Re: LD vs CTR (long: I deserve an editor!)

[Teddy Lancaster <Teddy@runningbear.com>]

Glenn, IMO, you got it right...the LD system is
flawed....supposedly we are not rewarding "winners", so why are we
doing it?  I, for one, when I managed rides, gave everyone who
finished a blue ribbon that said "To Finish is to Win" and I meant
it...this business of getting to a 60 pulse just does not get
it...It does NOT work and it is a JOKE.  I ride for fun and LD's
are sometimes they only distance I and/or the horse are ready for.
Besides, I get to sit around camp and gab longer....

Teddy


Glenn Foster wrote:

> I just filled out the LD questionaire from AERC,
> and then found more of the "Great LD Debate" on
> today's ridecamp postings.  I was planning to
> maintain my proper humility as a novice and stay
> out, but I guess I just cant resist.   Just one
> comment before I dive in.  What follows is what
> I believe to be true right now.  I'm definitely
> still learning and reserve the right to change
> my mind on any of this at any moment if someone
> can show me a good reason to.
>
> The AERC LD questionaire was a little frustrating
> just because it was all about "LD" as though
> AERC LD was the only way to do 25 miles. I read at
> least part of last year's LD Debate in the archives
> before subscribing to ridecamp.  At that time,
> the argument against 25 mile rides seemed to be all
> in the form of "it'll be a flat race and they'll
> kill their horses", an argument I personally think
> has considerable merit if the rules don't clearly
> discourage "racing".
>
> Between that and my experience last summer as a
> first time rider doing UMECRA, AHAM and AHAO CTR's,
> I had come to the conclusion that there really
> is a place for shorter (ie 25 mile) rides, but
> that the AERC LD is flawed, and a better approach
> is the kind of "CTR" done in the midwest,
> (also southeast ?).  The essential rules difference
> from endurance is that the scoring includes point
> penalties for going either too fast or too slow.
> The addition of the time rule (BOTH PARTS) is all
> that is needed to make a 25 mile event both
> competitive and reasonably safe.  Too fast/too slow
> implies a ten minute "window" in which you can
> finish with no penalties.  In effect everybody does
> about the same average speed.  The only contest
> is the equivalent of "best condition".
>
> Let me hasten, though, to agree at the outset with
> those who say a 25 mile ride is NOT an endurance ride.
> To just finish does not have the same meaning as in
> true endurance.  It does have some meaning.  99 % of
> the horses around could probably finish 25 miles,
> if they lived in pastures instead of paddocks, and if
> their riders ever got them to the start.  But
> 99.999999999999999 % of the people around would never
> ever go through the kind of effort it takes to
> "get it all together", learn to ride outside an arena,
> train and condition the team, get the horse to the ride
> scene and find their way down a strange trail through
> the woods, cross the scary bridges, etc.  It could be
> a really long walk back if you fall off and your partner
> goes home without you (mine did once on a training ride
> -- <grin and blush>).  An accomplishment, yes.
> Just not an endurance achievement.
>
> The minimum time (with a points penalty for too fast)
> protects the horse.  At least the rules make sure no one
> is motivated to "speed".  This is also a lot stronger
> than the current AERC LD rule.  AERC tries to avoid
> rewarding speed (no "official" first,second,third
> placing), but this rule makes it clear by providing
> a formal penalty.
>
> The maximum time (with points penalty for too slow)
> makes sure that enough work is done to stress the
> horse so that small problems or lack of conditioning
> or riding and management shortcomings will _start_
> to show up.  The actual riding speed is typically
> about 6.5 - 7 mph.  This is enough to insure
> that the vet exam will be able to separate
> horses/teams based on which are "more ready".
> By the way, for those who haven't tried it, the
> technical problem of finishing within the time
> window seemed to be really easy.  The challenge
> is to have the soundest horse with you when you do.
>
> Even though all teams go at approximately the
> same average speed, they definitely do not end up
> all riding together.  There will typically be some
> groups who choose to do so, but different groups
> and individual riders all seem to "ride their own
> ride" and go at widely different paces in different
> places, just like in an endurance ride.
>
> Even though the achievement itself is not endurance,
> and "to finish is to win" just isn't applicable in
> the same way, the preparation and skills tested,
> and results measured are the same ones that apply
> to endurance.   A higher score does indicate a better
> prepared / more successful team.  In fact, I think
> I would give more weight to a first place finish in
> one of these than to a "best condition" in an AERC LD
> where there were only a few entries and the entire
> ride might have been at a walk.
>
> >From a training standpoint, both horse evaluation and
> training of the rider (lot's of us wish we had grown
> up on a ranch but didn't), it really isn't practical to
> get this kind of evaluation "at home".  I can't really
> ask a local veterinarian to stand around for hours
> while I do a training ride, so he can do a pre and
> post-ride check.  Local veterinarians, even race-horse
> veterinarians or riding-school-trainers with no endurance
> experience would not necessarily be able to help me
> learn and find the beginnings of problems that show
> up in a real endurance ride.  It isn't fair to expect
> them to.  Some of the ride vets have been doing this
> for 20 years or more.  It is a specialty.  I learned
> as much from those examinations at the four rides I
> went to last year as I had in 5 years of reading books
> and taking care of three horses at home.
>
> My personal ambition is to move up to longer distances
> and true endurance, but that doesn't mean everyone
> should feel this way, or that I always will, or that
> that is the only thing I will ever do.  It is certainly
> an "honorable thing" to train and condition the horse-rider
> team for distance riding and then test the results in
> this format.  At one of the Sunday rides I went to I
> was told that most of the horses in the 25 CTR had done
> the 50 Endurance on Saturday.  "Fit to continue", and
> proving it by doing another 25 at a respectable pace
> but short of racing !
>
> There may be purely practical reasons for not being able
> to ride 50 or 100 miles, and these reasons might not prevent
> the necessary conditioning.  All of the rides around
> here are 4 to 6 hours away.  It isn't always practical
> to take a Friday off work to do that drive, so getting
> to the ride in time to vet in before dark Friday may be
> just impossible.  Ride management and the Veterinary staff
> probably would have co-operated with a Saturday morning
> vet-in, but frankly I don't think it would be fair of me
> to put that burden on others, especially not for my
> first season, and there would be no opportunity to walk
> part of the trail, etc.
>
> A Sunday 25 can be accomplished by driving there Saturday,
> resting, relaxing, and walking part of the trail Saturday
> afternoon and evening, then riding Sunday morning and
> driving home late Sunday afternoon.
>
> In my case this has nothing to do with conditioning.  There
> can be plenty of riding time even if you cant really get
> long weekends.  Dansyn Dominique and I just have lots of
> night-riding practice already.  Of course, if everybody
> else wants to start the 100 at noon Saturday, ride through
> the night and finish noon Sunday ...
>
> There really should be a National standard for these rides,
> and it really should be AERC.  Aside from being the only
> really national organization around, AERC seems to have a
> strong professional veterinary support and focus which is
> critically important to any format that actually tests the
> horse's condition.  I don't beleive this would benefit from
> being diffused among numerous organizations.
>
> The proliferation of regional organizations is actually a
> little confusing and frustrating, especially to newcomers.
> So far as I know those first few (135) miles I rode last
> year are not recorded with any organization.  Between UMECRA,
> GLDRA, AHAM, and AHAO, and forms to mail in after the ride,
> it was just too much confusion and trouble to bother with
> records.  Not really important to me at all, and they should
> NOT be confused with endurance miles, but I suppose it would
> have been nice, and it could be a big deal to a lot of people.
> (For this year I plan to just stick to GLDRA, so that's all
> taken care of for me.)  All of these organizations seem to
> play a vital role in actually getting rides organized,
> scheduled and supported on the ground, but they probably
> can't perform the traditional role of AERC in providing
> standards and record-keeping.
>
> If AERC doesn't provide the focus and recognition, then
> someone else might.  The only other national group around
> seems to be IAHA and even though my horses are both arabs,
> I dont like the idea that what we do should ever become
> tied to a breed.  I want to keep on proving my special
> horses against everything out there.
>
> I would suggest that below about 50 miles the "CTR format"
> always makes more sense than the "endurance format", and
> the "CTR format" makes the shorter rides a meaningful
> test.  In rides around 50 miles there might be good
> arguments favoring either format.  By the time you get
> up to 100 miles the "speed rule" would probably be
> inappropriate.  At 100 miles the reality of the thing
> takes over and overwhelms the rules.  That's Endurance!
>
> Maybe there should be a new name for these rides.  Always
> sounds like a "politics" thing to change the name, but
> sometimes that can actually clear things up.  The word
> "Endurance" really is misleading.  The word "CTR" seems
> to confuse a lot of people because of its association with
> complex and irrelevant rules from other organizations.
> "Limited Distance" seems to have been an attempt to make
> it "Junior Endurance", but that's not really fair either.
>
> What's a better name? "Distance Riding Trial" ?
> "Distance Riding Test" ? "Endurance Training Trial" ?
> "Distance Horse Trial?" "Distance Riding Competition" ?
> I dunno.
>
> Again, I'm definitely still learning and will probably change
> my mind about at least some of the foregoing before the end
> of the week.  (and its already Thursday !) It's just that
> I've felt for a while now that the argument for adding the
> speed rule to the LD is really compelling and that there
> are good reasons to look for ways to deal with shorter
> distances.
>
> Just one last thing... Did I ever feel the least put down by
> "50 milers" ? Not hardly!  At my first ride the vet spent at
> least an extra half-hour with me to help me understand
> everything going on.  Then he asked if I had a water bucket
> with a cover, to put in the truck to go to the mid-point
> check.  When I didn't, one of the "50 milers" went and got
> hers (along with a bunch of apples and carrots).  I dutifully
> filled it and set it out to go like they had told me.  When
> I got to the mid-point check the bucket was there just as
> promised.  What I wasn't expecting was the same "50 miler"
> was also there and proceeded to take us in hand and act as
> "crew" through the check!  Everything Becke Gramm told you
> about Michigan riders is true. Cold winters / warm horsepeople.
>
> Glenn Foster
> SE Michigan