Re: Fwd: RC: "Weighty issue"

["Susan Evans Garlinghouse" <suendavid@worldnet.att.net>]

I guess I would probably have to agree with Barb's opinion that dropping
weight divisions altogether might be the only fair solution.  As everyone
knows ad nauseum, I published several studies on the effects of weight on
endurance performance and while we found some interesting results, the basic
bottom line was that weight is just WAAAAAY too complicated an issue to be
able to easily score points for or against in BC judging.  Bigger horses
have to carry more of their own body weight, have a greater heat loss to
dissipate, may or may not have greater muscle mass, may or may not have
greater concussion stress to the front limbs than a smaller horse.  Smaller
horses may or may not have less bone or smaller feet, may or may not have
better heat dissipation, may or may not have better "suspension" along the
weight-carrying components of the back.  In general, we found that weight of
the horse made more of a difference than did weight of the rider---but you'd
never catch me in a million years saying with certainty that any combination
of rider or horse has an advantage over another based SOLELY on weight.

Just an opinion.

Susan Garlinghouse
-----Original Message-----
From: BMcCrary27@aol.com <BMcCrary27@aol.com>
To: SandyDSA@aol.com <SandyDSA@aol.com>
Cc: ridecamp@endurance.net <ridecamp@endurance.net>
Date: Tuesday, April 20, 1999 9:57 AM
Subject: RC: Fwd: RC: "Weighty issue"


>In a message dated 4/20/99 8:37:56 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
SandyDSA@aol.com
>writes:
>
><< Please understand, no disrespect intended here, and certainly I
understand
> this issue, having been on both sides, mostly the SHORT side :). But to
>start
> weighing in horses as well as riders....where will it end? We CHOOSE to
ride
> the horses we do. I wouldn't expect to do well in polo with my horses, but
> they ARE nice show and endurance horses. The system does not in itself
favor
> anyone in particualr; howveer, it DOES award the horses best suited to teh
> sport. >>
>
>Do I understand this thread correctly?  That someone is taking into
>consideration the weight of the horse in BC judging?  I've never heard of
>this before.  Have I missed something along the way?
>My personal opinion is to drop weight divisons entirely!  I realize a horse
>is supposed to be disadvantaged by carrying a heavy rider rather than a
light
>one, but I've seen a small (14.2, 850#) horse carry a light heavyweight
rider
>to a 2nd place (2nd only by a squeek).  I feel it is a rider's choice to
pick
>a horse that will carry his weight if the rider wishes to be very
competitive.
>I also feel that a lot of a horse's ability to finish in top position is in
>that horse's head, and the rider's.  This sport could be simplified by
>dropping the weight divisions.  Of course more divisons means more awards
>(happy riders, unhappy AERC bank account).
>Let the horse compete on his own merit.  If a rider weighs 250# w/tack,
then
>ride a horse that can carry 250# w/tack!
>Realize here that I'm a mathimatically challenged person.  I'm also
prepared
>to take whatever flack may come my way.  My husband certainly doesn't agree
>with me, even though he was the one who rode my little horse to that 2nd
>place.
>It's just that the more AERC tries to make all riders happy, the less it is
>able to do so.
>
>The above opinions are mine and in no way are meant to reflect the opinions
>or policy of AERC.
>
>Barbara McCrary
>
>
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.
>Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/RideCamp
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
>



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.    
Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/RideCamp   
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=