I have to admit that I'm confused by this whole argument, for more reason
then one. The weight division technicalities and such are completely lost on me,
but I am finding the whole discussion on champions to be interesting. Before we
argue on the best way to pick a champion, shouldn't we first decide exactly what
the definition of champion is that we're looking for? To find that, shouldn't we
re-examine what our sport is about and what it really means?
A couple years ago, a big spread was done on Decade
Horse/Rider Teams. The riders were interviewed and painted somewhat modest
pictures, pointing out flaws and imperfections in both themselves and their
animals and still finding the means to overcome them and enjoy at least a ten
year span of partnership hitting the trails together. Insofar, that has
been my favorite bit of publication because it was remarkable to see real people
with their less-then-perfect horses offer up a bit of hope for the rest of us. I
hold those folks in the highest regard. They may not have the most sparkling of
careers in this sport, but they are *enduring* and that, to me, is the real
point.
Why can't we reward points based on longevity? We
get points for everything else like weight division, time, etc. And those issues
seem to pale in comparison to the amazing accomplishment of taking a horse
through this sport for so long. What kind of emphasis do we want to put on
our idea of a "champion?" In previous emails, folks have complained about how
this sport has changed, and not necessarily for the better. Seems like if we
choose to crown our champion as one who moves fastest and accumulates "X" number
of points even though he or she may only be around for a few years on that one
horse, aren't we further removing ourselves from what endurance really means? I
understand that when levels of participation in anything get high enough, it
becomes political. Do we really have to forfeit the grass-roots meaning of
endurance just to offer championships at the national/international level?
