I think competition is an important part of this sport. The goal to take an animal to it's highest potential in both speed and distance is an awesome accomplishment. If it weren't for competitive riders we would never know if horses could do 100s under 10 hours or 8 hours. If it weren't for competitive riders we would never see the incredible finishing times at the Tevis or Old Dominion showing that horses can handle speed and the challenges that weather and terrain present. Competition gives me something to strive towards. Being competitive makes me want to work towards taking every one of my horses to their highest potential, what ever that may be.
I do get the feeling that the accomplishment of "winning" is being tarnished unnecessarily in this sport. It is as though to WIN and TO FINISH IS TO WIN cannot co exist together. That is certainly not true in other sports like ultra running, marathons, etc. Those sports seem to have a much easier time being able to acknowledge that the 1st one to cross the finish is really an incredible feat as well as honor all who finish the event. In our sport, there seems to be much more discord to be able to honor the winner as well as those who finish. Its like if we honor the winner we are dishonoring those who complete. This is a feeling a get from the riders themselves not the official recognition from the organization.
I certainly feel that someone who wins the 100 mile race has accomplished more then someone who finishes in the middle in that event on that day. Just as someone who gets an A on a test earned a higher grade then someone who got a B. It doesn't mean that the person who got the B didn't do his best. Both earned passing grades.
On that day that horse and rider that "won" they accomplished an awesome feat. I doesn't mean that I think less of the rider that finishes in the middle. It doesn't mean that that rider in the middle didn't ride an ideal ride for his ability and his horses ability. It just means that on a given day, for what ever reason, the winner of the ride was better equipped to handle the "test". That team was the best.
I almost feel like I have to put a disclaimer on what I am writing. It just isn't PC to be able to say that the person that finishes first is the best. I never felt the need for a disclaimer when I competed in dog agility. The dog with the fastest time is the winner even though every dog that completed the course earned a leg towards his title. When I have competed in running events there is never an issue on who the winner was even if I earned a medallion for completing. It should matter that the winner was 20 years younger, trained harder and most of all had more talent. The winner was better than me and faster than me. It doesn't mean I didn't do my best it just means someone was better than me on that day. They deserve the recognition and I want there to be a winner. It makes me try harder, it gives me something to strive for even if I may never reach that goal. Having a winner makes me a better competitor.
I guess this really has to do with horse welfare and the attitude or assumption that anyone that is "racing" is abusing their horse. This may be true for a few but I see a "few" in other categories like mileage goals that could be considered abusive. I hope this doesn't have to do with the attitude that eveyone is equal or should be considered equal regardless of their performance. You know, like participation awards they give to toddlers so no one feels left out. I am really disappointed that some very talented riders that "win" on a consistent basis do not get the respect that they deserve. There is one rider that I am thinking of that is very successful. If those accomplishments had been for "non speed" goals she would probably get the credit she deserves.
Now for the disclaimer....when I use the word "race" I of course mean to do so responsibly and with the horse foremost in mind. Isn't it sad I feel I have to put this in when I am talking to endurance people.
