What's in a name?

After reading a recent intriguing article on ‘Changing the name of Eventing’, it prompted some thoughts of my own, as articles should I guess. It got me thinking about the meaning of eventing and what we, as the eventing fraternity, have built it up to be. Eventing first began in France 1902, with it becoming an Olympic sport somewhat later in 1912. Originally known as ‘Combined Training’, the aim was to test the Cavalry Officers’ ‘chargers’ (horses) fitness and stability levels. The dressage phase was designed to demonstrate the horses’ ability to perform, exhibiting a level of elegance. Cross-Country, as we now know it as, tested the stamina of the horses, their courage and bravery over a long period of time and difficult terrain. And finally, show-jumping was designed to prove the continued soundness of the horse following the first two phases. These characteristics may sound awfully familiar for most eventing personnel’s, as we require OUR horses to display exemplary courage, stamina, elegance and soundness during our three testing stages.

Learning about the eventing origins really made me wonder about what would possess us to want to change the name. There is a great deal of history related to this sport, and therefore by changing the name are we not disregarding those eventing veterans’ achievements? Would those achievements be associated with this new name? Although the counter argument could state that in order for the sport to progress, the change is needed.

Rolex Kentucky writes, “This complete equestrian competition has only gained in popularity.” So why after so much time and energy has gone into this sport, would we change the name? Arguments state that the name eventing doesn’t have a strong enough ‘meaning’, disallowing people to understand, to the full extent, what eventing actually is. But the same can be said for cricket, or hockey. Without managing the publicity for any sport, what is it? So I pitch this to you. I believe, without changing the name of eventing, we CAN publicise the sport in a more effective way, consequently increasing the attraction of eventing. Perhaps complaining that it is too hard to broadcast the sport isn’t the right way to go about this issue. If rally cars and motor racing, both of which follow courses equivalent to that of cross-country, can broadcast their sport effectively on sky sport, why can’t New Zealand eventing? Let us follow in the footsteps of those of the likes of Badminton and Kentucky. Isn’t broadcasting our sport for others to enjoy a far more effective way to grab the minds of the public rather than creating confusion over changing the name?

Eventing may always come up with a red line underneath it when written on a word document, but to us eventers, or perhaps just myself, the title ‘Eventing’ means something. Just as cricket did for Mark Richardson, cycling did for Lance Armstrong and tennis did for Roger Federer. I think all sports possess something people yearn to change. Perhaps the scoring system in tennis doesn’t make entire sense to some. But, that system is logical to the thousands that enjoy the sport, so why change it for the others that simply cannot grasp it? To change the name of eventing would be a huge ordeal. It would simply mean a lot of, in my opinion, unnecessary changing. And for what? We aren’t guaranteed that changing the name will attract more attention to the sport, which perhaps those in charge want in order to bring in greater support. But why not try and generate more support for a name that already means so much to the people involved?  

Is this just a case of change for change sake, or is this the national flag situation all over again? Would changing the name of eventing really benefit the sport?