Endurance.Net Ridecamp Archives

> > An endurance ride is defined by its length, and that
> > definition is 50 miles or more in one day.
> But this is somewhat a circular argument. Somewhat like how sometimes we
> get a bug reported in software and the developer says that it was "by
> design". Perhaps so, and maybe the design was even correct at the time,
> but it may not be the best design now.
So far, everything having to do with the HORSES still suggests that the
design, in this case, is still correct.  Some RIDERS may want the
change--but this sport is about the HORSES, and the difference between LD
and endurance is about the break point between that which can be done by
pretty much any horse any time (granted, not wisely) and that which
requires a degree of either fitness or special talent (or, preferably,
both).

> Language changes, and trying to fight that is tilting at windmills. For
> example, I'm a hacker. I'm a hacker in the recent sense of the word as
> being someone who programs computers and someone who pokes at computers
> to see how they work. There's a much older meaning - someone who crudely
> makes furniture, and I'm not that. Unfortunately, the press has turned
> "hacker" into someone who is a computer criminal and I'm not that,
> either. I can correct people all I want, but if I'm sitting next to
> someone on the plane and they ask what I do, if I tell them I'm a
> hacker, they get worried. I think that to many people, "endurance
> riders" are all of us and maintaining the distinction will be about as
> effective as my trying to claim that I'm a hacker, but not a computer
> criminal.
For the purposes of this sport, though, "endurance" is precisely defined
in our bylaws.  It is more than just language--it is a concept.  You could
certainly call it something else--but this really isn't about language, it
is about trying to dilute the concept.

> We've discussed this before. I don't think doing one 50 is a sufficient
> accomplishment for a title change. It just isn't that hard, or that big
> a deal. If we wanted to have rankings like novice, master and
> grandmaster and then made these ranks based on say mileage - maybe to
> graduate from novice, you need > 250 miles - then that would be worthy
> of making a distinction. I worked very hard for several years, then got
> to add a few letters after my name, worked harder for longer and now get
> to add more letters. That's an accomplishment worthy of a title change.
> It isn't a matter of making anything easier. It's a matter of either
> making distinctions over something that matters (doing it right), or not
> at all.
If I have run a marathon, I can say I have done that.  When I have ridden
a sanctioned 50-miler, I can likewise say I have ridden an endurance
ride--and hence I am "an endurance rider."  What is so difficult about
that?

> Actually, it can happen just by people commonly using the term to
> describe anyone doing rides sanctioned by an endurance body. You'll
> argue they're incorrect, just like I can argue that I'm really a hacker
> in the "true" meaning of the word (conveniently ignoring the original
> meaning of a furniture maker), and others will dismiss us as archaic (in
> the language sense).
Certainly people can erode the terminology--but as long as the concept is
still defined in the bylaws and the rules, it still exists as such.

> Do you really think one 50 is a worthwhile challenge? I don't. I think
> getting to 1000 miles is a worthwhile challenge. 5000 miles is really
> impressive. A 3000 mile horse is really something. Not everyone can
> manage that. Managing to complete one 50 is a pretty low bar. I'd even
> go as far as to say that someone with 1000 LD miles and zero miles 50
> and greater probably knows more and deserves more respect than someone
> that did one 50 and hasn't done anything else.
We all have our "challenge" level--and that's another great thing about
the sport.  Meanwhile, those who have watched literally thousands of
horses complete rides over the years can still see the clear difference
between what we call LD and the next plateau of 50 miles--there IS a
dividing line there, and physiologically, for the horses, it is an
appropriate "baseline bar."  I agree that from the perspective of one who
has completed many, it is a low bar.  But it is a very clear bar as
opposed to doing 25 or 30 miles, and as such, is a valid bar for defining
the individual events of the sport.

> IMHO, if we're going to do that, then we ought not make distinctions
> that don't effectively show a significant level of achievement, and we
> ought to set up a system to recognize those with a real level of
> achievement.
We still have to define what the increments of the sport (the rides) are. 
And again, there IS a pretty clear bar between going 25-30 miles in one
day and going 50 miles in one day.

> Many other sports have several classes within the ranks and
> a well-organized way of distinguishing between them. We don't really
> have such a system.
Huh??  I see "classes" galore in the yearbook and in EN--you move up a
"class" with each increment of 1000 miles, your horse likewise moves up a
"class" and each increment is published and rewarded (with a chevron for
the rider, and a medallion for the horse).  It is very well organized. 
Each increment is one more challenge, and one bar higher.

> I think we should either have a really thoroughly
> laid out, logical system that recognizes significant achievements, or
> not bother. My mother must have said 10,000 times, "If it isn't worth
> doing well, then it isn't worth doing at all." Drove me nuts, but she
> was right.
I agree.  And I think the AERC system is one of the most logical laid-out
systems of any sport in which I've had the privilege of participating.  I
know of NO other sport that so carefully tracks your career
accomplishments and provides incremental recognition each and every time
you accomplish another milestone (pun intended).

Having struggled for 11 years to achieve my next mileage chevron, I was so
tickled when I got my completion on the 75 at Purple Passion (and passing
the 6000 mile mark that has loomed like the impossible for several years)
that I was laughing and crying and actually almost energized as I toddled
back to my rig alone in the dark.  My poor horse probably thought I had
really flipped, as his only thought was "get this saddle off me and bring
me my dinner, woman!"  But heck, I felt like I had just graduated with
honors.  (Of course, now I have to set my sights on the next increment and
on some of my other goals--such as actually getting back to doing 100s...)
But back to the topic--AERC provides MANY levels of organization or goals
to set for one's self and one's horse, and one pursues the degree of
excellence that one sets within those parameters.  (My 6000 miles is
paltry to some with several times that many, but nonetheless, it is a
concrete illustration of the well-organized way that AERC has of
distinguishing levels and goals.)

Heidi


============================================================
The only thing worse than crewing for a female Endurance rider is crewing
for a wet, tired female Endurance Rider! A good crew person has patience, a
sense of humor, and knows that sometimes it's best to say nothing at all!
~  Jim Holland

ridecamp.net information: http://www.endurance.net/ridecamp/

============================================================