>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. ;-)
No, the problem is that if they go slow enough,
they haven't gotten far enough "into" the horse for him to take it
seriously. If they go too fast, they install "race brain"--and if they go
slow and don't go far enough, the horse figures next time he SHOULD go faster
and fights to do it. But if he went far enough to kind of get his
attention--to convince him it's gonna be a long day--then he THINKS about it at
the next start and says "hey, I'm not rushing into
THIS!"
>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?
Again, horses are different. The concept of a
"rookie" speed may still be way too slow for SOME horses, but may be way
too fast for others, while giving a novice rider the idea that it is "ok" to
ride that speed since it is the "rookie speed." THEIR rookie speed maybe
needs to be slower still! And the best people to determine that are the
rider and the ride vets, talking with each other. (I know, I know, Howard
wants a rule against that, too.)
>I'm talking novice horses here. No
horse needs to do a fast 25, 50, or 100 for it's first ride, IMO.
The example I gave IS a novice horse--to
endurance. Granted, not ridden by a novice rider, by any
stretch.
>Why not? What kind of ride times?
Not fast--but not easy courses. First one in 6:08--but that was only
18 minutes behind first. Second one in 7:41--but that was only 16 minutes
behind first. (But then, as Deanna was discussing, we don't usually pick
"race track" courses for our novice horses, either--that's a deliberate move,
too.)
>I'm guessing these were 50s?
Yep.
>Will you ride him faster now?
No--as I stated in the last post, if he starts getting "pushy" at this
optimal pace, he isn't ready to race, so we'll go further. So far, he
hasn't--he just motors along without a care in the world.
>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?
I don't care what they CALL him--what I care is having a limit put on that
prevents him from being ridden optimally. What if the courses had been
easier? Should he not have been allowed to go a bit faster--IF it was
optimal for him on that day?
>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".
The point is that what for him would be "any faster" would be winning
the rides, whereas for another horse, just getting THROUGH might be sufficiently
challenging. Where do you propose to set the bar? If you put the bar
at his level, other novices would in effect not HAVE any bar. If you
put it at their level, you'd be preventing him from being ridden the way he
should be.
> 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.
You miss the point. That kind of strategy
doesn't allow him to learn efficiency in his holds, requires "starting over"
with a warm-up at each check, and in essence ceases to be a 50-mile ride--but
rather a couple of 25s that just happen to fall on the same day. The ride
is the WHOLE experience--not just the trail. It is learning how long he
has to eat, what the routine is in the check, etc.
Heidi
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.) :-)
