The Jim Jones Stallion award and several others count
only miles, and there seems to be plenty of competition in that
alone. Why do some awards use the point system and some use only
mileage? Is it up to the person who sponsors the award how they want to
set it up? (I'm curious...does AERC have the right to change how the award
is calculated and take speed out of the equation?)
Taking speed out of the equation would not affect the
majority of riders. Keep the FEI rides and call them a race. If
endurance riding is "riding" then it's not about speed. If longevity was
the reward, it wouldn't solve all the problems of people being too competitive
with their horses, but at least it might encourage some folks to try to make
their horses last.
If 100's are dwindling and we wish to encourage
participation, why not keep the point system in a simpler form and give
enough additional points (across the board regardless of placing) for a 100 to
see if we can't get more people to do them? Right now the point system is
fairly complex- I don't really care about it so I haven't ever bothered to learn
it but something simple would be nice. Like say, 3 points per mile for a
100; 2 points per mile for a 75; and one point per mile for a 50....period-
regardless of placing. It seems like that would even the playing
field for all areas of the country. Someone in the east (where multi-days
are not abundant) could get 300 points for riding a 100, and someone in
the west would get 250 points for riding a 5-day. That seems fair to
me considering a 100 is a huge challenge for horse and rider. (Yep, you
can tell I'm a weenie)
We would be saying to our horses that we want to keep
them around for awhile instead of using them up and then replacing
them. I feel like asking my horse to go 100 miles in one day or 250 miles
in a week is asking alot- when I ask her to do it at speed, I feel am just
shortening her competitive life. I know there have been a few superhorses
out there, but for the most part I would hope that we realize (as an
organization) that riding distance at fast speed *GENERALLY* will break down
horses sooner. How many horses can we all afford to retire out in our
pasture with various forms of arthritis, bowed tendons, etc.
This seems so simple to me, I would love to hear your
responses, as I am genuinely confused as to why this isn't a logical path to
take. I NEVER understand why *everyone* doesn't always agree with
me. <vbg> Please take a minute to respond!
:)
Several years ago, while on the board of
directors, I made a suggestion that if AERC dropped the awards program there
would be less problems of all sorts. I've forgotten what the issue of
the day was then, but it could have been solved had we no awards
program. Many people agreed with me, even a standing ovation (so to
speak). I think we all realize that without competition, the sport would
die because humans are generally competitive animals. If we had no
competition, the sport would die, yet without competition, less horses might
die. I've never come up with a solution to these issues.
Do I dare to question why the emphasis on
competition...i.e. points, awards, placements, miles, etc. isn't
mentioned as one of the culprits here? I thought "to finish is to
win" was the creed...... but the more rides I went to, the more I
heard about first place, time, top ten, etc. and the less I heard about "to
finish is to win"
