The levels, bottom to top---

[denny]

So let`s create a list of our sport`s levels, and what they SHOULD be:
1. Maiden, minnow, grasshopper, whatever the name, this is the tiny fence, no speed taken, totally introductory level.
Most of the unrec. trials in Vt and NC run these, and they work well, I think, for those who need them, horses and riders.
What should they be?
2. Beginner novice
3. Novice
These are the 2 huge divisions in American eventing. Can we help Kevin and the task force
determine what WE want/need?
4. Training. Here the test begins to be a test. How much of one is appropriate?
5. Preliminary.
This has been described as the hardest of the easy levels, and also as the easiest of the hard levels.
This level may be the trickiest to work out, because there`s such disagreement about what it SHOULD be.
Can there be a 2 track prelim division, one for "destination" riders, for whom prelim will be their top goal, and another "move through" division, for those preparing for Intermediate and higher?
Our sport really needs to figure this out, I think.
6. Intermediate---Hard and testing and fast, we all realize.
How hard, testing and fast, and how to achieve that?
7. Advanced
a. 3- star
b.4-star
Level 7 is reserved for less than 1% of riders/horses.
It`s it`s own world, and as such, not in USA control, at least not totally, as the FEI is strongly involved.
Maybe outside of what a US task force can realistically address.
Thoughts, suggestions for Kevin and Co?

[mellsmom]

1) Introductory- Intro B dressage, 8-10 cross rails or 2' verticles in stadium. 10 18" - 2' XC obstacles, no water, no drops, no banks. Very easy straight forward

2) BN, Dressage... Stadium..... XC- No combinations. Gallopy courses without tricky questions. UP banks, but no drops.... simple water crossings. If possible the option to hop up a bank out of the water at our discretion as we get miles. 12- 14 nice solid fences that are not overly decorated and are not too visually stimulating. There is where your baby horses and newby riders go to get miles. Let's get them both in a mindset to go boldly forward.

3) N- XC - Can we see some flagged options here? Seriously, we want the same gallopy XC courses as BN, but with the option to add some degree of difficulty as we get more miles. Leave it up to the competitor to challenge themselves as they want to move up. Those new to the division can do the more straightforward course, those wishing to move up can challenge themselves more. Riders can then use their own judgement to ride what they are ready for. Since there's no course rating system, and no course regulation to speak of, at least give a rider the chance to opt out of things they are not ready for.. and for others to opt into things they want to experience to prepare for the next level.

As for the upper levels, I can't comment as I'm not at that level.... Just make it more doable for the horses and stop trying to make it an extreme sport like snowboarding. I don't want to watch XC and think Oh My God.... at every fence and worry about horses and riders not making it back to the barn safely.

[sharri13]

Denny - I like your ideas. However, I'm on the fence about a 2-track preliminary. I am concerned about the extra work for the volunteers, facility owners, builders, etc., and the standard of competition between the 2 tracks. Leading into.....
Over all, I feel we need to return to cross country, and move away from stad-oss country. Personally, I like having the optimum time and do not agree with removing the optimum time from any level. I think this is all part of the game. Just as options are given on some XC courses, riders must chose to take the easier route or to not press to make the optimum time to safeguard themselves and their horse. I think we need to lessen the number of combinations on cross country. Ten years ago, if someone told me there would be bounce combinations on XC, I would have laughed - but this is our current reality. I miss the big galloping courses with massive gallop fences (granted, there were several combinations on these courses as well, but not nearly the number there are now) - the ones that made you say "Sh*t that's big" but rode beautifully. Intermediate just doesn't look as fun as it used too.

[inquisitive]

I want to agree with what mellsmom has said about Intro, BN and N. I will add I think a small ditch is appropriate at BN, or just a 'gravel spread' simulating a ditch.

The only thing I will say is that I would hate to see Prelim broken up. While I understand that many people think of Prelim as either end-point or just the beginning, I believe it is one level and should be considered as one. I would be especially disappointed if USEA forced us to be in one or the other (eg. ammies in an 'easier' prelim). Instead, a better option IMO is to continue mellsmom idea and give more options on a single course, at all levels. After all, people have different goals not just in the entire spectrum of levels but within a level and even at a particular event. Or this might just be better accomplished by giving better descriptions of the level at each individual event, so people know what event will meet their needs and provide the proper challenge. This is not, to say, that I think people should know exactly what a course is going to be like, that kind of defeats the purpose...

I liked a lot of the questions posed in the taskforce goals (http://www.useventing.com/aboutus.php?id=1451).

[c_expresso]

I LOVE the idea of more options on course. It would be a great thing for people that just moved up, or people planning on moving up soon. To make things simpler, there could be "hard BN" and "easy N" jumps that are shared, and then "hard N" and "easy T" jumps that are shared, and "hard T" and "easy P" jumps that are shared, and so on. That would also make it easier for the course builders, so there would be a lot of shared jumps opposed to two different sets of jumps for each level.

Also I would like to see more "questions from the level above" offered at smaller heights as options. For example, an option on a training course for a bounce, but very small in height. I think if these types of options were offered, riders and horses would be more comfortable with them BEFORE they are asked at full height at the level they are "supposed" to be asked at. The more comfortable people/horses are with certain questions will bring down the accident risk factor, IMO.

[DLee]

I love Mellsmom's idea about options at Novice. Makes total sense to me! For me (and a lot of people I know) the move up from Novice to Training is big.

[wannabegifted]

Honestly I think there should be a level under BN for the younger riders on young horses or ponies who are not ready to do the larger BN jumps (ok ok, may not be LARGE, but when your ten and just starting out, 2'7" or 2'9" or whatever it is is BIG!)

I also think that maybe T/P should be really utilized or I/P,but instead of using the Prelim course for the I/P and Training course for the T/P there should be some sort of middle ground, middle speed and maybe combo's similar to those at the higher level, but smaller. We need more "steps" in our ladder.

[JER]

I'd like Prelim to be more like Novice in the UK. I've ridden courses with lots of great stuff -- complicated waters, fences in situations where you have to really think about the natural terrain, downhill galloping fences -- but the fences aren't all maxed out. Some are T height or less. You get the complexity without the height yet nothing feels dumbed down.

[sisu27]

Jazzy you are from Ontario...would you say this is an apt description of pre-entry, entry and pre-training here?

1) Introductory- Intro B dressage, 8-10 cross rails or 2' verticles in stadium. 10 18" - 2' XC obstacles, no water, no drops, no banks. Very easy straight forward

2) BN, Dressage... Stadium..... XC- No combinations. Gallopy courses without tricky questions. UP banks, but no drops.... simple water crossings. If possible the option to hop up a bank out of the water at our discretion as we get miles. 12- 14 nice solid fences that are not overly decorated and are not too visually stimulating. There is where your baby horses and newby riders go to get miles. Let's get them both in a mindset to go boldly forward.

3) N- XC - Can we see some flagged options here? Seriously, we want the same gallopy XC courses as BN, but with the option to add some degree of difficulty as we get more miles. Leave it up to the competitor to challenge themselves as they want to move up. Those new to the division can do the more straightforward course, those wishing to move up can challenge themselves more. Riders can then use their own judgement to ride what they are ready for. Since there's no course rating system, and no course regulation to speak of, at least give a rider the chance to opt out of things they are not ready for.. and for others to opt into things they want to experience to prepare for the next level.

As for the upper levels, I can't comment as I'm not at that level.... Just make it more doable for the horses and stop trying to make it an extreme sport like snowboarding. I don't want to watch XC and think Oh My God.... at every fence and worry about horses and riders not making it back to the barn safely.

[Debbie]

1. Having jump judged a ton of these, I think the bar needs to be raised a little. I think the dressage test should require canter -- even if it's just establish the canter through a corner and down some portion of the long side. Competing in a sport that requires riding across country at even the smallest level means that a rider should be prepared to canter.

2. BN - open and inviting cross country, no related distances required.

3. N - still open and inviting, but add related distances with 2 strides minimum. Single fences should start to have terrain issues as part of the question - fences at tops or bottoms of slopes and off turns.

4. T - here the bar raises from learning cross country to having a skill set that can handle related distances with terrain questions added into the equation. Still encourage the horse and rider forward.

I haven't walked courses above training with an eye towards riding them, so won't comment other than to say that I'm not wild about a 2-track system for a number of reasons, but they boil down to a Prelim rider is a prelim rider is a prelim rider and same for the horse. You and your horse either have the stuff to do the level which is appropriate and safe as a progression to I & A or you don't. There is no God-given right to progress in this sport, you earn it with hours in the saddle and some degree of native talent/reflexes that prepare you to handle the questions. I think eventing through training should be accessible to riders and horses with basic skill sets and training. I've always regarded Prelim as where those with a little more strut start to step up.

[CanTango1]

Ill take a shot as well mainly just to voice my concerns and stance on the
"situation"

Ive never evented in my life, While I'm from a Hunter/Jumper backround, I have fox-hunted, paper chased and grew up going X-C. So while not entirely new to the "problem area of the sport" you can take my post as a grain of salt.

I have an OTTB after seeing him move and mainly Jump, he will never be a hunter, Eventing is the end "goal" and now with such issues arising and walking my first courses and fence judging for the first time this past spring I truly think I will never have the desire to go above novice.

I dont think the issues with the sport are in the lower levels. Truly they are at heights and questions suitable for a team just starting out. Our first event will be BN, Fun, Inviting and not challenging ( at least not for myself or my horse ) We will move up when hes ready and he tells me so.

I love the idea of having options, even on a BN course having a water, a bank but having routes around said questions. My horse has done everything but a ditch ( which we do not have at our home farm) I would love to have all these questions presented to him in a enviroment thats not over facing or scary for him in a nice easy course I know we can get around and still smile at the end.This way once we move up theres still a ditch but added with a jump a few strides out... or whatever but I would like to build on our learning and not move up and present obstacles hes never seen in a competion atmosphere.

Im not even going to touch Prelim and above as I will probably never get there and at this point have no desire to, Frankly it scares the Bejesus outta me, and Im known to be bold ( obviously not compared to some of you) !!! But Im def. not on a packer by any means and hes still trying to figure out what excally to do with his feet !!!

I will say this though : While I like the idea of having a 2 track prelim. Im not sure .........Maybe a rule implemented that each horse and each rider needs to compete in at least 3 Prelims SUCCESSFULLY before a move up may be made. Successfully is no penelties.After so many "attempts" at one level the horse and rider must drop a level, compete there successfully before another attempt may be made at the move up. Its just a toss around..............

While some say they dont want it to turn into an "extreme sport " it already is. I mean who in there right mind gets on a 1,200 lb animal and expects them do some of the things we ask them to ?? Only horse people, and while snow boarding is dangerous so is trying to control an animal with a mind of their own.But some how we've done it.


I think it gotten to outta hand,sure spectators wanna see what is appealing to the eye, But at the end of the day everyone should be safe and ready for the next day. There has to be some common ground. We just need to find it and keep this sport challenging, but safe.


Ok Im done. :lol:

[Hony]

[QUOTE=CanTango1;3120871
I love the idea of having options, even on a BN course having a water, a bank but having routes around said questions. My horse has done everything but a ditch ( which we do not have at our home farm) I would love to have all these questions presented to him in a enviroment thats not over facing or scary for him in a nice easy course I know we can get around and still smile at the end.This way once we move up theres still a ditch but added with a jump a few strides out... or whatever but I would like to build on our learning and not move up and present obstacles hes never seen in a competion atmosphere.
[/QUOTE]

The problem with options at BN is that time isn't really a factor so there is no real incentive for riders to go the straight route.

[CanTango1]

Yes I agree, But going along with the whole, BN should be easy peezy, super inviting etc etc. I would want some sort of challenge like a water or a ditch. If you/or the horse are not comfortable with it, give them the option to go around. Your right there is no time. Personally I would take every question presented at that level that I felt comfortable with. Why ?? Because when I move up those questions are going to be there anyway.

[4Martini]

The problem with options at BN is that time isn't really a factor so there is no real incentive for riders to go the straight route.

I, as a BN rider would love to see options. I'd prefer this over taking out the fun stuff like down banks, ditches and water. I love the mini real cross country obsticals. Just because eukanuba snookums and I don't want to go novice b/c I'm a wuss and he's old doesn't mean we shouldn't get to play in the water and on the drops. Really, I think these should be required and starter trials should be the place to go to "no water" or "no ditch" events. I would also love BN to be flagged big enough that we can jump into or wade into the water and jump out or wade out.

I do however think it is totally rediculous to let people go cross country who can't do canter in a dressage test. If you can't canter in a dressage ring you shouldn't be doing it in an open field. I was always bummed when we did starter trials that the dressage was a little bit rediculous.

There is one even near us in the fall that runs a totally differend OBN - a move up course and BNR and BNH which are 2'3" max. I liked this idea and ~half of the OBN jumps were novice jumps - so I don't think they actually needed that many more jumps. That was a good option in my opinion. I was eligible for BNR, but just entered OBN as I wanted to tackle that course.

Pretty much I like the BN courses I've seen as is. Except I would like the speed to be 325 or 300 rather than 350.

[pinkngreen]

Ten years ago, if someone told me there would be bounce combinations on XC, I would have laughed - but this is our current reality. There were bounce combo's at prelim and above over 10 years ago.

[imapepper]

I LOVE the idea of more options on course. It would be a great thing for people that just moved up, or people planning on moving up soon. To make things simpler, there could be "hard BN" and "easy N" jumps that are shared, and then "hard N" and "easy T" jumps that are shared, and "hard T" and "easy P" jumps that are shared, and so on. That would also make it easier for the course builders, so there would be a lot of shared jumps opposed to two different sets of jumps for each level.

Also I would like to see more "questions from the level above" offered at smaller heights as options. For example, an option on a training course for a bounce, but very small in height. I think if these types of options were offered, riders and horses would be more comfortable with them BEFORE they are asked at full height at the level they are "supposed" to be asked at. The more comfortable people/horses are with certain questions will bring down the accident risk factor, IMO.

Great idea! That way if you are thinking about moving up, you can ease into it by riding at your level but choosing the more difficult options to prepare for move up. I believe that there was a thread about having a between division for Training and Prelim and I think option fences would solve that :)

4Martini: Eukanuba Snookums :lol: :lol: :lol: Good thing I wasn't sipping my coffee when I read that.

[deltawave]

I don't like a distinct "two track" system for Preliminary, either, but could there not be more use made of OPTIONS? For instance, if you're a BNR taking an up-and-coming horse around for experience, by all means do all the hard options. You don't care about the ribbons anyway, right? :lol: If you're trying to qualify for a CCI* or Intermediate, OK, you MUST do at least "X" number of options on a Prelim XC course to make it a qualifying score, but you still have the choice of WHICH options, or NO options if you're not having a great day. You can still complete, even be competitive if that's important to you, save the qualifying score for another day when you're more on your game or the course suits your horse better.

[tommygirl]

It does seem that the options have all but disappeared. Back in the 90's, if there was a corner, bounce or other difficult fence/combination on a prelim track, there was usually an optional route. Sometimes it was a "B" element around a corner going the wrong way, but at least you had the option of taking an easy route. Now, I hardly ever see an option on these courses. These options would eliminate the "need" for two tracks, and give people a better way to "test" their horses, or build confidence - a choice that is up to the rider anyway.

[riva1]

I love the idea of flagging different options for BN - Training. I'd like to think that most of us will always push ourselves - when we're ready. We can also gauge ourselves while on course. Sometimes, my OTTB is LOOKING for an excuse to get himself worked up, other days, he's got the 'I can conquer the world' attitude. :D
Moving up each level, there are added technical jumps. How about saying the intro to a new type of technical jump, the max height will be based on the previous levels'. For example, in Training level, now you can be asked to jump a ramp downhill. The maximum height would be based on novice level - 2'9" (right?) Is there a way to categorize the new types of jumps / technical questions that are added at each level? I know while walking a course, I'm going to feel much more confident tackling a new challenge at a height which is more than comfortable to my horse.
With the prelim level - perhaps at that stage, we can mandate a standard 'course difficulty' rating. That way, when your new to that division, it's simple to know which is a good 'move up' or 'move on' event.
With all this being said...I can't imagine how difficult it is to put on an event. Let's remember that is is very generous of land owners to build these courses and organize these events for us. I certainly don't want to make it too difficult for the organizers of events to offer the event! :eek:

[Fence2Fence]

Like others have mentioned, I would like to see optional ditch, water, up/down bank at BN. At Novice, I certainly want to see pass through water and up/down bank...and an optional ditch.

[Lori B]

Put me down as a strong second for the idea that the introductory / tadpole level should have cantering in the dressage test. If I can't canter comfortably, then I'm not ready to be there period.

Also, some courses put that level's XC on a separate, tiny course, which I think is not helpful. Being out in the open is the whole point, and can be one of the most important introductory elements in the whole experience.

[fooler]

Quoting Debbie
1. Having jump judged a ton of these, I think the bar needs to be raised a little. I think the dressage test should require canter -- even if it's just establish the canter through a corner and down some portion of the long side. Competing in a sport that requires riding across country at even the smallest level means that a rider should be prepared to canter.

2. BN - open and inviting cross country, no related distances required.

3. N - still open and inviting, but add related distances with 2 strides minimum. Single fences should start to have terrain issues as part of the question - fences at tops or bottoms of slopes and off turns.

4. T - here the bar raises from learning cross country to having a skill set that can handle related distances with terrain questions added into the equation. Still encourage the horse and rider forward.

I haven't walked courses above training with an eye towards riding them, so won't comment other than to say that I'm not wild about a 2-track system for a number of reasons, but they boil down to a Prelim rider is a prelim rider is a prelim rider and same for the horse. You and your horse either have the stuff to do the level which is appropriate and safe as a progression to I & A or you don't. There is no God-given right to progress in this sport, you earn it with hours in the saddle and some degree of native talent/reflexes that prepare you to handle the questions. I think eventing through training should be accessible to riders and horses with basic skill sets and training. I've always regarded Prelim as where those with a little more strut start to step up.

I agree completely. Spoken as one trying to find that strut again :)

[retreadeventer]

I would like to address the Novice - Training level morph.

I agree with the Introductory level. I would like to see this become the tiniest smallest level, very like Beginner Novice is now but smaller in some places and way easier stadium.
Yes, must canter in the dressage, but very basic.
The current Beginner Novice should now be called Pre Novice I think. Let's lose that "beginner" label.

Pre Novice should be same as Beg. Nov. now but longer xc course with perhaps 2 more jumps. No in and outs in stadium or cross country. Very few related fences. A bank, a pass thru simple unrevetted water, couple of oxers, wide faces. Afew changes from current in that we are lengthening the xc a little but basically same.

Novice ramps up a tad. In and outs. small bank into water but none out yet, keep the unrevetted water out. no jumps out within five strides of water out.
half coffins in mini. oxers in stadium, triple bars - all small. longer xc than current with 2 to 4 more fences. wide inviting faces. all fences with clear approaches. No "bumps" up or down yet. Think halfway to Training with this division. The dressage test needs to take the transitions off the the corners and put them on the straight stretches and there should be one lengthening at trot and one at canter. A 15 m circle at trot.

These three divisions will contain most of the competitors. Essentially splitting what is now two div. to three. The new Training now will be harder than current training because what I have tried to do is create a bit more of a transition upward from current BN - N. The new Novice will feed more prepared riders and horses into training, at least, that is my hope. Also, it takes the current dressage race at novice and adds some more difficulty which I hope will make the novice more competitive and helpful to organizers for scoring and sorting purposes. I would imagine the green horse and experienced rider will try PreNovice FIRST and may stay at that level longer than current BN greenhorse/exprider combinations do now. Because they will see a bit more there now.

Training - i would like to see lengthening at trot and canter, plus shoulder in or leg yieldat the B test. 10 m circle trots. 15 m. circle canters.

Stadium allowed a triple. XC lengthened. Combinations of two strides allowed on xc. Bank in and out of water. No jumps after water outside of 3 strides. no combinations before or after water. no stacked combinations. no downhill turns. all fences MUST have discernable ground lines. jump in to dark, jump out of dark but the the out of dark may not be downhill. Training will be ramped up slightly to allow a few more stadium things that are like baby prelim. What I hope to do here is prepare train. level for the prelim which stays basically same as it is now. So that means train. is a bit more all around. But that is bec. Novice is a bit more all around.

????? Anyone???

[justdream2ride]

retreadeventer

I agree!!

I think having "three lower levels" instead of two would be a fantistic way to give more steps to the ladder.

[CanTango1]

Sorry guys, But I really dont agree with adding another level to the lower levels. Sheesh- We have Elem or BBN, BN, and N. In my opinion if your not ready for at least Elem. you need to stay home and get some more mileage anyway.A move up is already only 3in at a time anyway.Adding options would alleviate an addition as it is and maybe even eventually do combine BN and N and give the options of either or.

While accidents happen I would be more concerned with how we can make the Upper Levels safer and more "friendly" this is where a majority of the issues are. Prelim is the make it and break it point. Lets figure out a way to make sure a team is ready and can handle it before putting them in a position they were not prepared for.

[Kcisawesome]

^sortof agreed. I think starter is an Excellent idea, but I think it should remain unrecognized. It can be very useful to get some milege on greenies without paying the big bucks and to give kids show experience in a safe and laid back way. But it should stay as just an intruductory thing..like a mock event. Not a real recognized event.

[mellsmom]

I don't feel the need to have the Intro level be recognized. Seriously, let people do schooling HT's and save the $$$$$ for when they move up. It would be nice though if standards for that level were written down, sort of like BN used to be.
I think it's ok to do a WT test at intro. Most people at that level are going to trot the XC anyway. Some horses just take a really long time to do a decent 20 meter canter circle. If we want to make it a WTC test, I think we'd have to re-write it so that the canter was once around the arena with no circle. Again, the intent of this division as it is around here, is a small taste of the sport with a 100% completion rate. A day in which no one parts company from their horse, no one leaves the event in tears and no horse is overfaced beyond his ability to recoup. And newby eventers get to experience the warmth and support of those wacky event people who, will go out of their way to find a nice thing to say about your ride no matter how hideous you thought it was. :-)

I am thoroughly delighted that other people see options in the courses as appropriate ways to challenge ourselves without adding additional divisions, etc. I think that might be an affordable solution for event hosts. Now, if we can just get the course designers on board with that :-)

[mbarrett]

Denny, I like this discussion! I agree with Mellsmon in terms of the fence and course descriptions.

I wrote to Kevin B. at the USEA and told him I would like to see BN be strickly a recreational division. No pros allowed. This is a place for people to compete who have a full time job, kids, a busy life. They ride 5-6 times a week, take lessons when possible, ride in clinics once in awhile and have a nice, safe horse. They are not interested, at this time, in moving up. These are the people who want to have FUN and be safe in eventing. They are the ones who are happy to stay in this division for whatever reason.

I am not totally against having another recognized division under BN. But I can understand those who believe there are plenty of starter level events out there.

[magnolia73]

Intro-
Include a canter in dressage. Include "optional" jumps on course. I did a course once where you had to jump a few simple logs, then could choose among other jumps to try. That way, you can choose based on your horse (or yourself) that day. Plus you get the experience of going around XC which may be as daunting for some pairs as the jumps.

[Janet]

Denny, I like this discussion! I agree with Mellsmon in terms of the fence and course descriptions.

I wrote to Kevin B. at the USEA and told him I would like to see BN be strickly a recreational division. No pros allowed.
Why would you want to prevent a pro from starting a horse at BN level(if the horse isn't ready for N)? MANY pros don't bother with BN, but some (including some who have been on "the Team") do like to start SOME of their horses there. BNH vs BNR should be sufficient to separate the "purely recreational".

I'd far rather see a pro take a horse out at BN if s/he thinks the horse needs it, than see the pro take the horse out a N before it is ready.

[CBudFrggy]

Janet--

What about BNHR--Beg. Nov. Horse and Rider?

[Janet]

Janet--

What about BNHR--Beg. Nov. Horse and Rider?
Yep- that would work too. Sometimes called "restricted" BN.

[denny]

I very much like the possibility of more options at prelim, assuming the organizer can swing the extra expense.
Example: At So Pines last weekend, the prelim had a fairly tough corner, pretty narrow, pretty high, pretty vertical. If you missed, you were done.
A slow, easier option would have been nice for the greener horses or riders. There are hundreds of such examples, I bet.
One reason I posted this whole concept was because there is so much energy flowing around right now, some positive, some negative,that I figured we could maybe use some of it to help Kevin`s Task Force, instead of frittering it away getting angry, which I must admit, is easy to do!
If we can get a handle on the levels below Intermediate, we`re automatically coping with, what, over 90% of our riders, maybe 95%, so it`s a most worthy cause.
Preliminary remains the great unknown, though. I`ve been to prelims that were just one step up from training, and others that were the last rung before intermediate, so if I had to define that level, I couldn`t do it.

[rabicon]

Put me down as a strong second for the idea that the introductory / tadpole level should have cantering in the dressage test. If I can't canter comfortably, then I'm not ready to be there period.

Also, some courses put that level's XC on a separate, tiny course, which I think is not helpful. Being out in the open is the whole point, and can be one of the most important introductory elements in the whole experience.

I disagree for one reason, we canter all the time ;) and can canter the 2'3 jumps in tadpole with no problem. The problem we have is his canter is just not good enough to move up to a cantering test. He tends to fall on his forehand and I'm trying to teach him (with trainer) to not do this. Also he canters and counterbends a lot right now so we are working this out. I don't think its fair that we have to jump a 18" class because our canter is not ready for the dressage test. The amoeba is 18" and is intro B test at some places around here and then at others their is no amoeba and the tadpole is 2'3 with intro B test. The places where amoeba is then the tadpole runs the beg. novice test A. So my horse just trots the 18" xrails or canters over them and really then has me in with 10 year olds :no: because my horses canter is not correct. I could do the canter dressage test, but why not have his canter correct and do it then go out and just make him get thru the test and have a bad test and bad experience for him by trying to force him into something.

[KBG Eventer]

I would like to address the Novice - Training level morph.

I agree with the Introductory level. I would like to see this become the tiniest smallest level, very like Beginner Novice is now but smaller in some places and way easier stadium.
Yes, must canter in the dressage, but very basic.
The current Beginner Novice should now be called Pre Novice I think. Let's lose that "beginner" label.

Pre Novice should be same as Beg. Nov. now but longer xc course with perhaps 2 more jumps. No in and outs in stadium or cross country. Very few related fences. A bank, a pass thru simple unrevetted water, couple of oxers, wide faces. Afew changes from current in that we are lengthening the xc a little but basically same.

Novice ramps up a tad. In and outs. small bank into water but none out yet, keep the unrevetted water out. no jumps out within five strides of water out.
half coffins in mini. oxers in stadium, triple bars - all small. longer xc than current with 2 to 4 more fences. wide inviting faces. all fences with clear approaches. No "bumps" up or down yet. Think halfway to Training with this division. The dressage test needs to take the transitions off the the corners and put them on the straight stretches and there should be one lengthening at trot and one at canter. A 15 m circle at trot.

These three divisions will contain most of the competitors. Essentially splitting what is now two div. to three. The new Training now will be harder than current training because what I have tried to do is create a bit more of a transition upward from current BN - N. The new Novice will feed more prepared riders and horses into training, at least, that is my hope. Also, it takes the current dressage race at novice and adds some more difficulty which I hope will make the novice more competitive and helpful to organizers for scoring and sorting purposes. I would imagine the green horse and experienced rider will try PreNovice FIRST and may stay at that level longer than current BN greenhorse/exprider combinations do now. Because they will see a bit more there now.

Training - i would like to see lengthening at trot and canter, plus shoulder in or leg yieldat the B test. 10 m circle trots. 15 m. circle canters.

Stadium allowed a triple. XC lengthened. Combinations of two strides allowed on xc. Bank in and out of water. No jumps after water outside of 3 strides. no combinations before or after water. no stacked combinations. no downhill turns. all fences MUST have discernable ground lines. jump in to dark, jump out of dark but the the out of dark may not be downhill. Training will be ramped up slightly to allow a few more stadium things that are like baby prelim. What I hope to do here is prepare train. level for the prelim which stays basically same as it is now. So that means train. is a bit more all around. But that is bec. Novice is a bit more all around.

????? Anyone???

I agree with some of that. I am not sure I agree that we need to recognize Entry level. People can go to a schooling show.

I pretty much agree with keeping Beginner Novice simple and inviting. I think the ditches at that level should be natural or VERY small coffin ditches. No drops. Maybe I have been lucky but most Beginner Novices I rode *were* inviting! There was a one stride in stadium at the 2006 AECs but no one had a problem with it. I think two strides are okay at Beginner Novice, but I know some people won't agree with me.

For Novice, do you think banks into water are easier than banks out? I am not trying to argue and maybe I read that wrong, but I am wondering if my thoughts that I would rather have banks out is in the minority. Also, I think small jumps coming out of the water are okay. Again, maybe I am in the minority here? Introducing some terrain or bumps is okay in my book. Just make the jumps that go along with it inviting and smaller. I had a BN sized rolltop that you went down a hill afterwards (not a drop off but you landed, stride, and started going down the hill) at my last horse trials. It rode well.

About Training...pretty much agree.

The last horse trial I went to this Spring had a log, two stride, coffin ditch, long four or short five with a log drop into water, and a jump at the edge of the water out, a full blown corner (not tapering...real corner!), A, B combo with narrow houses, and a narrow brush. However, the course rode very well for most people! It scared me. :lol:

[Speedy]

I favor more options as well - especially in the move from N to T - because T is where you begin to see some technicality and you just don't get enough exposure to that at a lower height at most N events - I actually think that move may be more difficult than the T to P move for that reason. That said, I would expect the options to result in significant time penalites - the riders who elect to take the harder line and do so successfully should be rewarded.

With regard to the canter at the very earliest levels - I tend to agree that canter should be required in the dressage test. Basic flatwork is the key to jumping - and if you can't canter in a straight line or on a 20m circle, I question whether or not you should be jumping. That isn't to say the horse should be through or whatever - but that isn't what's being tested at those levels, it is much more basic than that. I guess I might feel differently if, say, the dressage test was w/t and everyone was actually required to trot stadium and xc...then, theoretically, the skills sets would track from one phase to the other. Edited to add: I don't think these should be recognized levels. I don't really object to that, if that's what people want, but it would likely increase the costs to everyone and from what I can tell, most people who do these levels are very happy with the local stuff that they are going to as it is.

[rabicon]

I favor more options as well - especially in the move from N to T - because T is where you begin to see some technicality and you just don't get enough exposure to that at a lower height at most N events - I actually think that move may be more difficult than the T to P move for that reason. That said, I would expect the options to result in significant time penalites - the riders who elect to take the harder line and do so successfully should be rewarded.

With regard to the canter at the very earliest levels - I tend to agree that canter should be required in the dressage test. Basic flatwork is the key to jumping - and if you can't canter in a straight line or on a 20m circle, I question whether or not you should be jumping. That isn't to say the horse should be through or whatever - but that isn't what's being tested at those levels, it is much more basic than that. I guess I might feel differently if, say, the dressage test was w/t and everyone was actually required to trot stadium and xc...then, theoretically, the skills sets would track from one phase to the other.


I can canter my horse on a staight line and we can canter a 20 M circle but its not pretty. Its not dangerous but its not pretty ;) I have to disagree about what we are being judged on at that level. My test in intro gets lots of comments wheter it be-needs more bend, or to deep in the corner-or need more connection-needs more energy-to much energy-etc....
To me I believe they are judging on a lot more than just a simple eq. class in intro (at least with me) My guy and I have been doing hunters and jumpers for the past 1 1/2 years I've been jumping for the past 15 years, so I can safely navigate a horse thru a course. About 8 years ago I was doing 4' but this guy is green and theres no way, we go about 2'10 now. There is no reason I can't jump but there is a reason not to canter a 20M circle in a dressage test. Another big reason is my body. I sit very forward like a hunter and I've gotten over it in walk and trot but still working on it in canter. If they put in a canter on a tadpole test I wouldn't be able to show at all and what good would they do me or my horse?? :confused: Atleast now we can go out and get experience at show with dressage and xcountry (stadium is not big deal) and that's good for us both until the canter is good ;) Just my feelings. Now I also see that if you are talking about tiny kids that shouldn't be jumping at all yet then I understand, but that leaves the true beg. adults to dressage out in the cold.

[JER]

With regard to the canter at the very earliest levels - I tend to agree that canter should be required in the dressage test. Basic flatwork is the key to jumping - and if you can't canter in a straight line or on a 20m circle, I question whether or not you should be jumping.

I don't agree here. It takes a young horse a while -- sometimes a long while -- to develop any kind of straightness at the canter, and that includes straight lines and being straight on a circle.

I never jump in canter until the canter is adjustable; until then, we trot over fences. A horse can learn a lot about going over simple, low obstacles long before they can canter straight under saddle.

I think mellsmom got it right about the intro level:
Again, the intent of this division as it is around here, is a small taste of the sport with a 100% completion rate. A day in which no one parts company from their horse, no one leaves the event in tears and no horse is overfaced beyond his ability to recoup. And newby eventers get to experience the warmth and support of those wacky event people who, will go out of their way to find a nice thing to say about your ride no matter how hideous you thought it was.

This is exactly what I'd want intro to be.

[Lori B]

rabicon, the reason I think that the canter should be part of the lowest level's dressage test (whatever the heck you wanna call that level) is SAFETY and control. If riders aren't comfortable riding a canter even on the flat, at a show venue, then I think that more preparation is in order. I don't honestly think that the dressage-y correctness of canter is very much at issue at introductory level.

(I very much like calling it intro, by the way, rather than 'baby' this and 'tadpole' that.)

Sure, at intro (large X's and 2' verticals, logs, small oxers) we are likely to trot some if not all fences. But we trot fences for control, with the goal in mind of cantering courses, right?

[AlexMakowski]

I have never evented, except for my first unrec. BN this past Fall. I too come from a hunter/jumper background with a decent amount of foxhunting. My forte has been young horses. So I cant say what should be different, I can only say what I would like to expect to ride now that I finally have the right mare to persue eventing. She is relatively young, just turned six. I would hope that at the BN and N level every jump would be inviting and in no way 'test' the riders and horses skill. I dont mean any bufoon should be able to ride it. It should be more like a 'jump in a get your feet wet' situation to determine what you want. As I read through rules and regs. Im starting to worry just a tad about the height increases within all levels as riders attempt to move up. I really just dont want to blow my mare's mind with any real technicality in her first year(s) of eventing also. But like i said, Im a rookie and continuously learning, thank is great part to the people on this BB. THANK YOU!

[rabicon]

and thats what it is around here mellsmom. It's nice and Lord knows I was scared to do a 2'3 tadpole CC because I had never jumped this horse on a CC course and neither have I. As soon as we started going though the course was so easy (remember it is tadpole :lol:) that we trotted in between but picked up a canter about 4 strides out just so he was comfortable jumping it (he likes to canter jumps than trot them) He jumped the ditch and the bank like it was nothing and he made me so happy. Except for the scary coupe which he was terrified of, but we got over it!! :D Everyone there just said good job, you got him thru it and what a nice ride etc... and that makes you feel better starting out. It helps build your confidence. To be honest I was questioning doing it again before the course then afterwards well WE WILL DO IT AGAIN!!:)

[mbarrett]

Janet, in my letter to Kevin B., I stated that BN should be a recreational division. I agree, you can have restricted riders, maiden riders, limited riders, etc.

I did go on to say in my letter to Kevin, and not in this thread, that if pros. feel the need to ride in the BN division they should be able to with these conditions:
- Only green horses allowed. Horses that have never evented at a recognized event before, and only allow green horses to do this division up to two or three times. They them must move on to Novice.
- They will get a dressage score, XC and stadium score, but NO prizes, placings or awards. It will be strickly for schooling,
- They go LAST, after all the BN riders have gone. The reason for this is so they have time to actually coach their BN riders. Also, so they don't waste everyone's time when they ride and school the XC course. They seem to like to loop around jumps and through jumps and over jumps (and those not on the course), on and on... taking up everyone's time.

I firmly believe that there needs to be a division for the working class stiffs who love and support this sport. The crowd who want to have fun, don't take themselves too seriously, and want to enjoy the experience. People who want safe courses, not trickle down courses from the upper levels.

I have nothing against pros., but they shouldn't be riding in a BEGINNER division. I don't care if the horse is green or not. What's next, pros riding in 4-H and Pony Club so they can school green horses?

Please remember, not all areas of the country have numerous events in their area to choose from. In some places, events are few and far between. Also, in my area, there are very few good quality unrecognized events out there. I want to have a fun, safe time. Not necessarily riding against an ULR schooling a horse. I want to be riding against my PEERS.

[pass]

I think we need to utilize the other disciplines more. If one is not ready to go out at beginner novice, then maybe one should spend some time in the hunter ring. For some reason there is a stigmata associated with eventers riding in the hunter ring. If as a rider, you are not comfortable doing the long/short/rusty stirrup division, maybe you should wait before going out and trying cross country. Get comfortable doing at least the green division at 2'6". Then once you and your horse(if he happens to also be green) have had some mileage jumping strange fences with very nice, inviting construction, then start at the intro or beg novice level.

I feel that if we keep making the levels easier, we are doing ourselves and the sport a disservice. I am in support of change to help things become safer, and I believe that a better rating system to inform riders of the difficulty of each level would help people pick which course they were truly ready for.
But I also believe that raising the standard of the riders that event is part of that solution.
The improved standard of jump construction has made every level more jump-able. But that construction has made it so that more horses/riders are successful at the lower levels, without necessarily the education needed to progress. This then leads to an uneducated prelim horse/rider, which then leads to needing two tracks.

I think by adding too many options at the lower levels, you are once again making it about getting around and not the test of the horses/riders education. It becomes the equivalent of an "open book" test in school. There is a need to study at home, so that you are ready for the test at hand. Offer "extra credit"(a small corner option at training) if you want, but that is about it. I don't believe that the jump into water at training should be given an easier alternative. If anything give a training option on the novice course. That way you keep it a competition. If a rider is looking to move up, they can choose to challenge themselves by taking the harder risk because their goal is to move up, and in doing so risk a stop and a drop in the placings, but for those that are happy at novice(or whichever lower level you choose to insert here), you keep it a fair and level playing field. Novice=Novice, Training=Training, and so forth.

Dressage is part of the training process. If you can not get through a Training level 1 dressage test, don't go out cross country. Just because you have a field to make a right turn, does not mean it is ok to use that field. "Every child plays" is not a good motto.

[rabicon]

rabicon, the reason I think that the canter should be part of the lowest level's dressage test (whatever the heck you wanna call that level) is SAFETY and control. If riders aren't comfortable riding a canter even on the flat, at a show venue, then I think that more preparation is in order. I don't honestly think that the dressage-y correctness of canter is very much at issue at introductory level.

(I very much like calling it intro, by the way, rather than 'baby' this and 'tadpole' that.)

Sure, at intro (large X's and 2' verticals, logs, small oxers) we are likely to trot some if not all fences. But we trot fences for control, with the goal in mind of cantering courses, right?


I understand what your saying but for someone that is very capable of jumping the 2'3 fences and the trainers tell you your not ready to canter a 20M circle in a dressage test its not fair if we can't show. We can canter a 20M circle but I have switched trainers and both have said he is not ready to do it in a test. Now the one trainer was strictly dressage and the new trainer is eventing so they both said it so I trust what they say. The eventing trainer will tell you that the only big thing in jumping I have to work on is keeping my heels down :( Tend to have a problem with that. So why would they tell me that I'm not ready to canter it in a test yet but jumping we are really far along and work well together? I don't know, I'm not trying to agrue with you I just want you to understand where I'm coming from.:)

[Janet]

Example: At So Pines last weekend, the prelim had a fairly tough corner, pretty narrow, pretty high, pretty vertical. If you missed, you were done. Denny, FWIW, (If we are talking about the same thing) I was told that the corner was separately numbered (rather than being a "B" element) explicitly so the rider COULD chose to take an easier approach. Effectively an "option" without the black stripe.

Or are you saying that even with circling for the approach, it was still too narrow, high and vertical?

[Lori B]

You know what would make the lower levels more fun and productive to ride?

More CTs!!!!

They are cheap to enter (cheaper than an HT, certainly), they are less weather dependent, but they offer a lot of valuable experience / preparation for participation in full HTs.

I know I am risking getting my head handed to me by folks who love XC, but I think that a lot of LLRs could benefit from doing more CTs in combination with XC schooling before we get out in the big field and do a full HT. I know, I'm spoiled here in MD, where there are many such showing venues to choose from, but I still think that more participation in CTs is good for us.

[rabicon]

Okay, ours are C/T's some have dressage/stadium, and some are dressage/xcountry. Just GDCTA rec.' but it's a wonderful schooling experience before we move to the big leagues which will be atleast 1-2 years.

[inquisitive]

I have nothing against pros., but they shouldn't be riding in a BEGINNER division. I don't care if the horse is green or not. What's next, pros riding in 4-H and Pony Club so they can school green horses? ... I want to have a fun, safe time. Not necessarily riding against an ULR schooling a horse. I want to be riding against my PEERS.

Isn't that what BNR and the amateur divisions are for :confused:

There's no reason why pros shouldn't be able to compete in BN, albeit in the proper sections.

[Chipngrace]

Great topic, I am just getting into eventing, well, last year is when I started, and failed... so I got an instructor now I hope to do better :)

[Janet]

Janet, in my letter to Kevin B., I stated that BN should be a recreational division. I agree, you can have restricted riders, maiden riders, limited riders, etc.

I did go on to say in my letter to Kevin, and not in this thread, that if pros. feel the need to ride in the BN division they should be able to with these conditions:
- Only green horses allowed. Horses that have never evented at a recognized event before, and only allow green horses to do this division up to two or three times. They them must move on to Novice.
- They will get a dressage score, XC and stadium score, but NO prizes, placings or awards. It will be strickly for schooling,
- They go LAST, after all the BN riders have gone. The reason for this is so they have time to actually coach their BN riders. Also, so they don't waste everyone's time when they ride and school the XC course. They seem to like to loop around jumps and through jumps and over jumps (and those not on the course), on and on... taking up everyone's time.

I firmly believe that there needs to be a division for the working class stiffs who love and support this sport. The crowd who want to have fun, don't take themselves too seriously, and want to enjoy the experience. People who want safe courses, not trickle down courses from the upper levels.

I have nothing against pros., but they shouldn't be riding in a BEGINNER division. I don't care if the horse is green or not. What's next, pros riding in 4-H and Pony Club so they can school green horses? We will just have to agree to disagree.

I am not a pro by any means, but I am not a beginner. When I have a green horse (After I have taken it to a couple of dressage schooling shows and a couple of h/j schooling shows) I like to take it to a BN (or lower) event, so the horse can get used to the EVENTING warm up and routine, including the start box, where height is not an issue. I usually do it unrecognized, but in some parts of the country there are not well run unrecognized events.

I have no problem going in a separate division (BNH) rather than in with the BNRs. I even have no problem going last, and "HC", But I believe that BN should be a place for BEGINNER HORSES, not just BEGINNER RIDERS.

[pinkngreen]

Denny, FWIW, (If we are talking about the same thing) I was told that the corner was separately numbered (rather than being a "B" element) explicitly so the rider COULD chose to take an easier approach. Effectively an "option" without the black stripe.

Or are you saying that even with circling for the approach, it was still too narrow, high and vertical?

I think he means an option to doing the corner. I remember back in the 90's every prelim course I did that had a corner had an easier but slower option, usually two verticals.

[Lori B]

Mbarrett, it sounds like your proposal is at least somewhat grounded in some specific bad experiences in your area's HTs. Would it be possible to address the specific problems (overcrowding at an event, trainers who are busy riding their own greenies as well as supposedly coaching riders in the same divisions) without completely separating the two?

[BarbB]

I think that BN should reward the steady eddy. The horse and rider that just keep going over simple jumps with as much variety as possible. Mild terrain questions (I realize there is sometimes no choice about that for good or bad), water and banks up and down but not together.
Save combinations for stadium, where there should be some.

Novice should have a couple more difficult questions WITH options.
The step up from BN to Novice looks enormous to new (or old) riders.

Training should address technical issues WITH options. ANY technical fence or more than a simple combination should have an option.
Coffins, traekaners and corners should have options.

The caveat here is that riders should not move up until they quite using the options.

Prelim should have the most options of any course and be close to an intermediate level course WITH options all over the place.
Again the rider should not proceed past prelim until they no longer need the options.

I don't know how you would enforce it, but a rider who bombs around prelim double clear after using all the options is NOT an intermediate-ready rider.

Intermediate and Advanced should be a logical progression from very very difficult to :eek::eek:, but, while I think that options for obstacles that are designed to test the very best are a good idea, not as many options should be necessary as for training and prelim. Some is good, especially later in the course, let the riders make judgements about how their horses' confidence and physical state are progressing and give them the ability to give the horse an easier albeit longer ride home.

[Debbie]

The problem I have with no canter in the dressage test at the intro unrecognized tests is that it sets the entry bar to riding XC (even at 18 inches) too low. I don't think a 20 meter circle should be required, but just that a rider can establish and (far more importantly) can transition down from the canter.

I've Jump Judged tons of "ameoba" and "tadpole" divisions with true beginners frozen in a semblance of two point choking down the jog on their sainted horses. As much as I'm a smurf and think the lower levels are admirable pursuits, I don't think anybody that green should be riding XC in a competition. As pass said use the hunter ring or more lessons before heading off to even an unrecognized event.

As a re-eventer with two gallump-y, big goofy young horses, I totally get Rabicon and JER's point about not requiring a 20M circle, TOTALLY! :winkgrin:

More options on Prelim would be a very valid improvement. Make the "easier" option chew up some time, so that the best prepared still has the advantage.

[Lori B]

Yes, Debbie -- re: canter in Intro.

[TB or not TB?]

What if we had the canter something VERY simple, like down the long side and back to a trot before the other end? That would demonstrate obedience (and the ability to STOP your horse :D) and rating of speed, but not touch the balance issue.

And I have an argument FOR intro level being recognized - one of the longstanding issues is getting member participation in the USEA. I know that when I was a pony clubber, for instance, I stuck to only rallies and PC events at the start of my eventing "career". Great for pony club, but if we want to catch some younger members, it would help to have some recognized events that they could participate in. Furthermore, I know plenty of adult ammies who do their intro unrecognized events 2-3x a year and never join the USEA, and why should they? I think this could go a long way to say that the USEA supports those entry level eventers, as well as fostering participation and community.

[purplnurpl]

forgive me as I did not have a chance to read more then one page of the responses.

Just seems to me that everyone is making the sport too complicated.
Organizers only have so much time and money.

a few points:
1. Schooling Shows. Lets not make recognized HTs into schooling shows.

2. There ARE options on course. You can jump anything up to one level above. Isn't that correct?

3. Schooling Shows. At the really great ones. The organzier will usually let you jump whatever you want to as long as you jump your fences as well. I so nicely schooled my BN horse down a very large N bank at the schooling show last week. ; )

4. Open schooling days. School on this day as if you were running a true course and jump some fences that are the level above. Start at the box and finish at the line.

Seriously guys. Most of us know what we are getting into when we enter at Training and below. Pick and choose what is needed for your horse or student or yourself at that moment in time.

As for those of us that poo our breeks at Prelim. Hey, SCHOOL THE COURSE! School the course of your move up level.

Pros:
Schooling shows. ? just a suggestion.
Unless an owner insists on taking a baby BN a recognized show is not worth the money...for a pro/more advanced rider.
Personally, I'd rather spend my pennies locally schooling and getting it all ready for Novice.
A great opportunity to support our local schooling HTs!! go figure!

[Janet]

2. There ARE options on course. You can jump anything up to one level above. Isn't that correct? Not that I know of.

[Lori B]

please do read, purplnurpl.

[Threeday33]

Options are a great idea at all levels. They allow the rider to make the decision based on the horse they are riding and how things are feeling after leaving the box.

I rode prelim. and intermediate at Southern Pines II. On preliminary, the corner after the bank did cause a fair amount of trouble. It was numbered separately, so if necessary, a rider could have taken more time in the approach and come off of a right turn (corner was open on the right) to get it done on the first attempt. I think the problem was that those that had a runout on first approach, then had trouble getting over it. While we totally appreciated the "option" of jumping it off a right circle, if there had been a totally separate option, it would have helped those that had trouble after the first attempt.

I was relieved when I walked the intermediate course and saw that the first water had a much easier option (the prelim. log in) that didn't even waste much time. I think people only used it if they had a stop at the harder fence. Also, the 3 stride double corners were numbered separately. The corners, to me, were the hardest fences on the course. Earlier on the course, there was a 3 stride of narrow mushrooms that I decided to use as my "test" for the corners. After my horse jumped the mushrooms very well, I jumped the harder log drop into the water and did do the double corners. They rode great. If my horse had felt AT ALL wiggly through the mushrooms or in any other way after leaving the start box not ready for them, I would have gladly jumped the corners separately and still had a good, positive run. Especially thinking back to the course, I think it was great that John allowed the riders to decide if they should challenge themselves and their horses that day or not. I don't think there were any other options on the course, but those 2 were very much appreciated!

Chrissy

[RunForIt]

originally posted by Debbie:
4. T - here the bar raises from learning cross country to having a skill set that can handle related distances with terrain questions added into the equation. Still encourage the horse and rider forward.


so, here's what I want: unpack "skill set" at each level (cause Deb hit the nail on its head) - define the questions each level will ask for each phase. THEN, define what a rider, what a horse should be able do to in terms of each type of fence that will be encountered on XC and in Stadium. Account for the need to be able to balance a horse going up and downhill since terrain changes. Since dressage is not supposed to be an end unto itself, the dressage training - for horse and rider - should prepare the horse an rider to be able to apply flatwork skills to the needs of each jumping phase.

No, I'm not thinking that eventing is some sort of linear learning process - first you learn this, then this, and... - I understand that riding is an integrated process of skills and thinking and response...

But, if you haven't - or your trainer hasn't - had specific goals, and a rationale for those goals spelled out to use to help assess what needs to be learned, the chances of something important being missed increase.

The chances for course design to go awry also increase without stated guidelines for minimum skills for each level - each increment up the eventing levels stand on the training and understandings of the ones that came before...or should.

retreadeventer has started this HUGE task - I'd think the organization could assist her.

[quietann]

True Smurf here! I'm hoping to have my first HT this summer. I have a very talented Morgan mare, who cleaned up at Intro/"Starter" levels with her previous owner last year (2 firsts and 2 seconds). She is definitely ready for recognized BN, but I have to catch up with her first. She would happily jump 3 feet but I am a bit of a chicken-sh*t about it.

RunForIt, I love your idea of "unpacking" the X/C expectations at each level. I could see something like the following for water, for example:

Intro/"baby": walk or trot through a small stream or pond (wide enough that the horse cannot jump over it). Be very generous about "refusals" at this level... but frankly, I think *any* horse that is ridden out needs to be able to cross water without having a tantrum!
BN: walk or trot into a "pond" with perhaps a log at the exit (most people and horses I know find jumping out of water much easier than jumping into it)
N: same as BN but add height to the exit and/or entry logs. Make jumping into water an option.
T: should be able to jump into water, cross the pond and jump out

(I won't say anything about higher than T because to be honest, I can't even think about those levels without getting scared!)

I *love* the idea of options on X/C for all lower levels, as it would make the transition to the next highest level more gradual. At the lowest levels, add some sort of scoring so people who try harder obstacles get a better score.

As for cantering in Intro levels: I think it's a good idea, but keep it simple. One circuit of the dressage arena or canter down the long side. One needs to know how to deal with a cantering horse before competing! (I certainly do, because Feronia prefers canter to trot, and as a Morgan, let us say she is rather enthusiastic!)

Edited to add: We definitely need to emphasize schooling X/C for people at the lower levels. Folks who are lucky enough to have X/C fences on site get a lot more of this, but I really think that *everyone* should do a few schooling sessions before they compete at Intro. For example, I know that the biggest challenge I'll have with Feronia is rating her; she is *very* speedy over fences. But I won't know how to do that X/C without a lot of schooling.

[blackwly]

RE: pros riding at BN.

Why not just make them ride HC? HC is a great option for an overqualified pair who need an outing at a lower level, and I think it should be used more often. I hadn't ridden a BN horse trials since the age of 12, but when I was starting my current (very spooky, hyper sensitive, somewhat difficult) horse I took him BN because I just had a sense it was the right thing to do...which was proven correct when we got eliminated by never making it within 15 ft of the first jump! Even experienced riders need that option, but shouldn't care about placings at that level. So make them ride HC if it is troubling to the true lower level riders.

BTW, I think we should hold our UL riders a little more accountable for what divisions they choose to compete in. Recently a BNR rode 3 horses in an OP division down here - 3 horses that had competed at advanced the week before and are doing so again this week. Finished 1,2 and 4. I have no problem with people dropping back to school for some reason, but prehaps when it is on your olympic horse you could ride HC and let the actual prelim riders have a chance? There's no prize money on the line. It's not the way the rules are set up, but it just seems like the right thing to do. I wasn't there and had no stake in that race, but it just seems contrary to the spirit of "sportmanship."

[RunForIt]

RE: pros riding at BN.

Why not just make them ride HC? HC is a great option for an overqualified pair who need an outing at a lower level, and I think it should be used more often. I hadn't ridden a BN horse trials since the age of 12, but when I was starting my current (very spooky, hyper sensitive, somewhat difficult) horse I took him BN because I just had a sense it was the right thing to do...which was proven correct when we got eliminated by never making it within 15 ft of the first jump! Even experienced riders need that option, but shouldn't care about placings at that level. So make them ride HC if it is troubling to the true lower level riders.

BTW, I think we should hold our UL riders a little more accountable for what divisions they choose to compete in. Recently a BNR rode 3 horses in an OP division down here - 3 horses that had competed at advanced the week before and are doing so again this week. Finished 1,2 and 4. I have no problem with people dropping back to school for some reason, but prehaps when it is on your olympic horse you could ride HC and let the actual prelim riders have a chance? There's no prize money on the line. It's not the way the rules are set up, but it just seems like the right thing to do. I wasn't there and had no stake in that race, but it just seems contrary to the spirit of "sportmanship."

With the latter in mind - we were ALL there. Thanks also for noting the BNR's questionable choice of divisions and deciding that the act itself needed addressing, not the person . (just edited my true feelings about that mystery person's riding at that level!)

[CookiePony]

...but prehaps when it is on your olympic horse you could ride HC and let the actual prelim riders have a chance? There's no prize money on the line. It's not the way the rules are set up, but it just seems like the right thing to do. I wasn't there and had no stake in that race, but it just seems contrary to the spirit of "sportmanship."

I thought the same thing... I think HC needs to be used more often in these kinds of situations.

[purplnurpl]

BTW, I think we should hold our UL riders a little more accountable for what divisions they choose to compete in. Recently a BNR rode 3 horses in an OP division down here - 3 horses that had competed at advanced the week before and are doing so again this week. Finished 1,2 and 4. I have no problem with people dropping back to school for some reason, but prehaps when it is on your olympic horse you could ride HC and let the actual prelim riders have a chance? There's no prize money on the line. It's not the way the rules are set up, but it just seems like the right thing to do. I wasn't there and had no stake in that race, but it just seems contrary to the spirit of "sportmanship."

I'm just too dense to get some of this I guess.
Wouldn't they just ride in the Open division?
There are usually Horse/Rider/Amateur/Open. Not here in Area V because we only get a handful of UL entries but elsewhere like at Pine Top that's how it was.

I don't know. When/if I have to ride against an advanced horse/ULR I would think damn, Boomer and I are in the same league and I would ride the best I could in style with the ULRs.
Also, there is usually a reason the horse is running Prelim. They are not there just to take home a ribbon. It's training, conditioning, something like that.
Once you hit Prelim it's fair game. That is what I've always understood. You want to play in the big league you get to ride against the best of the best.

And I fully understand the need to jump around divisions. As a caring rider you need to let your horse think he's got a big pair every once in a while. Especially after a tough A course.

Heck, I still think of myself as an ammy, but since I've picked up a few sponsors to help here and there with little things I now HAVE to ride as a pro. Whoop-tee-do-da! I'm gonna milk it!
And I can tell you this. I'm gonna get my butt whooped at the AECs in OP where as in AP I would have had a darn good chance at the top.
No worries, as a little person I'm gonna hold my head high, ride hard, and get the most I can out of my horse.

Also, that owner that has the ULR riding their horse in BN wants their blue ribbon. lol.

[Janet]

RE: pros riding at BN.

Why not just make them ride HC? HC is a great option for an overqualified pair who need an outing at a lower level, and I think it should be used more often.

Because there is already a division tailor made for them, Beginner Novice HORSE, where they will compete against other experienced riders on greeen horses. HC is for when you are NOT ELIGIBLE for the divisions offered. If BN Horse (and BN Open) are not offered, yes, THEN the more experienced rider needs to go HC. But if they go in BN Open or BN Horse, I fail to see how it is a problem for those competing in BN Rider.
BTW, I think we should hold our UL riders a little more accountable for what divisions they choose to compete in. Recently a BNR rode 3 horses in an OP division down here - 3 horses that had competed at advanced the week before and are doing so again this week. Finished 1,2 and 4. I have no problem with people dropping back to school for some reason, but prehaps when it is on your olympic horse you could ride HC and let the actual prelim riders have a chance? There's no prize money on the line. It's not the way the rules are set up, but it just seems like the right thing to do. I wasn't there and had no stake in that race, but it just seems contrary to the spirit of "sportmanship." Sorry, I completely disagree. As long as they are going Open Pelim I don't see a problem - and I am just moving up to Prelim so could be competing against them.

If they are going Open Prelim, they are NOT overqualified. That is what Open Prelim is FOR. Going HC would be the WRONG thing to do and would cheapen the achievements of the others in Open Prelim.

[Janet]

I thought the same thing... I think HC needs to be used more often in these kinds of situations.
I think HC should be restricted to the cases when there is some reason that the horse or rider cannot legally compete (e.g. conflict of interest).

[RunForIt]

I think HC should be restricted to the cases when there is some reason that the horse or rider cannot legally compete (e.g. conflict of interest).

maybe legally can be replaced with "honorably" in the case of a BNR.

[Janet]

maybe legally can be replaced with "honorably" in the case of a BNR.
You are missing my point. I WANT the Big Name Rider/ Upper level Rider competing against me in the Open division. I would be unhappy, and somewhat insulted, if the ULR went HC when they were legally eligible for the division.

If you want to be protected from the ULRs, go in the Rider division. That is why it is offered.

Edited to add that- The fact that the "recreational riders" get to compete, on an equal basis, against the best in the country (if not the world) is one of the BEST things about evenitng. I am absolutely astounded that anyone would even consider trying to take that away from us.

[blackwly]

Janet, I do know the rules for qualifications and was not trying to make the point that the rider going OP on 3 advanced horses was doing so in violation of any rules. Just making the point that sometimes sportmanship is important in this game.

For example- I have competed at the intermediate and CCI** level many, many times. The last time was in spring of '05, before I retired that upper level horse. So last year, taking my young horse training, I could have entered divisions of training rider as I had not completed more than 2 prelim events or higher in the previous 24 months. However, the "spirit" of the law would seem to me to mean that a training level rider in a restricted division should not have to compete against someone who has fairly recently won a major 3 day. So I don't compete in any "rider" divisions below intermediate, even though technically I could.

Anyway, my real point was that when an event doesn't offer PH or PR or P-amateur divisions and thus all the prelim competitors are lumped together, I myself, if I was a once and future olympian riding my olympic mount, would compete HC, as is allowed in the rules at the discretion of the organizer. I'm not suggesting any rules changes, new requirements, etc....just giving my opinion that it seems like the "right" thing to do.

[deltawave]

Yes, exactly, blackwly. :yes:

Just because one CAN *technically* compete in a division, doesn't mean one SHOULD. I could *technically* compete in Novice Rider or even BN rider next year since I won't be doing higher than Novice this year and did only Training last year. But I wouldn't and I won't--how tacky! I'm not in danger of stealing ANYONE'S ribbon, but I firmly believe the "rider" divisions are for those new to the sport or the level.

[IFG]

There were bounce combo's at prelim and above over 10 years ago.

Yes, but from the courses that I walked, including Chesterland and Millbrook, they usually had time-consuming options for those riders who decided the bounce was not the best choice for themselves or their horses.

[flyingchange]

Janet, I do know the rules for qualifications and was not trying to make the point that the rider going OP on 3 advanced horses was doing so in violation of any rules. Just making the point that sometimes sportmanship is important in this game.

For example- I have competed at the intermediate and CCI** level many, many times. The last time was in spring of '05, before I retired that upper level horse. So last year, taking my young horse training, I could have entered divisions of training rider as I had not completed more than 2 prelim events or higher in the previous 24 months. However, the "spirit" of the law would seem to me to mean that a training level rider in a restricted division should not have to compete against someone who has fairly recently won a major 3 day. So I don't compete in any "rider" divisions below intermediate, even though technically I could.

Anyway, my real point was that when an event doesn't offer PH or PR or P-amateur divisions and thus all the prelim competitors are lumped together, I myself, if I was a once and future olympian riding my olympic mount, would compete HC, as is allowed in the rules at the discretion of the organizer. I'm not suggesting any rules changes, new requirements, etc....just giving my opinion that it seems like the "right" thing to do.

I completely agree with you blackwly. I highly doubt there is any meaning or significance give to a ribbon when it is won by an olympic veteran at the Prelim level. It is "just a school" in those cases. While for another competitor (a lowly smurf on a slaughter pony), that placing and ribbon would be highly valued. hell, I'd frame it and put it over the friggin fireplace!!!!

And while certainly many HTs offer R H and A divisions, many do not. neither HT that I have competed in this year has offered anything outside of Open.

[IFG]

When I started eventing in the 1980's Novice did not have combinations. Novice would never have a half coffin. Training did not have full coffins. Now, both are frequently seen on XC at Novice and Training. It seems to me that we keep having to add lower levels (there was no sanctioned BN when I started), because we keep making the lowest levels harder.

IMHO, I would like to bring Novice and Training back to the (in my opinion) simpler courses that we used to have. Then Prelim should be ramped up to the straightforward galloping courses with fast options for those who want to make time and be competitive.

[CanTango1]

Im with Janet,

Do you know how good it would feel to whoop some ULR ass ?? Think about what that ribbon would mean to you then.

Theres nothing wrong with a little competition, In fact wouldnt it make you feel good that your riding in the same Div. as an ULR ?? and yeah im 99.9% sure I wouldnt win ( beacause of the ULR ) but damn I would be happy with 2nd:D

I dont know guys I think we have slowly stayed from the concept of the OP. and on that note.......... OPTIONS,OPTIONS,OPTIONS.

I wanted to comment that I thought that for any rider choosing to take the harder option should get bonus points or whatever, but I think thats taking away from the sport. This could get tricky, any training level rider who rides a novice course could choose all the training options and bam.... we have a winner. We need to make sure that with the options and "bonus points" its not enough to change the scoring that is implemented now.

[McVillesMom]

When I started eventing in the 1980's Novice did not have combinations. Novice would never have a half coffin. Training did not have full coffins. Now, both are frequently seen on XC at Novice and Training. It seems to me that we keep having to add lower levels (there was no sanctioned BN when I started), because we keep making the lowest levels harder.

IMHO, I would like to bring Novice and Training back to the (in my opinion) simpler courses that we used to have. Then Prelim should be ramped up to the straightforward galloping courses with fast options for those who want to make time and be competitive.

IFG - AMEN!!! :yes:

[saje]

Another comment about Pro's--

There are ULR pros who really do this for a living and are full time serious riders and trainers, and then there are "pro's" like me.

I compete as a pro because I do earn income teaching a bit and riding a bit. I am in NO WAY an upper level eventer, I've just done a little of this and a little of that for 30 years in horses, and I teach kids and adults the basics of horsemanship, dressage, jumping, and occasionally give folks a taste of what to expect on their dude ranch vacation.

I take my riding seriously, but it's been hard to progress in eventing due to a multitude of circumstances. I finally have a horse that might take me somewhere, but I live in the back of beyond as far as this sport is concerned, and my finances limit me from having a trainer of my own and travelling to shows a lot.

I have bred, raised, and trained this horse by myself, and we qualified for AEC's last year in the only two rated events we did. So AECs was his 3rd "real" course. Last year BN was all one level, so I had no choice in what to enter, but as it was we finished middle of the pack. (I was tickled to death :) )

I think the current rules cover the bases pretty well, and since you can't legislate ethics so at some point you have to realize that the world ain't fair and not everyone will play by the rules, much less the spirit of the rules.


By the by and because I can't resist :p, AECs videographers RNS Videomedia have put up one ride from each of '07 AEC course on YouTube. The BN rider is me :) http://www.youtube.com/user/RNSvideo

[denny]

What IFG alluded to, the GRADUAL ESCALATION OF QUESTIONS ASKED, is exactly how we got here today, and why Red Hills wasn`t the reason we`re here, but merely the final straw. ("Final", that is, if we`re very lucky.)*Prelim used to be pretty straightforward, but then, as it got gradually more technical, training replaced prelim. Then novice replaced training. Then beg. nov replaced novice, and so on and on.*Not in heights and spreads, but in what xc designers and builders were asking horses to do.*So the answer must be to determine what should and should not be asked at each level, at least not asked UNLESS THERE`S AN EASIER OPTION.
If the task force can get a handle on this, and if the USEA can get xc designers/builders/organizers to buy in, then we`ll have done much to fix what has gradually gotten broken in our sport.

[scubed]

I totally agree with Denny's last post. Hopefully, we are all working toward keeping the good (no vertical split rail fences without groundlines, no shoulder deep water, etc) that has come with the development of the sport and the courses and do away with the craziness. I do think that there is an advantage to having a friendly corner at novice height on a training course. This allows the training horse/rider to understand and practice the question at a lower height and a slower speed, rather than dealing with a corner for the first time on a preliminary course. This idea of questions from the next level at the height/spread from the level below is an appealing one to me.

As far as the divisions, I love competing against the ULRs (I'm basically a preliminary level competitor and total amateur). I'd much rather have an 8th place ribbon in a class where the first 7 were won by people that have ridden at Advanced than a 2nd place in a rider division. The fact that we get to compete against our Olympic team is, for me, one of the *best* things about our sport.

[pinkngreen]

Yes, but from the courses that I walked, including Chesterland and Millbrook, they usually had time-consuming options for those riders who decided the bounce was not the best choice for themselves or their horses.

When ever I ran into a bounce there wasn't always an option. There was one place where the option could have been much harder because it was two skinny veriticals that would have required a very precise line. I always went with the bounce. I always found them fun. For me it was always simple fences like square tables and water jumps that caught me and my first prelim horse. He loved to jump from a more collected canter. My biggest challenge was galloping fences that required little interference from me.

[HT Mom]

Denny, FWIW, (If we are talking about the same thing) I was told that the corner was separately numbered (rather than being a "B" element) explicitly so the rider COULD chose to take an easier approach. Effectively an "option" without the black stripe.

Or are you saying that even with circling for the approach, it was still too narrow, high and vertical?
With regard to the corner at SPHT II, the ones that made it were the ones that did not go directly there (i.e. the bending 6 stride), but who swung wide and turned it into a 10+ stride approach to the fence. So I guess there was an option to this fence for the ones who were willing to take the extra time.

[HT Mom]

Something that was not brought up (I don't think) was what Southern Pine HT I did, it was a PT division where you did the Prelim dressage and stadium phases, but the Training cross country phase.

What do people think of this idea? It was very popular since SPHT I was most folks first HT of the season. I would think it would work well for folks looking to move up since you can practice dressage and stadium just about anywhere.

[CBudFrggy]

Because there is already a division tailor made for them, Beginner Novice HORSE, where they will compete against other experienced riders on greeen horses.

So the BN Rider, who's attending their first event, on their horse's first event, should compete BN Rider against riders riding old packers?

[deltawave]

Well, you have to start somewhere. If it's your and your horse's first time out, even first SEASON out, what difference does it make against whom you are competing? The courses and tests are the same.

I love ribbons, I cherish the few good ones I have, and I get a lift for WEEKS if I bring home a nice one, but I certainly didn't and don't expect to get one if it's my first time out at a level, or on a new horse, or in a new discipline!

[CBudFrggy]

Exactly, and b/c I didn't expect a ribbon or award, I put my horse in BNH, green horses, to give him a chance to have fun--we did. I'm not whining--but the levels don't make sense at BN. It should just be BN open. If you can play at the level, then play.

[JER]

When I started eventing in the 1980's Novice did not have combinations. Novice would never have a half coffin. Training did not have full coffins. Now, both are frequently seen on XC at Novice and Training. It seems to me that we keep having to add lower levels (there was no sanctioned BN when I started), because we keep making the lowest levels harder.

IMHO, I would like to bring Novice and Training back to the (in my opinion) simpler courses that we used to have. Then Prelim should be ramped up to the straightforward galloping courses with fast options for those who want to make time and be competitive.

Another amen!

I've always, always, always been told "the size of the fence doesn't matter." The goal is to train the horse and rider according to this principle. But in order to do this, you have to be straightforward in the training of horse and rider.

BN (and the lower schooling levels) should not be about the jumps. It should be about proceeding rhythmically and in balance across an XC track. Along the way, there will be small obstacles. The obstacles are just a matter of leaving out a stride on the track. C'est tout.

In order to ride a BN track in this manner, the jumps have to be straightforward and without visual tricks. You must have clear groundlines, straight and not curving and never false. You can't have clutter on or next to the fences that would make a sensible, self-preserving (but perhaps inexperienced) horse question its safety. You must allow for less-than-fluid jumping efforts -- this means more than three or four strides between fences. Water entries should be simple (no logs or drops ) and clear, meaning the horse can't be easily confused by the other jumps in the water (i.e., the BN water entry doesn't lead directly to the I jump). Etc.

Personally, I only check the other entries in my division to see if any of my friends are riding with me. I have zero interest in ribbons or pros. I think we're spoiled by the 'goodie bag' mentality in the US -- you know, every kid gets a goodie bag at the birthday party. We have these small divisions where almost everybody gets a ribbon. Try going to the UK or Ireland where divisions are much, much larger.

Perhaps we should just have 'completion' ribbons for BN, like in clear round showjumping. In clear round SJ (is this done in the US), you get a ribbon for a clear. No impetus to 'compete' or go against the clock. Perfect for young horses and all riders.

[NowThatsATrot]

A point on requiring canter in the dressage -- my horse simply did not have a dressage canter until last year, but he could canter and gallop (and STOP!) in a safe, balanced manner out on the trails and XC. He can also jump over 3' from the trot, and being a Standardbred, he can trot the whole course and still put in one of the fastest rounds. It's just his deal, and I accept this as part of training and showing him.

I don't think there's any reason for intro to be recognized, though -- as others have said, the purpose of this level is for newcomers to get their feet wet.

Regarding the pros at BN thing... I hadn't shown over fences before I got my horse, so by nearly universal competition rules, I was a green rider. I went into Rider divisions because I knew that the other divisions were open to pros -- that is, people with much more showing experience than I. Last year I technically became a "pro" by getting paid to ride/show horses. Even though I'm only competing greenies at the lower levels, I switched to Horse/Open divisions, because that's what the rules say.

In dressage I'm still a YR, but I enter Horse/Open divisions when possible so that the JRs doing their first show ever don't have to ride against me. (Some still do, because they enter the wrong division, but what can I do about that?) The point is, the divisions usually are THERE, and if not, you as the exhibitor are responsible for deciding whether or not you want to enter and possibly compete against professionals.


I like the idea of having more options throughout the different levels, and baby versions of more advanced questions at the lower levels. At one HT last year, the intro division still had the grasshopper 2' height, but they were REAL XC jumps, just smaller.

[Janet]

Last year I technically became a "pro" by getting paid to ride/show horses. Even though I'm only competing greenies at the lower levels, I switched to Horse/Open divisions, because that's what the rules say. There is nothing in the rules that prevents a pro from riding in the "Rider" division, as long as he/she meets the "Rider" requirements.

[hey101]

I personally dislike all the different divisions. Bruce Davidson summed it up perfectly for me... "who wants to be the best of the rest?".

I love competing against ULR. I think it keeps eventing "real". If I get a ribbon, that's great- but I could have the best ride in the world and finish dead last and be thrilled, or have the crappiest ride I've ever had but maybe everyone else's ride was even more crappy and I won- and I'd be pissed at myself.

Yes to more options, that way you can tailor your individual ride on that day to how your horse has been/ is going.

Also like the idea of the next level's questions at the previous level's heights. All set up as options of course.

[pharmgirl]

What IFG alluded to, the GRADUAL ESCALATION OF QUESTIONS ASKED, is exactly how we got here today, and why Red Hills wasn`t the reason we`re here, but merely the final straw. ("Final", that is, if we`re very lucky.)*Prelim used to be pretty straightforward, but then, as it got gradually more technical, training replaced prelim. Then novice replaced training. Then beg. nov replaced novice, and so on and on.*Not in heights and spreads, but in what xc designers and builders were asking horses to do.*So the answer must be to determine what should and should not be asked at each level, at least not asked UNLESS THERE`S AN EASIER OPTION.
If the task force can get a handle on this, and if the USEA can get xc designers/builders/organizers to buy in, then we`ll have done much to fix what has gradually gotten broken in our sport.

Totally agree, Denny. I actually have some unscientific proof that this is happening. I board at a large eventing facility that holds several HT a year (rec. and unrec). I've been JJ XC for many years, and have been keeping many of the xc maps just to see what the courses are like each year. It is amazing just to see what has changed, especially at BN and Novice over the years (for ex, years ago it was usually only a small bank up at BN- now it's a much more substantial bank, and can be up or down; ditches seem to be getting bigger as well, etc)

I don't think anything lower than the current BN should be recognized, but then again I live in an area with lots of schooling shows. It also goes into the affordability discussion b/c these levels would then also be expensive if it had to run under recognized events.

[asterix]

Re: P/T divisions...
I think those are great, and should be offered whenever organizer feels there will be interest.

But as someone who teetered on the T/P divide for a while, I have to say that at a certain point, you need to get out and jump those bigger fences. I basically ran a CT at Prelim before I was ready for the XC -- but would MUCH have preferred a REAL prelim move- up course -- with options.

I am not in favor of a two track prelim system but right now the gap is Just Too Big.

Case in point: at Morven last weekend, the Training water was very soft (perfectly fine for a very early season course): ramp in, very tiny log out.

The Prelim water at the SAME HT was: skinny log, 2 strides, good sized drop log in, steep ramp to good sized log out.

That is a huge gap. What happened to progressive? Why can't we provide that Prelim water with an option, or perhaps the TRAINING water with an option, to try and bridge that.

I have the same problem with the dressage tests -- to go from 20 m cancer circles to a 10 m half circle to counter canter is not progressive. Nor is going from a test that requires no sitting trot to one that requires sitting your lengthening.

So I would put in a vote for perhaps picking a few courses in each Area to be provided with extra funding to put OPTIONS on course, especially at Training and Prelim. THen keep track of how many riders do the options and how it correlates to final standings. If options become more common, require xc with harder options only to count as your qualifying runs for moving up.

[Jazzy Lady]

I think the current "standards" need to be re-worked.

Would it not be possible to put more restrictions in place in terms of course building? Perhaps there could be a minimum angle for the face of a jump and it can change, but something like that with a minimum width for a corner at prelim would keep things from getting "woah, advanced corner but prelim height" sorta thing.

perhaps bn. Angle of the face of tables, coops, etc cannot be less than so and so degrees. The minimum length of the fence may be 8'-0" or something to that effect. Then that goes up to prelim where you might see:

Prelim: angle of tables corners or other fences where the height of the front edge meets that of the back edge can have a minimum angle of ... degrees. The jumpable portion of a corner can be no less than ... feet.

Just a thought.

[groom]

If the task force can get a handle on this, and if the USEA can get xc designers/builders/organizers to buy in, then we`ll have done much to fix what has gradually gotten broken in our sport.

Designers/builders/organizers are selling, not buying. Riders do all the buying. If you are prepared to pay for all these options and course revisions, they will gladly provide it.

I suspect there will be much howling and gnashing of teeth when the bill for all of these excellent suggestions comes due. It would certainly make Eventing safer as a large percentage of riders would be financially side-lined, thus out of harms way.;)

(ok -tongue in cheek - but don't forget the co$t of your suggestions)

[BarbB]

Designers/builders/organizers are selling, not buying. Riders do all the buying. If you are prepared to pay for all these options and course revisions, they will gladly provide it.

I suspect there will be much howling and gnashing of teeth when the bill for all of these excellent suggestions comes due. It would certainly make Eventing safer as a large percentage of riders would be financially side-lined, thus out of harms way.;)

(ok -tongue in cheek - but don't forget the co$t of your suggestions)

I agree that if there were wholesale changes across the board at a fast pace, it will cost.
On the other hand, the course design we have now isn't free.
So it's not a jump from free to expensive. It's a jump from expensive to more expensive.
And while I think you were kidding, I have never seen a direct correlation between the size of a persons bank account and their riding skill/desire.
So let's don't assume that making it very expensive would improve riding.
I don't think anyone doing it on the cheap has flipped their horse while running a 4*. :cool:

[Janet]

I think the current "standards" need to be re-worked.

Would it not be possible to put more restrictions in place in terms of course building? Perhaps there could be a minimum angle for the face of a jump and it can change, but something like that with a minimum width for a corner at prelim would keep things from getting "woah, advanced corner but prelim height" sorta thing.

perhaps bn. Angle of the face of tables, coops, etc cannot be less than so and so degrees. The minimum length of the fence may be 8'-0" or something to that effect. Then that goes up to prelim where you might see:

Prelim: angle of tables corners or other fences where the height of the front edge meets that of the back edge can have a minimum angle of ... degrees. The jumpable portion of a corner can be no less than ... feet.

Just a thought.
That kind of thing is already in the guidelines. Of course, you might want CHANGES to what is in the guidelines.

[YRAP Mom]

In an earlier post someone commented that it would be great to compete with and beat an ULR. My daughter did just that at her first HT following the year long recovery of her horse from a devastating joint injury and laminitis. What icing on the cake it was to not only compete but to win first place while John Williams on a young horse took third. After the ribbons were awarded, he came over and congratulated my 12 year old and she was never more thrilled in her life.

I guess our experiences are different than some because the ULR's she's competed against (some HT have only Open divisions sometimes) have always been appropriately registered. My daughter loves that this sport, unlike any other, can have a teenage beginner in the same groups as Olympians. It is what has inspired her to train and join their ranks someday.

Denny thanks for leading this charge to insure that she arrives at that destination safely!

[cati2323]

About the difficulty about B/N courses- I did do one where I had a two stride combination :eek: we mangaged it fine but I still thought they shouldn't have had a 2 stride on B/N...

Also, IMO, options on B/N and Novice really don't entice me. The divisions are pretty straight forward and adding all the options would make it confusing and yeah I just really don't like the idea :lol:

maybe im wrong :cool:

[olympicdreams04]

I have an UL riders opinion to mull over. I bring up several young horses every year and always have atleast one UL horse. I never take my horses out at BN. This is not an ULR snotty thing, it's because I find BN to be an inaccurate representation of what the level is supposed to represent and often I am faced with the same questions at N only slightly larger. In FL this year, I found the courses are both RH and FHP very fair N courses for this day and age. Ten years ago, I'm pretty sure I would have been horrified. Over the last 5 years, I have probably seen the biggest increase in Training level difficulty. The fences are MAX, there are drops into and out of water, sometimes even JUMPS into and out of water or even IN water. Unheard of several years ago. Prelim seems to have stayed consistant over the last 5 years, but has significantly become more difficult in the past 10 years. Intermediate I actually think has gotten a *little* easier in the past 5 years and certainly in the last 10. Advanced is advanced as it has always been but the less we gallop the sadder it makes me.

[pinkngreen]

So the BN Rider, who's attending their first event, on their horse's first event, should compete BN Rider against riders riding old packers?:mad:I really hate the assumption everybody makes that people in the Rider divisions, especially bn, are riding old packers that do the work for them. That is just not true. Plus I have found that the more experienced riders on inexperienced horses usually beat the green rider on their packer. The people in bn rider are a tough crowd to compete against because most of them love the sport and take it seriously, not because they are riding old packers.

I started back eventing in 2006 after a 7 year break and did the bn rider division. I was on no packer. In fact my pony went out of his way to dump me after jumping the first cross-country fence at our first HT together. The next HT I only trotted. After winning 2 bn riders divisions then I moved to the open division.

I know there are probably some on packers but I bet if you ask most of the bn riders they will tell you that their horses are nothing close to a packer.