Well , we certainly have come to a pretty pickle here in this now overly
anlayzed limited distance discussion. If memory serves, a comment was made
that LD riders who face special obstacles, who overcome and succeed, are
worthy of our respect. Period. No claims that "I'm better than you are,
just 'cuz you run a 100 don't make you no better than me honey, etc".
But with reading comprehension skills being what they are today, it comes as
no surprise that this innocuous comment could be blown so completely out of
proportion, so totally twisted that indeed the one point that the writer was
trying to communicate, to wit: let's celebrate the accomplishments of all
riders, becomes the ultimate put-down...again.
Would it not be more useful to discuss how and why each distance may be used
as a stepping stone to the next, with no obligation for the rider to
progress any further or faster than time, money & talent allows? Why not
look to other equine sports to determine how and what training steps are
offered at a variety of levels, in a variety of venues? Being somewhat more
familiar with dressage (and combined training), I can comment on what I see
as a useful paradigm.
Dressage tests are designed specifically to test horse and rider at skill
levels which have been carefully defined and offer progressive steps from
one level to another. Riders can certainly skip some steps, with careful
preparation, but do so at their peril if indeed the basic skills have been
found wanting in lieu of teaching the "tricks". I can get Travis to do
piaffe and passage, he offers it freely, but it's a trick because he lacks
the cadence, balance and true collection at all gaits that is the foundation
for all dressage movements. We will spend months, perhaps the entire year,
working on the basic skill set until I am satisfied that he is prepared to
move to the next level.
The tests offer me a set of benchmarks by which I may judge my progress. I
may exercise those benchmarks at a variety of levels--from simple schooling
shows with r-judges who take the time to offer suggestions (more of a clinic
atmosphere), to B rated shows with perhaps an R-judge, to A rated shows
sporting an I-level judge. And since basically the only thing at stake is
my ego, I wouldn't dream of attempting to ride a test for which I am not
fully prepared, even at a simple schooling show.
How can we apply this paradigm to the sequence of rides we now simply list
as "limited distance/50/100"? If limited distance rides are "training
rides", then exactly WHAT are we training for? What is the skill set
expected to be mastered at that level? Can one safely skip this step and
start with a 50? If so, when and how would this be appropriate, and what
cautionary statements might one offer to the prospective new endurance
rider?
Other countries have prescribed criteria which must be met before a
competitor can move to the next level. Would any of these systems be useful
for us to consider?
More is at stake than simply performing a set of exercises well...ultimately
the safety of horse and rider become the overriding factors. No 3-day
eventer would ever dare take a young/green horse to a ****CCI event! It
simply isn't done...yet we see young/green horses thrust into the endurance
arena, at speed or not, to "see how well they do". This Pass-Fail mentality
bothers me more than a little.
The trail and the weather are surely challenge enough....I try to leave Type
A considerations at the lab/office and enjoy the experience. Somehow...it
just seems as if some people aren't having fun any more. And that is sad.
And finally I'd like to make a plug for CTRs, especially those sanctioned by
ECTRA. This organization sanctions a fine set of rides under whose rules
you can safely and enjoyably learn much of what you need to know to get you
started in distance riding. Their standards are of the first rank, and the
people involved in this organization make it a special experience for new
and experienced competitors alike.
Diane
Allentown, PA