Endurance.Net Ridecamp Archives

Heidi, 

Thanks for your response.

Heidi Smith wrote:
> > I can't stand it anymore... =:-o  All this talk about starting out with
> > a year of LD has driven me out of hiding...  It's not the distance,
> > people - it's the speed.
> >     
>
> Well, exactly--it IS the speed.  But the point that too many miss is that a
> horse with a lot of ability gets so bored out of his gourd doing just 25
> miles at the slow speed that he NEEDS to be going that it can drive him
> batty!  And the solution to that is to go more MILES instead of going
> FASTER.
>     
    
I think that's what I proposed for rookie horses and riders ...  but it kind
of sounds like your saying the "problem" with 25 milers, is people going
too slow with their horses?  What region are you in?  I've never heard that
comment before. ;-)  
    
    
If the horse NEEDS to be going slow, he needs to go slow for 25, or 50 miles,
you don't ride the first  25 fast and then slow down, so what's wrong with
a minimum time/rookie rule?
> However, again, not all horses are created equal.  What is a stroll in the
> park to one is way too fast for another.  So again, imposing a rule that
> states a time does not allow for OPTIMAL time for THAT horse, for THAT
> course, under THOSE ambient weather conditions.
>       
      
I'm talking novice horses here.  No horse needs to do a fast 25, 50, or 100
for it's first ride, IMO.  
> My husband just did a ride on a 12-year-old gelding.  But the horse came
> from another discipline, and so had fitness levels not the same as a green
> 5-year-old. <snip>
>         
> This horse is
> still going SLOW for what he is!  He is relaxed, he is having fun.  Oh,
> yeah--in between he went to a horse show and won the sport horse under
> saddle class.  He did not need LDs.
>           
>   A time limit because he is a novice
> would not be in his best interests.  He is so game and has so much raw
> talent that an unthinking rider probably COULD take him out and wreck him.
> But going slower than what is optimal for him at this stage of his life and
> at this stage of his training is not the answer, either.  Actually, if this
> horse needs to do something different before he gets more fit, it will again
> be to go up in distance if he starts to get bored and wants to speed up.
>             
Why not? What kind of ride times?  I'm guessing these were 50s?  Will you
ride him faster now?  Sounds like you used a two ride "get acquainted" strategy
with this new horse, like he was a rookie for 100 miles?  What would it matter
if AERC called him a rookie for that long?  It wouldn't matter to you since
that's what you do anyway, but it really might for someone who didn't know
any better, since this horse is "so game".  Heck, ride the horse faster and
take a 2 hour hold at a vet check under that type of rule, if you, as a trainer
think it will ruin the new horse to ride it too slow, as a "rookie horse"
for 100 miles or whatever a rule specified.
> But the point I'm making here is that you have to ride each horse
> optimally--not to some predetermined "recipe" for how much distance OR speed
> is appropriate.
>               
              
Optimal riding of any horse comes after a "get acquainted" period, IMO.
> Bottom line--again, like distance, one size does not fit all with regard to
> speed.  Vet checks and vet parameters are there to make sure that the horse
> is capable of going on safely.  Where we need to turn our attention is not
> toward regulating the horses to the lowest commonality, but rather improving
> our skills when it comes to detection of potential problems.
>                 
> We've come a
> long way--but we still have room to learn.
>
> Heidi
>
>
>                   
                  
Your solution is long term and worthy of pursuit, as well.  (My idea works
now and then too.) :-)
                  
Lisa
>