 |
RE: [RC] What's in a name? - David LeBlancJoe Long said: On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 21:44:41 -0800, "David LeBlanc" <dleblanc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: The demand to call LD rides endurance rides has everything to do with the trend in our society to have things made easy for us, rather than for us to rise to the challenge. I can't speak for others, but it has nothing at all to do with my request. Why should it? I have over 1100 miles of "real" endurance, a 1000 mile horse. Even by your definition, I'm well into the "real" endurance rider category. Sure, I haven't hit 10,000 miles, but give me another 15-20 years and we'll see. Yeah, one day in 2000 I got on my horse and rode her for 60 miles, and it was a milestone. But it wasn't that big a deal. I don't feel like I did anything very special that day. Something new, but not special. Nothing worthy of making any sort of distinction like you make. Getting top 10 heavyweight horse-rider in the NW that year - that's special, and a real achievement. It isn't about making anything easy for anyone. Has nothing to do with it in my mind. It has a lot more to do with not having a first class and second class within our organization. Has to do with the message it sends to tell a full member of the American ENDURANCE Ride Conference that they're not an ENDURANCE rider. If we're going to be putting labels on people, then let's either do it for something that really means something, or let's not do it. Going out and getting a horse through a 50 doesn't mean very much. Trying to paint me as one of those trying to support some perceived dumbing down trend in society isn't going to fly. I have the same issue with a new certification in my field - people go to class for a week, take a test, and now they have 5 letters after their name. Big whoop - anything you can do in a week isn't enough for that distinction. Bunch of folks in the testing and seminar business if you ask me. I have a friend who seriously plays bridge. They have all sorts of levels, and they're well-defined, and these levels actually mean something. Chess has a similar system. We've got a distinction that doesn't mean anything. If you wanted to make a distinction between a rider with < 500 miles, riders with 500-1000 miles, and so on, I'd be with you. Anyone can call himself anything he wants. Whether his peers, or a sanctioning organization, agrees is another matter. Personally, I would not want to claim to be something I hadn't earned. Exactly. Doing one 50 isn't earning anything, so why make a distinction based on something that isn't really a significant achievement? If someone got out here and claimed to really know something based on completing ONE 50, I can see the flamethrowers warming up now. We may want to agree to disagree on this one.I guess we'll have to, since I believe it is clear that lowering the definition of an endurance ride to 25 miles is doing just that. OK - you can have the last word if you like. I'd rather not have an argument. I also think it's an artificial distinction - in my book,75's and up are _real_ endurance. And in mine, but there must be a distinction and there is enough history to 50 miles that I doubt it will be raised. Agreed. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net. Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/Ridecamp Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://www.endurance.net/ridecamp/logon.asp Ride Long and Ride Safe!! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
|