In a message dated 1/16/2006 9:05:11 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
johnt@xxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
The
whole goal of this discussion was to look at ways to lower the (mental)
barrier to entry to the 100 mile distance - the (perceived) barrier to entry
which MIGHT encourage more people to try the distance. I get the feeling that
Annie's comment above exemplifies a kind of thinking - right or wrong - which
keeps the barrier to entry high and makes the 100 mile distance seem more
exclusive than it needs to be.
Hi John,
I'll say this, the 100 mile distance SHOULD be more
exclusive than the 25 or 50 mile distances...that's probably why it seems
more exclusive, eh?
The number of horses and riders who can
successfully ride 100 miles in less than 24 hours is smaller than the same who
ride 25 or 50 within the applicable time allowed.
That simple (what I consider to be) "fact" is why the
numbers, when perused by the "numbers types", deem the 100's as not being
"popular" by a greater number of riders. It's because they're not.
"Manipulating" the endurance population into TRYING a 100 will pay off for some,
but for the greater number, I don't think so, and it will result in the opposite
result...which is, "I won't ever do THAT again," serving to keep folks in 25/50
mile community.
As you discovered, a fit horse, proper pacing and proper
"attitude" go a long way to successfully completing a hundred.
One danger I see is "encouraging" horses and riders to
try a 100 when the horse and rider are either not cut out for it, or are not
properly prepared. That's what engenders the (so called) MYSTIC of the
100.
There is no mystic...there is only prepared and
do.
The real question is do ride managers want to
continue to offer 100 miles as an endurance distance when the ridership is much
smaller than 25's and 50's?
