt that the
> western riders had an unfair advantage.  Well, as someone recently posted,
> "life isn't fair; get over it."  Maybe that's what life is all about.  Life
> is what you make of it; it doesn't come with any guarantees of happiness,
> success, or fairness.
>