Re: Endurance???

[K S Swigart <katswig@deltanet.com>]

On Sun, 7 Jun 1998, Softrider Saddles wrote:

> I think any body doing more than 10 miles can consider it an endurance
> ride. Others might think that it is not endurance but to the person that
> can't do anymore than that, Why take the glory away from them!! They are
> not compeating with the 50 or 100 mileres, so why make them feel like
> they are not doing distance. Distance does not have a definet answer.
> So why not let the person that goes out and does 10 miles be called a
> distance rider if it helps to make them feel better about the ride that
> they think is out-standing!! (because it might be all they are able to
> do.)

Why do you think 10 is a better number of miles than 50?  I have heard the
rationale that the "50 miles is what it takes to be called endurance"
people give (that's about the distance required to test a horse's
endurance).

ANd I have heard the excuse that the LD riders give for not wanting to
have to go 50 miles--which almost all revolve around not having the
wherewithall to prepare to go 50 miles...which is, in essence, saying that
they want to be able to be called endurance riders without actually having
to go 50 miles, and they had to endure more than people who just ride a
few laps around the arena every day (which, is a whole separate issue that
I am perfectly willing to take up with anybody who wants to--e.g. dressage
or jumper riders have to spend many hours in the saddle perfecting their
riding and their horse's schooling in order to get their horses "fit" for
the competition they do, and have to have vast resources or make
sacrifices in other aspects of their lives and deal with the conflicting
demands of work, family, home, horse).

My dad (who is afraid of horses), in a moment of foolishness made the
commitment to ride my horse "when he was 70" (as if THAT day would never
come).  Last year, he turned 70 (much to his chagrin, he really wanted to
be 69 forever), and had to/got to ride my horse.  We saddled him up
(western saddle), he got on the horse, and I led the horse the 200 yards
from the barn to the house, and then let go of the lead rope and he rode
the horse (at the walk) the 200 yards back...and got off.

This took more endurance, more courage, more psycolgical preparation than
any 50, multi-day, or 100 mile endurance ride than I have ever done...but
that doesn't make him an endurance rider.

Not in my book (for which true endurance requires at least 100 miles, one
or two day is okay).

And not in your book, because 400 yards ain't 10 miles.

But he felt pretty damn good about himself, so why not let him be called
an endurance rider. (Actually, I was pretty proud of him too, since I had
my doubts that he would really do it....and in another fit of foolishness
committed to doing the same thing again when he is 90...as if THAT would
never come :))

The fact is, the line HAS to be drawn somewhere.
We can draw the line at...

Everybody is an endurance rider.
If you have ever ridden a horse you are an endurance rider.
If you own a horse you are an endurance rider.

...

YOu get my drift.

We can define an endurance ride at 1 mile, 5 mils, 10 miles, 25 miles, 50
miles.

When we draw that line, by definition, some people will be excluded.

We could, of course, draw the line at "anybody who wants to be called an
endurance rider gets to be called an endurance rider"  THAT way, everybody
is happy.  The only people who are excluded are people who don't care that
they are excluded, 'cuz they never wanted to be considered endurance
riders anyway.

The disturbing trend that I have seen is that some people want to only put
forth the daily effort of having a pleasure hack.  Then take it out
camping for the weekend, go thorugh the ritual of endurance riding, hammer
themselves (and maybe their horses) because they were totally unprepared
for the event...and say that they endured the hardship of their lack of
preparation and therefore are "endurance riders" (understanding that for
some people, properly preparing themselves and their horse is an
impossibility, and that it is not lack of will that makes them unprepared,
but the fact that they just plain old aren't suited to the sport--I am not
suited to NBA basketball either, but I don't ask them to change the
criteria to suit me just because it is absolutely impossible for me, no
matter what I do, to be able to compete successfully in NBA basketball as
it is defined today....I'D GET CREAMED!!)

kat
Orange County, Calif.