 |
RE: [RC] LD trail trash - David LeBlancMike said: I can't believe some of the comments I've read tonight about LD rides, either, and agree with your thoughts, Jean.? It's a perennial argument - much more so on this list than in actual ride camp, for the most part. I think that's because there's a higher proportion of people on this list that have been doing this for a long time, and some seem to think that the way it was is the way it still is. Some of the loudest and crabbiest voices are people who haven't done much for a while - things change. If you're not changing, you're not living. The LD crowd are some of the nicest folks to meet, and the attitude of some of these high-and-mighty 50 folks (many of whom probably haven't completed a 100) regarding the presence of LD riders is surprising.? As?a matter of fact, the behavior of some of the 50+ mile riders I've encountered on the trail has done more to steer me away from this sport than a bad day on the horse could ever do. I honestly don't see a difference in personality and how far someone goes. I know good and bad who do every distance. Mostly good, which is one reason I like this sport. I know some really nice people who some days do 25's and other days do 100's. The really ironic thing to me is that 50's really aren't anything special. Trying to claim that a 50 is a substantially more difficult achievement than a LD is a lot of BS. A multi-day, a 75 or 100 - those are hard. A normal 50 is no big deal, and you don't have to be much smarter than a typical LD rider to do one. "Real" endurance vs. LD - it's almost all semantics (it's endurance because that's the definition of endurance, which is the definition of a circular argument), with very little real world difference in difficulty - unless you take on a really hard 50, but there's hard LD's, too. If we really wanted to divide up the sport based on difficulty, we'd do it on the basis of something a lot harder than just a 50. This is NOT to say that most people should try to start with 50's - some do, but for most, it's better to learn on the shorter distances - just that it isn't THAT much harder. Personally, I?have ridden LD up until this year because I haven't?had a horse capable of completing a 50+ mile ride until this year... Here's where I don't agree with you. You've pretty consistently been turning in some fast ride times. If you can do a sub 3 hour LD, I'd bet you could take a nice long rest and do the next 25 miles in another 7-8 hours and be just fine. Your record also shows you can slow down, and if you can do that, you can do 50's. Some of the only times I've recommended to people not to move up is when they're unable to properly control their horse, and that's not a good thing on a LD, and a worse thing on a 50. What could well be the case is that _you_ are not in shape to do a 50, which is quite understandable if you don't have time to exercise enough. I program computers and write, neither of which exercise more than my brain and my fingers. or have been in graduate school, or have been helping raise 3 very young children (2 mos, 2, and 5) with a wife in college full-time.? Been there and done that - I didn't have time for much of anything when I was in school. School AND kids? Ouch. I think the fewer unnecessary distinctions we draw between the 2 "divisions" of AERC, the better off we are. The differences between LD and 50's are more of an artifact of the way the sport evolved than something based on logical distinctions. People should go ride how far they want as long as they don't hurt their horse or themselves. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 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!! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
|