If you break it, you're out? Can we learn from Grand Prix show jumping?

[pwynnnorman]

To make my point, I'm going to begin and end with the same postulate:
Grand Prix show jumping weeds out horses and riders that can't go fast and clear over height and width. Maybe eventing should, too?

What if fences WERE all collapsable? Folks say that if the horse knows the fence will fall down, he'll get sloppy. But 1.) isn't that contradictory in a sport whose third phase has fences that fall down and 2.) maybe that type of horse--the type which doesn't care if he hits something hard enough to make it fall down--shouldn't be competing, at least not at the highest levels.

We talk about qualification criteria, but I wonder if we should consider, instead, figuring out a process of self-selection that will insure that as the courses get more challenging, the horses and riders MUST get more talented (and that doesn't necessarily mean in the classically "physical" way--"talented" can also mean WISE).

Look at Mr. Big, for example. Has he ever had a bad fall at the upper levels? He STOPS when he gets in wrong, right?

So maybe we should rethink what is basically just a huge assumption anyway (that if horses know the fence will fall, they won't respect it). Let's eliminate that type of horse from the upper levels by eliminating horses who take down collapsable fences on x-c.

And riders, too. Eventers should no longer find it acceptable to "scramble" over jumps when things don't quite go right. STOP, don't scramble. You scramble, you're eliminated. We must stop tolerating yahoo riding at ALL levels. "Kick on" must END. Ride wisely and skillfully or you do not advance.

Imagine the impact on an ambitious rider that getting eliminated due to pilot error would have. Imagine it now. What would that rider do in response? Remember, the cause was smashing so hard into a fence that it collapsed. How would the rider react to that elimination?

1.) Slow down and ride more cautiously until you are absolutely sure your horse has developed the skill and/or experience to take fences with more speed and/or until you are absolutely sure YOU can a.) see your distances and b.) adjust that horse to meet the right distance when going at speed down to a fence (and note, by "speed" I mean the normal UL speed expectations).

2.) Do not ride the horse that can't help you out when you make a big mistake.

OK, so what do you think? I think collapsable fences would satisfy both the PR issues and confirm that riders have the skill and the horse to take big jumps safely.

And so I repeat my postulate:
Grand Prix show jumping weeds out horses and riders that can't go fast and clear over height and width. Maybe eventing should, too?

[pwynnnorman]

I think it would be hard to define "scrambling", though. Would a really short spot be considered? Long spot? Actually putting feet on the jump (well, that's obvious.)...


Not at all, Jrey. If the fence collapses, that scramble was a dangerous scramble and you are eliminated. Period. No one will judge you, except the fence itself.

[thumbsontop]

I do agree that collapsable fences sound good, but how would they collapse? I wouldn't want to jump my horse over logs that if he hit would come loose and roll around. These are sturdy obstacles and I think we would get alot of resistance, at least initially, trying to change them into something that looked more like a showjumping fence.

The scrambling is another good point. That would be very difficult to regulate though. Remember that, I know at least at lower levels, you're talking about parent or kid volunteers as jump judges. It would be nearly impossible to define scrambling. Some horses are just brave and would try to take the jump. What's brave for one horse though may be dangerous riding for another.

As a competitor, what could they change that would still give you the opportunity to stand out as best? Optimum time? Changing some of the technical questions? Time often sets riders apart in XC. I'm not sure you have the same "refusals" issues in upper levels as you do in lower levels. So your option is to get as close to OT as possible. How does a competitor say "OT is too fast - I'm going to be slower and safer instead" and still have a chance of winning? Of course, based on recent events I would guess that competitors do think they are being safe. I haven't seen anyone decide to take a course differently/slower in light of accidents.

It was interesting looking through Eventing magazine for March/April. Safety was a big issue, and that was before Rolex.

[Eventer55]

I think someone on another thread posed the question: why are there not more frangible pins on the Rolex course. I walked the course with Kim this past weekend and we all got a look at the frangible pin jump. She explained that if the jump goes down you are eliminated. So, with all the money, sponsors, patrons etc why are there not more frangible pin fences? There's enough money going into Rolex

I guess I feel the need to voice an opinion because we were at the fence where I think the first fall occured, rider was taken away in an ambulance and horse was said to have minor injuries. It was a serious fall and could have been a total disaster. Also, cudos to anyone who walks off the course because he/she feels the horse is not going well.

[c_expresso]

Wynn, the only thing I disagree with is that you said the riders would have to "slow down"... but I don't think that is what we want!! I thought everyone was in an uproar after Red Hills due to the video of Tantibes where he was going very slow. When Laine rode the footbridge at Rolex slow in '05(?) her horse tried to bounce it. I don't think slow is the answer, our riders just need to learn to gallop. Since there's no steeplechase, rider's never get a chance to.

Laine is very young. I don't think Sarah is terribly old. They may be very experienced, but they are young and have not chased as many times as Kim, Karen, Phillip, etc... those riders know how to gallop jumps and they are the ones not having wrecks. Many of the wrecks are happening to experienced, but young, riders.

[FlightCheck]

c esspresso, I understand your reasoning

but Ralph and Darren are certainly not young...

I am really thinking that the demise of the long format is responsible for a lot of our current problems at the upper levels.

Between the roads and tracks to settle some of the energy, the steeplechase to get the "motor and brakes" checked, and the vet inspections...

and, after a "real" 3-day, horses were "let down" to have some r&r time.

[c_expresso]

I think Darren's horse was green at the level and questionably moved up too quickly.

There are some accidents, and I think Ralph's was one of them.

c esspresso, I understand your reasoning

but Ralph and Darren are certainly not young...

I am really thinking that the demise of the long format is responsible for a lot of our current problems at the upper levels.

Between the roads and tracks to settle some of the energy, the steeplechase to get the "motor and brakes" checked, and the vet inspections...

and, after a "real" 3-day, horses were "let down" to have some r&r time.

[pwynnnorman]

Clarifications:

1.) I didn't mean to imply they should be designed LIKE stadium jumps (i.e. to look like them), but rather to FUNCTION like them (i.e. that they fall down when hit with enough force). It's the force part that is important...

2.) ... and, yes, figuring out that design could be challenging, but if it would save horses and riders, why the hell not TRY?

3.) When I said "slow down," I didn't mean to imply that would be the ONLY option (and maybe it shouldn't be taken literally: "slow down" can include stop moving up so fast). However, if you are hitting bit jumps at speed so hard they'd fall down, maybe you shouldn't even be trying to jump any more (i.e. slow to a halt and re-friggin'-tire!).

Consider those tired horses you've probably seen on videos of UL courses, slogging over the final jumps to the end. Baaaad picture of the sport. Risky, selfish behavior on the part of the rider. STOP IT NOW, I say. Make that rider pull up because if he keeps going and his or her poor tired horse climbs over a jump hard enough, it will be the BIG-friggin'-E, not just a "W" and your record.

And, finally, look, I've had an epiphany about the short-vs.-long format issue, too, BUT WE CANNOT GO BACK without damaging the future of the sport to the same extent that the new format may have already damaged it. I'm frustrated this morning. This aggravates me. When will people open their eyes and see the past is the PAST!!! Organizers run events. Organizers cannot sustain the long format, not in sufficient numbers of events to make it useful as a model for the WHOLE system. Stop being selfish YOURSELVES and give up on that. Instead, think about how the short format can take into account the changes it has caused in the way horses and riders prepare for the upper levels.

Biofuels are partly to blame for the high food prices, but we cannot go back to just oil because the oil isn't available in sufficient quantities for us to exploit. We must move forward and find alternatives to our fuel crisis that does not cause a dangerous backlash in other areas.

Can you understand that analogy?????

[JDufort]

I heard Jimmy W phrase it well on his Friday course walk. The elimination of steeplechase has taken away a very important part of horse education - he says learning to jump out of a gallop is better done over the forgiving brush fences than over solid obstacles. The horse can make small mistakes without fatal consequences, and gain experience and confidence that serve well on cross country.

I would like to see some solid research on whether horses that have never partipated in long format have more problems that horses who have.

[pwynnnorman]

Also, are folks understanding the EVOLUTION I'm proposing this development would initiate?

Riding would evolve. HORSES would evolve. (Do you understand what I mean by that? The type of horse that got to the highest levels would be a different type of horse, a safer even if also rarer type of horse: Mr Big would still be a four-star horse, as would Connaught, Teddy, Woody, etc.--but y'know what? Maybe Arthur and Neville Bardos -- youngsters who did indeed scramble a bit on course AND YET still finished in the top ten -- would not be competitive at the higher levels in spite of their wonderful dressage until they could ALSO get around a course the way Connaught does! Horses that have even a HINT of the inclination to fling themselves at a jump no matter how badly or non-existantly they'd been set up would NOT NOT NOT get to the upper levels! No, this would not happen right away. It would take time for riders to start rejecting that type of horse and accepting the Mr. Big type of horse or the Connaught, whichever their motivations required.)

Folks are noting how one can't legislate change. Well, there's change and then there is EVOLUTION.

[pwynnnorman]

I would like to see some solid research on whether horses that have never partipated in long format have more problems that horses who have.


How many horses in the top ten at Rolex have ever competed in the long format? Hasn't what happened at Rolex sunk in? It isn't the course, it isn't the nature of the competition. It is the RIDING. Everyone makes mistakes, even the best riders and horses (well, maybe not Mr. Big).

1.) As someone said, they should not pay for such mistakes with their lives (so make sure the fences won't kill them by making the fences collapse) and

2.) but they should PAY FOR SUCH MISTAKES (so eliminate them for blowing it big time on ANY fence).

Yes, someone will now come on and say that horses can learn from hitting a fence hard. Sure, I realize that. There would have to be (obviously) a careful balancing act in how hard a collapsable fence can be hit (and where) before it fell. Also, think now, too: What happens when a horse has a really, really bad fence--one so bad that the fence is damaged (and, undoubtedly, in one way or another, the horse, too)?

The horse either goes better thereafter or he goes WORSE. And guess what? Hugh Knows looked to me like a good example of that at Rolex (not by hitting a fence, but by having a "psychologically damaging" fence going into the hollow) as did, sadly, The Quiet Man. But Hugh was nursed around for a bit longer by a highly skilled and experience rider. The Quiet Man wasn't.

Look, the problem is that the previous level of competition has proven that it does NOT insure that the horses and riders who advance are truly skilled enough to be safe. That was the sport's original intent, obviously. And that's also the intent of the qualification criteria. But neither are working because no criteria can account for HOW a horse gets around x-c. There needs to be an objective, safe way to insure that a horse progresses ONLY if it can get around x-c at its current level in a SAFE WAY.

[thumbsontop]

Consider those tired horses you've probably seen on videos of UL courses, slogging over the final jumps to the end. Baaaad picture of the sport. Risky, selfish behavior on the part of the rider. STOP IT NOW, I say. Make that rider pull up because if he keeps going and his or her poor tired horse climbs over a jump hard enough, it will be the BIG-friggin'-E, not just a "W" and your record.


I agree, but think of it from an UL rider's point of view (and I'm not one, just playing the opposite point). They are in it to win it. What's the point of going slower if it means you will lose? Until they lower OT, there's no real benefit to competitors. I'm not saying that they don't care about their horses, but what would their sponsors do if they all of the sudden started riding much more conservatively and ended up in last place all of the time? I get what you're saying, but it's the competitor's thinking that needs to change, and there is no motivation for the competitors that are taking those types of risks not to give it everything they've got.

I do like frangible pins, and I do think something needs to be done to make the jumps safer. I still think it would be extremely difficult. Frangible pins and collapsable jumps weren't required before and it was much safer - I'm not sure that's the entire answer, but perhaps a start.

I'm not sure I agree with the analogy that the long format is no longer an option. It was difficult, but if they can determine that it would indeed improve the safety records I would definitely like to see them try to incorporate roads/tracks again.

[pwynnnorman]

What's the point of going slower if it means you will lose?


The point is that if you HAVE to go slower, you are not competitive at the level you are competing at. So, if you just have to win -- such as because your livelihood depends on it -- compete that horse at a lower level or get your owner to buy you a more competitive (i.e. rideable) horse. Period. This is OUR sport. ULs and other ambitious riders shouldn't be allowed to tarnish it because they have to make a living or to enable them to reach their goals. They should be forced to make a living or reach their goals in a safer way. Period.

And that goes for Darren and Ralph and Eleanor and Laine and...what?...the majority of ULs who have lost horses and/or been seriously injured in the past few years.

I say again, it's not the courses. No horse that ran out at the mousetrap or the mushrooms died. No riders have ever gotten killed by a horse that stopped or ran out. It's only when they JUMP (or have an aneurism, of course) that they die. Make them stop jumping and they stop dying.


I'm not sure I agree with the analogy that the long format is no longer an option. It was difficult, but if they can determine that it would indeed improve the safety records I would definitely like to see them try to incorporate roads/tracks again.


That wasn't an analogy. That was a FACT. If facilities and organizers cannot afford to put on long formats, the format simply cannot exist in any significant (as in problem-solving) way. FACT.

[pwynnnorman]

Imagine if everyone at Rolex were riding either a Mr. Big or a Connaught: WOW, what sport! Who needs an elite, five-star, or whatever level if the nature of the sport itself (through its fence design and rules) allowed ONLY those two types of horses (and/or rides: less-experienced rider on a super-safe mount or super-experienced rider on almost anything) to get to the highest level?

[Highflyer]

Consider those tired horses you've probably seen on videos of UL courses, slogging over the final jumps to the end. Baaaad picture of the sport. Risky, selfish behavior on the part of the rider. STOP IT NOW, I say. Make that rider pull up because if he keeps going and his or her poor tired horse climbs over a jump hard enough, it will be the BIG-friggin'-E, not just a "W" and your record.

While I agree with you in theory--if they're not put off by the possibility of death, do you think an E is going to stop them?

We need to both reduce the number of mistakes made, and make it so that horses/ riders who do make mistakes survive to learn from them. Making the jumps collapsible will do the latter (which is the more important part!) but I wonder if it will increase the former, especially at the lower levels? For every GP round, there are dozens of Level I's, and most of those are SCARY--in fact, scarier than most BN/N xc rounds.

[paintjumper]

Why does it have to be the XC that is the hardest part of the 3 phases? I get the RUSH of XC but not why it is standard practice and procedure for the XC to be the toughest part of the 3 days. That should be the fun day, not dreaded day. The advanced dressage test is a joke as far as dressage tests go, the hardest maneuver is a flying change for heaven's sake! Heck baby 3 year old reiners do super proficient flying changes. The stadium is nothing compared to the REAL showjumpers. I went to Wellington this Winter. Holy cow at those olympic qualifying classes! The 100K that I saw boggled my mind, 67 of the best international horses in the class and ONLY 3 went clear and only 2 of those finished, one retired on course after refusals!! Not one horse or rider was permanently maimed or killed.
The best change in my opinion would be to dumb down the XC, make the course forgiving in the size and difficulty so that a mistake by the rider does not cost them both of their lives. I went to Rolex in 05, I think, my first and only trip there, and I physically got nauseated and left the XC and that was BEFORE the first horse was on course!!! If I could have gotten away with it, I would have found a dozier and destroyed every jump there!!
I think Wynn has it right but I would take it further and make the XC WAY smaller and make the other 2 phases WAY more difficult. Actually a better dressage horse should make a better jumper anyway. All people make mistakes, but if Ralph Hill and Darren C. are making mistakes or simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time, with their outcomes, the USEF and the international eventing folks need to wake up right now, before this weekend brings another start box filled with possible tragedy.

[asterix]

While I agree with you in theory--if they're not put off by the possibility of death, do you think an E is going to stop them?



Actually, I think it might. I doubt that most riders heading out at Rolex really have in the front of their minds that they or their horses might die. It would be very hard indeed to ride forward if that thought dominated. They know it can happen, but they do not think it will happen to THEM.
Getting eliminated is, in some ways, more concrete, and it "hurts."

I agree that we need to be open to some more radical solutions, like fundamentally changing how you arrive at the Rolex start box. I am intrigued by Pwynn's suggestions, and Denny's.

[SPLAT]

I agree -
People are always going to cheat to get around the qualifcations, make mistakes, I don't think the long format is coming back anytime soon... so this is our reality - and we need to set up our sport so a mistake does not equal death.

Fences can be made to look like x-cntry fences, yet of forgiving materials. You break it you go home - Show jumpers respect the fences and they fall down - so I think you can keep the speed and the x-cntry look and feel, but make fences of molded plastic or starfoam or something.
Yes it will change our sport somewhat, but isnt that what we want- not having to read every week about two more dead horses?

[Jeannette, formerly ponygyrl]

No riders have ever gotten killed by a horse that stopped or ran out. It's only when they JUMP (or have an aneurism, of course) that they die. Make them stop jumping and they stop dying.



Wynn - I'm thinking about your original point, but in the meantime, I'm positive that statement is NOT true.

Don't have time to research it right now, but I think Simon Long is the counterexample - horse stopped, fell and crushed Simon iirc. True, fell over the fence, but still, stopping was his intent.

To clarify original point, you are saying if a horse knocked a fence hard enough to knock solidish fence down, horse would be E from that event, correct? Not knocked back down a level.

Many sports have official accident compilations - fact checking, anecdote gathering gatherings of the stories and facts of fatal incidents. I guess TB or not TB is gathering some of that. Don't know if she has access to any backstory elephants in any deaths - was there chatter beforehand about the preparedness, skill, sobriety, tendency to stop/runout/take a flyer/scare the crowds?

Reading such a compilation would affect my reaction to your proposal - I have no idea how many horses would have been weeded out by it...

[Renn/aissance]

Wynn, this is the first thing you've ever said that I agree with. :lol:

I know nothing about eventing; I've schooled Novice/Training courses, but never competed. But coming from the H/J world, that is the first thing I thought of when we started having this many horse deaths--rider error can be a big part of these accidents. What can we do to make it safer for the horses so that when their big hearts let them try when it would be better to stop, they don't pay the price for their bravery? Let the jumps come down, so they go THROUGH the fence if they get caught in it, rather than flipping over it.

I ask this in ignorance: when was the last time a horse suffered a rotational fall in Grand Prix jumping? What was the severity?

[c_expresso]

The way I see it...

Oxers: Frangible pins ALWAYS USED

Verticals: Frangible pins, or built similarly to these fences:
http://www.photostockplus.com/home.php?user_id=34487&tmpl=28&event=170232&action=viewphoto&photo_id=7856958&album_id=171186
http://www.photostockplus.com/home.php?user_id=34487&tmpl=28&event=170232&action=viewphoto&photo_id=7856959&album_id=171186
http://www.photostockplus.com/home.php?user_id=34487&tmpl=28&event=170232&action=viewphoto&photo_id=7856962&album_id=171186

Ditches, water banks: Not much we can change, but they don't usually cause as many serious problems.

Utilize more logs, hay bales, BRUSH FENCES, etc for jumps

Tables: Slanted front, no vertical faces

[twistoffate]

Wynn-While I love the idea of fences that come down (it would save lives), would it also create a feeling of having a safety net and lose the respect for the fences? What I mean is, that I personally don't compete at the high levels or want to compete at the high levels for many reasons but mainly because I look at those jumps and my first thought is..."if I hit that it's not going to fall down." I'm one of the "prelim is my goal" riders and probably wouldn't be interested in going higher even if they did fall down BUT would there be people out there that think like I do and go ahead and try it since they fall down and the worst that can happen is getting eliminated?

[Melliebay]

I think Darren's horse was green at the level and questionably moved up too quickly.

There are some accidents, and I think Ralph's was one of them.

The main difference to me, anyway, is that both Ralph and Darren's horses walked away each day. As riders, we exercise free will in our decisions, the horses do not. Rider injuries have always been prevalent in eventing, but all the catastrophic deaths (both of horse and human) have not.

[c_expresso]

The dressage should not be made harder! That is not the point of eventing! If someone wants to ride tough dressage than go be a DQ. Harder dressage will only lead to more and more WB types, and fewer TB XC machines.

The SJ could be made harder, it is not difficult at all... granted the course at Rolex this weekend was tough but still I am sure your average Level 5/6 jumper could have made it around double clear. There are courses nearly as technical as the one at Rolex this weekend in 3' jumpers!!!! Granted the jumps are teeny but still that is not the point. How come we can not have bounces, skinnies, etc in SJ instead of XC?

[poltroon]

It's been asserted for years that breakaway fences would be more dangerous, but I think, like with some of the other issues we've discussed, it's time to get some data. We need to study whether or not they are safer, and how we can make them safer. If we can quantify the necessary properties, I am confident that solutions can be engineered. For example, if we're worried about flying rails, tether them back to the fence with a breakable tether that will make them inclined to drop straight down rather than fly forward. The frangible pin is one solution, but perhaps we can have others for walls and other type obstacles.

(Do we have any stats on how well the frangible pins have worked in practice?)

I also am inclined to think the show jumping should be more difficult. Maybe bounces belong in stadium instead. Maybe we should change the order of the phases - a difficult SJ for day two, an easy cross-country run for day 3.

Maybe our horses and riders need to learn to run steeplechases as part of their education. But, it's not strictly necessary that it be as part of a three-day event. What if we made new competitions in places that have the facility, of a dressage + steeplechase competition? Or just steeplechase schooling days?

It's clear, as pwynn wrote, that we're entering a new era. Different horses, less land, riders with different backgrounds, different training opportunities. We just have to think outside the box to find a way to preserve the spirit - 3 days, 3 ways - that does not kill horses and riders. The sport is going to change - but I'm confident there's a way to preserve the all-around horsemanship test if we're willing to consider new options. Maybe it can even be better. For all we talk about the 'good old days', today's eventing combinations have longer careers and are far better at dressage and show jumping than the stars of the 70's and 80's.

Our horses are the best, and they deserve the best sport we can design for them.

[Jazzy Lady]

Horses need to learn to gallop in balance. Riders need to learn to gallop in balance. All CCI* should still be long format. It's such an education for the horse and rider. Sure, the ULR's who've done a billion may not like it, but their horses will benefit from it greatly.

I think a collapsable fence needs to be looked into, but it needs to withstand a horse banking it. Was it at the fork last year where Teddy banked a table easily? It was less effort for him than jumping the whole thing. What happened if that had collapsed on Teddy? A collapsable fence may cause more and different injuries. I'm thinking broken legs here...

I was suprised that there were no pins on the footbride. I thought they were designed specifically for oxers.

[sm]

I agree with the part that jumps cannot be so solid. WTF is the point of making it a death trap, it's idiotic to think so the horse respects the jump. A horse will be a naturally careful jumper or not be appropriate for a job of eventing. End of story.

On another note, COTH current issue on the editorials has a comment that, according to the writer, Bruce Davidson believes the way to start an event horse is with hunting, over all types of terrian to get the footing and the experience. Of course it's not that easy today:
I heard Jimmy W phrase it well on his Friday course walk. The elimination of steeplechase has taken away a very important part of horse education - he says learning to jump out of a gallop is better done over the forgiving brush fences than over solid obstacles. The horse can make small mistakes without fatal consequences, and gain experience and confidence that serve well on cross country.

[vineyridge]

I have a couple of relatively simple suggestions that wouldn't require all the jumps to be collapsible. One would be to use more brush topped jumps--per Wofford and experience. Not one fall I've seen has ever been at a brush topped jump. The horse jumps higher because the jump appears higher, but the brush is forgiving and allows the combo to "brush" through.

Second thing--and I just thought of this--would be to require a stint of foxhunting for horses and riders who plan to go at the upper levels. Not let riders go Prelim or above unless they can produce a letter from an MFH stating that the horse and rider had qualified with X hunt by riding a certain number of times in first flight. Those jumps are solid, the terrain is varied, and the galloping experience comes from runs. The point to point rules in the UK require that those horses be hunt qualified. I know some event horses might not like foxhunting, but maybe those are the ones who should stay in the lower levels, no matter how talented.

I do not like the idea of all collapsible jumps--it would take the very purpose of XC away from its history.

Just some thoughts.

[vineyridge]

I agree with the part that jumps cannot be so solid. WTF is the point of making it a death trap, it's idiotic to think so the horse respects the jump. A horse will be a naturally careful jumper or not be appropriate for a job of eventing. End of story.

On another note, COTH current issue on the editorials has a comment that, according to the writer, Bruce Davidson believes the way to start an event horse is with hunting, over all types of terrian to get the footing and the experience. Of course it's not that easy today:

Yes it is. There are foxhunts everywhere in the US; some drag, some live. Almost all of them would very much welcome new riders; and hunting by capping is far less expensive than an eventing weekend. I've proposed before that the USEA might work with the MFHA to have special deals on hunt caps for USEA members, just as many hunts do for Pony Club members.

[pwynnnorman]

Wynn-While I love the idea of fences that come down (it would save lives), would it also create a feeling of having a safety net and lose the respect for the fences? What I mean is, that I personally don't compete at the high levels or want to compete at the high levels for many reasons but mainly because I look at those jumps and my first thought is..."if I hit that it's not going to fall down." I'm one of the "prelim is my goal" riders and probably wouldn't be interested in going higher even if they did fall down BUT would there be people out there that think like I do and go ahead and try it since they fall down and the worst that can happen is getting eliminated?

Ah, but if you keep or enhance the current qualifications, and taking that fence down gets your butt eliminated (said jokingly) and it happens often enough, you're going to be slapped down a level--and another--and another...until YOU learn to ride cleanly, just like Grand Prix horses and riders do. In that sport, either you have a horse and a rider than can do what is required or you just don't compete at that level. The sport itself eliminates you. [And, yes, sure, there are exceptions in GP--but they are rare and they are not competitive -- the Mr. Big equivalents: generous, wise horses who can partner with their riders and get around a course safely, even if not quickly (although Mr. Big booked around Rolex looking quite, quite within himself!).]

Also, as I stated originally, the idea that if the fence collapses horses (and riders) will get lazy simply does not hold water. That is as much as assumption as the idea that foxhunting will solve the problem. Foxhunting! Have you any idea what kind of horse it takes to foxhunt? Is THAT the kind of horse an Olympic sport wants to encourage to be developed? Think it through. There's more to foxhunting that following the field (which is yet another challenge some very, very good eventing types wouldn't do, BTW).

Again, the most important point I'm trying to make is that Grand Prix show jumping PROVES that there are horses and riders who can jump fast and clean over jumps that are high, wide and fall down. That belies the belief that collapsable x-c jumps will produce bad jumpers. It will NOT--not if the horses are ridden well enough that they don't even find out the jumps fall down and not not not if horses who DO LEARN that they fall down are eliminated (and as a result, leave the sport).

We do not want horses willing to race foolishly over solid obstacles. That's a stupid horse and so a dangerous one. We want horses (and riders) that have the training, skill or just the inclination to jump at speed when it is safe and to not jump when it is not safe. NOTHING will stop these accidents. NOTHING. That means that the only option available is to let the accidents happen in such a way that no one gets killed or seriously injured. And the only way to do that is probably with something along the lines of "simulated" x-c jumps.

BTW, I was thinking exactly of Teddy touching down on that table at The Fork when I posted originally. Y'know, Karen was worried about the open arrowheads at Rolex this year for that very reason. If (and I know this, too, is assumption--but again, it's worth trying...actually "testing" would be a better word there) that table had collapsed under him, and if the resulting fall didn't injure him, that boy probably would have learned one heck of a lesson about touching down like that...and a year later, his rider would NOT have been worried about a couple of open arrowheads.

[Tex Mex]

Just some thoughts from a non-eventer regarding the OP's first post, I watched the video of Laine in order to get a better understanding of what happened, and to me it looks like she is trying to get him back on the approach to the jump, he doesn't respond, she lets him take over, then makes no decision about where to leave the ground. There is absolutely no safe distance to leave from. He can't leave from that far away and is going too fast to "chip" and add a stride. In the H/J world it is not uncommon for a rider to circle or pull up if you don't have a safe distance to leave from. I think the heart that eventers have is amazing, it seems that they never stop, never pull up. However, I am wondering if she shouldn't have made a circle to get him under control and balanced instead of heading to the jump?
But then you see other riders scramble over from bad distances and the audience claps and the horse and rider continue on. So it's just my opinion, which might mean nothing since I'm not an event rider, but what if, during the early years of these riders' educations, more emphasis was placed on riding to a safe distance every time, not just clearing the jump? I have actually been grateful a few times for a horse that stopped with me at a bad distance rather than attempting to jump and crash. To an event rider does this sound completely crazy? Would it take the "heart" out of it? I think it's a major cultural difference from the H/J world but it's just a thought.

[sm]

There are foxhunts everywhere in the US; some drag, some live. Almost all of them would very much welcome new riders; and hunting by capping is far less expensive than an eventing weekend. I've proposed before that the USEA might work with the MFHA to have special deals on hunt caps for USEA members, just as many hunts do for Pony Club members.

Well then that's good since Wofford and Davidson (alledgedly) seem to have the same take on it .

I think Wofford's and Davidson's solutions are much more fair to the horse --- first this completely artifical course, then having jumps built completely solid like a death trap...

[fordtraktor]

There are a lot of places where foxhunting is simply not available. Also, there are people (not myself) who have moral objections to foxhunting. I don't think the answer is requiring them to participate in an unavailable sport they don't approve of to be able to participate in one they do. (I personally have no objections, but I also have no foxhunt within five hours' drive.)

Riding regularly at speed outdoors is clearly necessary, but there is more than one way to skin a cat.

I agree with CE that I would not welcome increased attention on dressage, because I don't want to see eventing turn into a warmblood-fest any more than it already is. The scores are already heavily weighted toward dressage, and high-level collection is not necessarily going to translate into safer XC rounds.

If rails were 20 points each in SJ, I would bet that the horses would become more adjustable and the riders more focused on jumping technique.

[poltroon]

By the way, the stop may be safer for the horse, but plenty of riders have been severely injured by stops, so it's not a panacea.

TexMex, when eventing, there's not always a safe option to circle out - sometimes there's just not 20m of prepared ground to your right or left. Also, there is less emphasis on micromanaging a distance and more on riding the horse in balance so that there will always be a safe distance. Because the terrain isn't flat and because the speed is higher, finding a distance x-c is a different exercise than finding one in the arena.

(Says the former hunter equitation rider.)

[poltroon]

I agree with CE that I would not welcome increased attention on dressage, because I don't want to see eventing turn into a warmblood-fest any more than it already is. The scores are already heavily weighted toward dressage, and high-level collection is not necessarily going to translate into safer XC rounds.

If rails were 20 points each in SJ, I would bet that the horses would become more adjustable and the riders more focused on jumping technique.

I think the third level test is just about right - well within the capability of a good cross-country TB machine, difficult enough so that you have to be a pretty serious rider on the flat. But there may be more room for difficulty in SJ.

[pwynnnorman]

Well then that's good since Wofford and Davidson (alledgedly) seem to have the same take on it .

I think Wofford's and Davidson's solutions are much more fair to the horse --- first this completely artifical course, then having jumps built completely solid like a death trap...

I have huge respect for those two gentlemen, but I really disagree with them. Neither have mileage on the new type of horse that's out there. Both are basically TB and/or ISH fans. Both are from an earlier generation which I do not think truly understands and/or has or is willing to absorb how society, not just the sport, has changed and will not change back.

Forcing people to foxhunt is jsut as unrealistic as forcing the return of the long format.


By the way, the stop may be safer for the horse, but plenty of riders have been severely injured by stops, so it's not a panacea.



That's a guess, not a fact. And while there is always the rare, freakish incident, stops don't kill you or your horse--and that is what is most important. LET riders get injured when they make mistakes. We aren't trying to eliminate injury. That's the price you pay in a dangerous sport. The price is too high, however, when it means death.

Get a horse that will clear that jump if you get it there the right way or will stop if you get it there the wrong way and you get yourself a Mr. Big and have a wonderful time.

BTW, the hunter riders who have entered the discussion also illustrate something else that is important about collapsable fences: public impressions. The public cannot understand the value of solid fences teaching horses to jump cleanly. Even the somewhat educated outsider--such as those from other horse sports--doesn't really have much faith in that. And eventers themselves don't really know for sure that solid fences are the ONLY way to get a horse to respect cross country jumps. Again, don't ignore the show jumper, a type of horse that respects jumps even though it knows they fall down. Gosh, that is so important to understand here, IMO!

In fact, another other obvious way to get horses to respect x-c jumps even if they fall down is to BREED them to do so. Is this not what show jumpers have done? Indeed, look carefully at the really competitive horses out there and what do you see? Very few of them these days are having any difficulty whatsoever with the heights or widths, people. They clear the jumps by half a foot or more. THAT is a horse that will compliment this sport in this new world we live in where impressions matter. THAT is the type of horse that should be exhibited at our premiere events: Rolex, WEG, etc. THAT is the type of horse that the world wants to see, that breeders want to breed, that riders want to ride.

And guess what? It doesn't even have to be a warmblood. It has to be a darn good jumper--and if it is a SMART one such that it can also take care of itself (after all, Phillip has taken great care of Connaught over the years--when it comes to four-star wisdom and independence, Mr. Big beats Connaught hands down...Poggio, too), so much the better.

[vineyridge]

There are a lot of places where foxhunting is simply not available. Also, there are people (not myself) who have moral objections to foxhunting. I don't think the answer is requiring them to participate in an unavailable sport they don't approve of to be able to participate in one they do. (I personally have no objections, but I also have no foxhunt within five hours' drive.)

Riding regularly at speed outdoors is clearly necessary, but there is more than one way to skin a cat.

I agree with CE that I would not welcome increased attention on dressage, because I don't want to see eventing turn into a warmblood-fest any more than it already is. The scores are already heavily weighted toward dressage, and high-level collection is not necessarily going to translate into safer XC rounds.

If rails were 20 points each in SJ, I would bet that the horses would become more adjustable and the riders more focused on jumping technique.

So how far are you willing to drive to event? There are hunts now in Arizona, Wyoming, Colorado, Nevada and California, Northern and Southern. There are hunts in Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri and Oklahoma. There are hunts in Texas, New Mexico, and there's even a drag hunt in Washington State. There are still hunts in New England, most of them drag. There are drag hunts in Florida and in the Carolinas.

There are hunts in places where you'd think there wouldn't be. As to the "morality" of hunting with hounds, I don't think that is an issue with drag hunts. If you don't want to do live hunting, then do like most chasers in Britain and Ireland and start with hunt paces and point to points. Just don't sit in your artificial world and wonder why the horses can't think how to save you and themselves.

I went off in the middle of a tearing run, had a wedge fracture in my back, and watched my horse and the several of the others just jump over me. I went off because of the terrain and my horse's unexpected response to the ditch. It was my second or third hunt of the year, and I know now that I was not ready. I'd have been perfectly safe if I'd been stronger; not enough legging up for horse and me made all the difference between a safe day and an unsafe one for me.

[fooler]

It's been asserted for years that breakaway fences would be more dangerous, but I think, like with some of the other issues we've discussed, it's time to get some data. We need to study whether or not they are safer, and how we can make them safer. If we can quantify the necessary properties, I am confident that solutions can be engineered. For example, if we're worried about flying rails, tether them back to the fence with a breakable tether that will make them inclined to drop straight down rather than fly forward. The frangible pin is one solution, but perhaps we can have others for walls and other type obstacles.

(Do we have any stats on how well the frangible pins have worked in practice?)

I also am inclined to think the show jumping should be more difficult. Maybe bounces belong in stadium instead. Maybe we should change the order of the phases - a difficult SJ for day two, an easy cross-country run for day 3.

Maybe our horses and riders need to learn to run steeplechases as part of their education. But, it's not strictly necessary that it be as part of a three-day event. What if we made new competitions in places that have the facility, of a dressage + steeplechase competition? Or just steeplechase schooling days?

It's clear, as pwynn wrote, that we're entering a new era. Different horses, less land, riders with different backgrounds, different training opportunities. We just have to think outside the box to find a way to preserve the spirit - 3 days, 3 ways - that does not kill horses and riders. The sport is going to change - but I'm confident there's a way to preserve the all-around horsemanship test if we're willing to consider new options. Maybe it can even be better. For all we talk about the 'good old days', today's eventing combinations have longer careers and are far better at dressage and show jumping than the stars of the 70's and 80's.

Our horses are the best, and they deserve the best sport we can design for them.


I just don't get it.
Why must we continue to re-vamp a sport that was working correctly when it was the long-format.
The H/J'rs are returning to their roots of outside courses containing more natural fences without total related lines
The Western Pleasure folks have finally learned that the really slow jog & lope are all wrong and are changing.
The Halter folks almost destroyed the Quarter Horse Breed - but they learned.

We dropped the long format and picked up the short format. Then changed the x-c course to be more spectator friendly, then modified heights for stadium, then changed & changed all for the sake of safety. Now we have all of these deaths!
And today our response is to throw more changes to the sport so it looks even less than the original.

Let's return to the long-format.
Road & Tracks are ok. Let's review steeplechase. One of the main complaints of the chase was the speed caused injuries. Ok, consider slower speeds, but still encourage a gallop so the horse & rider learn to jump out of stride and it offers a 'pipe-opener' for the horse.
After Phases A, B & C the vets have a better opportunity to judge if a horse is ready for Phase D as all of the horses have had the same warm-up.

Poltroon - one reason horses last longer today is improvements in vet medicine. Another is the use of additives and injections for joint care in a preventative fashion and after changes have occurred. Back in the 70's & 80's we were severely limited as far as lameness products went, most all were topical. We had 2 good methods for worming - tube & granules that were pored over the feed (& the horse hardly ever ate all of it). Impaction or Twist 'colics' were a death warrant - now 80% or more horses survive the surgery!

You can make 'Eventing' into a Dressage & SJ competition with cross-rails for x-c in an effort to make it safe. Of course I know someone whose horse shattered a foreleg jumping a Novice cross-rail in warm-up so you can't save everyone.

We need to understand that Eventing is not for everyone. I personally would love to do Show Jumpers, but question my courage to jump those heights. However, I was comfortable at Prelim with the speed. Go Figure.

The heart of Eventing is ability to ride across country.
WE need to learn and teach this basic horsemanship tool.

[treehouse225]

We all need to remember that the ratio of cross country:dressage:show jumping is (theoretically) 12:3:1*, this is why cross country is the hardest of the three disciplines, why our show jumping is a "joke" compared to grand prix sj, and why our dressage is not GP dressage. If we make xc easier and the other two disciplines harder we loose the whole base of scoring and penalties. The xc phase is the raison d'etre for eventing, it is the heart of our sport. Make our favorite phase safer, not easier.
I was also thinking that if "many" people (mainly the LLR) think that not being able to gallop fences safely is to blame for some mistakes; why not introduce the steeplechase phase back into the sport.
Nevertheless, I disagree to the point that we need to eliminate horses that take off no matter what, jump the fence at a bad distance, kick on. Our sport is about (among other traits) bravery and trust/harmony between horse and rider. If we only reward horses that choose to stop or run out when the rider sets them up wrong, we loose an important factor of our sport, bravery. These are the types of horses that were originally wanted for the sport, brave, talented horses that would save the rider if something goes wrong, horses that would be safe for the military, could think for themselves, and would always help the rider out. It will be excellent for our sport when we find technology that will allow all xc jumps the collapse to avoid a rotational fall. That way, we keep the brave horses that eventing is based on, but not to the detriment of their own safety. Keep in mind that the frangible pins must be hit with tremendous force to fall; they do not break easily like breakaway cups.
And, for the record, if you cause a fence on xc using frangible pins to collapse, you are eliminated.
I also vote for more stringent qualifications throughout the levels, and greater regulation of intruction/coaching.

* source: Jo Young (FEI Dressage Judge, and friend), and also supported by the internet (namely wiki and other sites which have copied from wiki)

[pwynnnorman]

I just don't get it.
Why must we continue to re-vamp a sport that was working correctly when it was the long-format.
...
Let's return to the long-format.


fooler, what you just don't get -- because I guess you don't want to face reality or something -- is that we CAN'T. It isn't that the sport doesn't want to. IT CAN'T GO BACK.

Until people get that and start looking forward instead of backward, the sport is not going to solve its problems.

fooler, do you understand what it takes to put on a long format event? Do you? If you don't, then find out, rethink your position and then come back and tell us how many organizers out there can do it. HOW MANY? Three, eight, ten?

Can you not understand that if there aren't enough long format events to enable a significan number of exhibitors to compete at them and learn from them and ride better in them, then there's no point in having ANY (not as a way to solve the sport's problems, that is)? If only 10, 20 or even 30% of riders can avail themselves of a wonderful opportunity like the long format--and then only once or twice a year (because they are/would be so rare), then what the heck good are such events in the larger scheme of things? GET REAL, fooler. Wishful thinking will get us nowhere.

[useventers]

Let's return to the long-format.


I'm not sure the long format is even the answer. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love the long format and think there is still a place for it. I competed at Kentucky in 1990 when it was a ***. The helicopers were carrying people off the course like crazy. That was the year Steven Bradley was seriously hurt at the Lexington bank. They did remove that particular jump on top of the bank after the first 4-5 horses had problems at it.

Every upper level rider I knew in the 80's-90's was busted up from years of eventing. Even the Olympic and World Championship veterans were busted up or had near death experiences. If you rode enough horses, you inevitably took some bad falls. I'm not sure it really was that much safer with the long format, just less reporting of problems.

I remember several horse deaths in the late 80's at the Prelim level, they weren't even reported in the Eventing magazine. If you weren't at the event, you probably didn't even know they happened. There really is a lot more information now!

[pwynnnorman]

That way, we keep the brave horses that eventing is based on, but not to the detriment of their own safety. Keep in mind that the frangible pins must be hit with tremendous force to fall; they do not break easily like breakaway cups.
And, for the record, if you cause a fence on xc using frangible pins to collapse, you are eliminated.


Treehouse, bravery can be foolish. Also, bravery is not going to go away if the fences collapse or if there are horses out there who will stop rather than jump badly. Course designers would hardly let that happen. And bravery won't disappear if we breed Connaughts. And Mr. Big isn't brave? Of course he is! Bravery comes in many forms. The only forms I want to eliminate is foolish bravery and stupid bravery.

And unles you are taking about hurdles, the brush of steeplechase fences does not necessarily teach the horse to jump carefully at speed. In fact, it probably makes some horses worse since they just flatten out and wiz through the treetops. Is THAT the lesson you want it to teach its still-learning rider: how to go fast and flat? IMO, the idea that steeplechasing would procduce better x-c horses and riders is yet another one of those assumptions like foxhunting.

[fordtraktor]

Viney, I really appreciate your enthusiasm for the hunt. But what is so wrong with, oh, riding out on a trail? In the mountains? Over trees, creeks, and walls? I may not have a hunt, but that doesn't mean I don't know how to ride XC over rough terrain or that the same skills cannot be developed in other, just as useful ways.

Your post brings out the other side of the issue -- why are people out there even hunting if they don't ride enough at home to have the basic strength and skills necessary to get the job done? Aren't they doing the exact thing we are criticizing eventers for doing?

In my opinion, most people don't work hard enough at home on the right things. Then they go to outside activities -- including hunting! -- and expect that everything will be fine. Well, it won't. It might once, twice, a dozen times, but as your story shows, lack of preparation will catch up to you.

Maybe the bad economy will encourage people to appreciate the joy of mastering something new and developing skills in the backyard, and not just through shows, hunts, and clinics. It is the most wonderful and least appreciated part of working with horses.

[fooler]

fooler, what you just don't get -- because I guess you don't want to face reality or something -- is that we CAN'T. It isn't that the sport doesn't want to. IT CAN'T GO BACK.

Until people get that and start looking forward instead of backward, the sport is not going to solve its problems.

fooler, do you understand what it takes to put on a long format event? Do you? If you don't, then find out, rethink your position and then come back and tell us how many organizers out there can do it. HOW MANY? Three, eight, ten?

Can you not understand that if there aren't enough long format events to enable a significan number of exhibitors to compete at them and learn from them and ride better in them, then there's no point in having ANY (not as a way to solve the sport's problems, that is)? If only 10, 20 or even 30% of riders can avail themselves of a wonderful opportunity like the long format--and then only once or twice a year (because they are/would be so rare), then what the heck good are such events in the larger scheme of things? GET REAL, fooler. Wishful thinking will get us nowhere.


Been around since 1975-1976 in eventing. Understand how difficult it is to put on a HT much less a long format. It takes land and volunteers and money and more money and, and, and. . .
Ok we all understand the long format is a problem and it is unlikely we will ever return to it. However we all can understand the short format is not the answer. So what is?

I would love to talk to you more about that, but work is calling. My email is grizcj@aol.com. I will send you an email as I have time to respond.

[treehouse225]

And unles you are taking about hurdles, the brush of steeplechase fences does not necessarily teach the horse to jump carefully at speed. In fact, it probably makes some horses worse since they just flatten out and wiz through the treetops. Is THAT the lesson you want it to teach its still-learning rider: how to go fast and flat? IMO, the idea that steeplechasing would procduce better x-c horses and riders is yet another one of those assumptions like foxhunting.

No, the reason steeplechase may be a good idea (although, events won't go back to the old format), is that it lets horse and rider become comfortable with jumping in stride, it lets them warm up properly and develop a good, rhythmical, working pace, exactly what is wanted for a nice xc round: rhythm and pace at a respectable speed.

[Albion]

I'm baffled as to why hunting is 'the answer' - not all horses are suitable hunting mounts (if they were, proven hunt horses wouldn't command the prices they do). Yes, it's great for horses and riders racing over fences - but those horses and riders need to be able to gallop & jump in a pack, and do NOT need to be taking a 4 foot bounce to the water and then back out again up a bank (insert favorite technical question here). The questions asked of an event horse are very different than those asked of a 'chaser.

And if the event rider is hunting on an experienced hunt horse, doesn't that defeat the purpose? So what do you do with the horses that aren't suitable for hunting because they don't like galloping and jumping in a group? Say they can't event? That's ridiculous. If you want to do that, clearly 'chasers and jockeys should start having to compete in eventing. After all, I'm sure they'd learn something. Wouldn't it be lovely if ALL riders got a wonderful, well rounded education and did all sorts of different things? Of COURSE it would, but how FEASIBLE is it?

I was one of those lucky kids who had access to a lot of open space. My pony had a heart of gold, but was smart as a whip and came with BRAINS and a sense of self preservation. Yes, we did a lot of stuff that in retrospect was stupid (REALLY stupid), but with the stupidest stuff - he would say 'NO.' My friends & I did a lot of riding by the seat of our pants over all sorts of terrain, jumping all sorts of concocted fences and natural obstacles, and it was great for me - but how many people have access to that sort of land & those opportunities? Do parents really let little Suzie on her $$$ former upper level horse out to blast around the countryside doing DUMB STUFF?

That pony, after we sold him, went on to safely pack little girls around BN and N events. His dressage sucked (he was a Walking Horse of indeterminate origin - did the running walk when he got nervous, like in the dressage ring ;)), but he was safe safe safe - he was trusting & brave and did a LOT of wacky things I asked of him, but he wasn't brave to the point of getting either of us killed.

[vineyridge]

Viney, I really appreciate your enthusiasm for the hunt. But what is so wrong with, oh, riding out on a trail? In the mountains? Over trees, creeks, and walls? I may not have a hunt, but that doesn't mean I don't know how to ride XC over rough terrain or that the same skills cannot be developed in other, just as useful ways.

Your post brings out the other side of the issue -- why are people out there even hunting if they don't ride enough at home to have the basic strength and skills necessary to get the job done? Aren't they doing the exact thing we are criticizing eventers for doing?

In my opinion, most people don't work hard enough at home on the right things. Then they go to outside activities -- including hunting! -- and expect that everything will be fine. Well, it won't. It might once, twice, a dozen times, but as your story shows, lack of preparation will catch up to you.

Maybe the bad economy will encourage people to appreciate the joy of mastering something new and developing skills in the backyard, and not just through shows, hunts, and clinics. It is the most wonderful and least appreciated part of working with horses.

People learn by their own experiences. You can tell them how to do things properly over and over and over, but until they screw up themselves, they haven't taken the education to heart. It's the difference between teaching and learning that Pwynn pointed out a while back.

In my case, I was riding a horse that I had had several years of experience hunting on without a fall. I thought I knew him inside and out. I was coming back from knee surgery and just hadn't gotten my core strength where I now know it needed to be. Believe me, I have LEARNED. I will never make that particular mistake again.

The reason that foxhunting is such good preparation is the speed that one has to ride across country when the hounds are running. I have never seen people run full out on trail rides, much less jump things like solid coops downhill with a right hand turn immediately afterwards or the horse and rider will run into an immoveable tree. You have to have the horse under complete control because of the other riders. While it may not be the only preparation for XC in eventing, it is certainly the one thing that is most similar. And takes place on terrain that is completely unmanicured. Both horse and rider have to learn to think quickly and the horse does learn to deal with all sorts of natural occurences, like deer popping up or avoiding holes, or windblown limbs underfoot, or swerving to avoid stumps in cut over land. It all happens so quickly that a hunt horse has to be a thinking horse, not an automaton. The very questions that are asked at cross country COME from hunting experience.

[vineyridge]

And unles you are taking about hurdles, the brush of steeplechase fences does not necessarily teach the horse to jump carefully at speed. In fact, it probably makes some horses worse since they just flatten out and wiz through the treetops. Is THAT the lesson you want it to teach its still-learning rider: how to go fast and flat? IMO, the idea that steeplechasing would procduce better x-c horses and riders is yet another one of those assumptions like foxhunting.

Problem is that XC riding is supposed to be a different type of riding than show jumping at speed. The horse is supposed to gallop on and jump flatter and out of stride. Stadium is supposed to show that the horse is capable of constant rateability. It's a whole different kettle of fish. A horse that is good XC may not be good at Stadium and vice versa.

If you are now saying that there is no difference between the two in contemporary eventing, then why bother with XC at all?

[treehouse225]

I agree with you completely Viney. XC is a different ball game (to keep up with the cliched metaphores). And pwyn, I do not see how hunting and steeplechase are equivalent. steeplechase = pace, speed, rhythm, while hunting = speed, stoping, good in group, can jump small fences. (no offence to those that participate in hunting, good horses and you need ability, but totally different from steeplechase.)

[YRAP Mom]

While I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the information, below you will find text from the website www.eventing.zzn.com that is said to be the site of a parent of a deceased eventer. (See thread on Laine article in KY newspaper from today.) Just thought I'd put this where all could see it and suggest that the attack first focus upon the common denominator for these serious falls. Systemic change can be tackled after that.

List of Riders injured or Killed recently


Sherelle Duke (IRE), 28, 08/20/06, Brockenhurst (UK), Advanced HT, rotational fall, horse fell on rider, head injuries - Death

Mia Eriksson (USA), 17, 11/04/06, Galway Downs, CCI**, Fence #19, rotational fall, horse fell on rider, ruptured aorta - Death

Kim Hyung Chil (KOR), 47, 12/07/06, Doha, Asian Games CCI*, Fence #8, table (1.08m in height), rotational fall, horse fell on rider’s head and upper body 0- Death

Amanda Bader (USA), 51, 02/17/07, Ocala, Preliminary HT, Fence #13, table, rotational fall, horse fell on rider, head/neck injuries - Death

Amelie Cohen (FRA), 30, 03/11/07, Fontainebleau, Novice, Fence #7, rotational fall, horse fell on rider - Death

Jo-Anne Williams (UK), 34, 04/18/07 Sapey ODE, Novice, Fence #8, ‘bench-style obstacle’, horse somersaulted, rider thrown clear, displaced aorta (inoperable), also reported as head injury - Death

Julie Silly (FRA), 17, 05/05/07, Novice HT, Jardy, ‘straightforward fence’, rotational fall, horse fell on rider - Death

Elin Stalberg (SWE), 19, 07/21/07, Bollnas, CCI** or CIC**, 3rd last fence, corner, rotational fall, horse fell on rider - Death

Tina Richter-Vietor (GER) , 32, 08/04/07 , CIC** Schenefeld , Fence #2, ‘easy-type’ fence, rotational fall, horse somersaulted and rider ‘catapulted out of saddle’, broken neck - Death

Anke Wolfe (GER), 40, 08/15/07, Neu-Wulmsdorf, Novice HT, final fence, rotational fall, horse fell on rider - Daeth

Maia Boutanos (FRA), 29, 09/01/07, Moulin-Coulandon, Novice HT, Fence #5b, ‘fall of horse and rider’, ‘obstacle not fixed’ according to regulations - Death

Eleanor Brennan (UK), 20, 11/17/07, Ocala CCI**, Fence #18, table, rotational fall, horse fell on rider, head and chest injuries - Death

Franz Graf, (AUS), 62, 04/06/08, Aspang, Viena Austria, horse fell on rider - Death

Karen Rodgers, 41 (UK) 04/21/08, Ballingdeinsk CNC**, rotational fall, Death

[luise]

Just a thought (and now I know SJ and XC ask 2 different skill sets of the horse)--why not raise the heights for show jumping to like 4'3" or 4'6". Maybe it would weed out some of he horses who might run into a fence on XC.

[crittertwitter]

That's my reaction to the accidents recently, as well. *sigh* I understand that it would change the sport if the fences are collapsible. That's the idea, after all - to make the sport safer. And that is a good change. In no way is it acceptable for our horses to pay for errors (ours, theirs, or anyone elses) with their lives. I said, only half jokingly, "Why can't we just put stadium jumps up throughout the course? There you have it... you get to gallop around and jump." While I know this is a little silly - and it's 50% frustration - I absolutely do believe the jumps need to be collapsible. Whatever engineering it takes. It seems egotistical to me that we can only be satisfied with dangerous jumps.

What's so darn bad about a jump that can't kill you? In our minds are we retorting, "Oh, no, that cross country course... that wasn't serious at all. The jumps can't even hurt you. Those collapsible fences! This just isn't the same... these safe cross country courses. I just won't participate in a cross country course that doesn't require spot-on, 100% perfection."

Well, I just think it's arrogant to turn your nose up at the idea of courses that allow for flaws. The best riders are flawed. We are all flawed. And our horses will sometimes be flawed (but rarely ;)).

It is NOT OK for our horses, with their hearts, their generosity, and their sincere respect for what we ask, to lose their lives because of a mistake. And I don't care what anyone says - we're all still learning. And if you have to be saturated with knowledge before you can do a 4* safely, there's a loss there, too. I bet you every rider out there learned *something* doing the course this weekend. Tests are learning experiences - I used to love taking tests because a well constructed test will bring the information together in a new way. Tests (aka events) aren't only for illustrating what you know. They are opportunities to learn.

My sister has been eventing for about 6 years, since the age of 11 or so. She wants to go to Rolex, etc. etc. and while this scares and excites me, I know that these accidents have made her wiser. She's no longer looking at moving up just as soon as she has put in her qualifying rides. She wanted to do her first 1* this May and I am SO PROUD OF HER for pushing it back - because I know how significant upward mobility is to her - and how much she loves her horse and this sport. She also wants to do him justice, and so these things are all entwined in her mind.

That said, we've been going to Rolex for the past 4 years, and my reaction upon leaving this year was, "Why can't you just do jumpers, for gods sake?" And I know the answer - I did jumpers and it was exhilerating. But it's just not her bug. She loves eventing. Doing jumper classes feels to her like walking a dog with one leg.

And so I repeat: what's so wrong with changing the fence design? It looks like we need to take the frangible pins out of our egos and put them in the course design.

[pwynnnorman]

vineyridge and treetops -- first, understand I am appreciating the dialog, so please don't take these statements the wrong way, OK?

Second, what I'm basically asking is that you check your assumptions at the door.

I work with a lot of hunter-jumper folks, so I'm a bit of a hybrid here. To me, being able to truly get to the right distance at take off is far, far, far more important that focusing on riding that rhythm you emphasize. Why? Because you don't find distances without having the very fundamentals you both argue for, BUT even with those fundamentals, it is the missed distances that kill.

Y'see, in my mind, too many eventers think that rhythm and pace are (or should be) all there is to it. YES, at the lower levels, that is the case.

But I thikn we are wrong to assume that by the time a rider gets into or beyond prelim, that should STILL be emphasized. ACCURACY at ALL SPEEDS is a must in today's sport. And accuracy means control and an eye for a distance. It means you can see when you are dead wrong and correct it, slow down, circle or pull up.

You can lope around--forever, fast, slow, whatever--and still be clueless about where that horse is going to end up in front of that jump. Today, at the upper levels, you are risking your neck if you can't ride a distance.

Steeplechasing does NOT teach how to ride a distance! Foxhunting does not teach how to ride a distance. Learning how to gallop and jump out of stride does not teach how to ride a distance.

I think course designers would be nodding away with me right now: When they talk about technical courses, what would you say they are referring to? Placing a horse where, when and exactly HOW it needs to placed to negotiate one or a series of obstacles. That doesn't preclude jumping out of stride, but, by golly, there's MORE to it than that today! Come up with a way to insure that riders can learn what they need to learn--don't assume they will, especially if your assumptions are based on the standards of the past. Ask course designers. I feel certain they'd agree with me that distances are more important today that just pace and rhythm alone!

[treehouse225]

I see what you are saying pwyn, but from all the training I have had in europe and many north american styles, and the old school and new books I have read, courses I have watched and evaluated, it is pace and rhythm that get the horse and rider to a good distance. Pace and Rhythm are the MOST important factor in xc. Whether you are riding at a collected canter, or an extended canter, these should stay the same. Riders need to see the distance far in advance, so they can prepare for it in a controlled and rhythmical way. If you see the distance to close to the fence, and decide to break your pace to meet it, that is when mistakes and fatalities happen. That is when you meet the half strides and bad spots, forcing your horse to stop or try to rescue you. The steeplechase helps the riders prepare, to see the distance far in advance, to play with their pace and rhythm to find what works best on FORGIVING fences, before they must meet the technical, unforgiving fences of the xc course.

I do not compete in the hunters, I compete mostly in eventing/dressage/jumpers/equitation, and in all these disciplines, pace and rhythm is the most crucial factor. An equitation judge would much rather see a rider keep the pace and take the long spot as opposed to haul on the reins, or kick forward, breaking the horses rhythm in order to get "the" distance. Watch a good GP jumper round, their rhythm changes only minisculy, they find the long and the short spots but keep the horses rhythm none the less.

[vineyridge]

I just read the list that YRAPmom posted. It made me sick at my stomach, especially after seeing the video of Frodo's fall and the newspaper pictures.

Let me ask a question for all of us to think about. The deaths and Laine's injury seem to have all occurred at easy, straight forward fences, according to the descriptions. We all agree that the "new" courses are different and highly technical in many of their required efforts. The deaths are not occurring at the technical jumps. Why? According to the FEI 2007 stats, rotational falls increased almost 20% in 2007, from 51 to 60.

Is it that the riders respect the technical, tough jumps more than the straight forward ones? Is it that they really don't know how to jump out of stride?

Those are the questions that have to be answered. Eliminating the straight forward jumps doesn't seem to me to be a very good answer for what ails the sport. They should be the EASY ones, the let up ones, not the killer ones.

[vineyridge]

I agree with you completely Viney. XC is a different ball game (to keep up with the cliched metaphores). And pwyn, I do not see how hunting and steeplechase are equivalent. steeplechase = pace, speed, rhythm, while hunting = speed, stoping, good in group, can jump small fences. (no offence to those that participate in hunting, good horses and you need ability, but totally different from steeplechase.)

I agree, but hunting teaches things to the horse that it can't learn chasing. And in the US, anyway, many of the highest level chasers hunt in the off season. There is a reason for that.

[treehouse225]

After the course walk, I was under the impression that the flower basket was not an easy question, as in it had a very straight face, very square, and not raised at the back. Techniqually it was not all that difficult, make the horse listen, and come under himself like a show jumping fence, but Laine made the mistake that this fence was questioning. She rode it more as a galloping oxer, which was not what was intended.

[austin]

this may have been said, and understand this is about 5th hand knowledge, but I understand that the horse that fell with Ralph had had his struggles at that level before.

[pwynnnorman]

But that's just it, tree: to huntes and show jumpers, the distance is the all-mighty holy grail. To eventers, it ain't. That's why our relatively simple stadium courses make half the riders look like total yahoos to th h-j crowd: eventers prove in event after event that they can't really find a distance.

And that, IMO, may be at the heart of many tragedies.

H-J'ers kinda "lie" about finding a distance, too, of course. Some horses have a great eye of their own and h-j courses are easy enough that those horses could get around smoothly with a monkey on their backs. That doesn't work, of course, as you move up the levels, especially not in jumpers. You have to be accurate and have a plan you can actually carry out (i.e. that you are capable of carrying out) if you want to go fast and clear over height and width.

And so should eventers, but these days, too many of them apparently don't. Courses have changed to become more technical. Technical means more accurate. (And no, PLEASE, I have not in one word here said to make x-c like stadium! Nowhere!!! Course designers have already changed how x-c courses must be ridden: EVERYONE has heard the description of having to "show jump" through a complex. But is anyone LISTENING???? What does it mean to have to do that? Just get the right pace and rhythm and hope for the best? NOOOOOO, not today!)

I do believe this is just something eventers resist. And that, too, is why I'd like to see ones who persist in resisting the need to ride more accurately the higher up you go get their butts eliminated. Too, too often, it's a wonderful horse that saves the butts of those who haven't worked on their eye. That's WRONG. That's DANGEROUS. (And that's also so "yesterday.")

There is this one, important parallel between stadium and x-c: accuracy. Again, h-j'ers will tell you that eventers fail that test every day, right up through some of the highest levels. If you can't ride a smooth stadium round at lower levels, that means you have no eye. Now, how many smooth rounds DO you see out there? And that embarassing stuff goes on on near-perfect footing: rarely are there hills, dips, swales, rutts, mounds, crowds, tree branches, weary muscles, or honking-big and scary-looking obstacles to distract or disturb horse or rider. And yet time after time, eventers still bury their horses in front of stadium jumps or take flat-flyers that bring the rails down. Time after time there are blantant exhibitions of just how poorly eventers "see" distances, much less ride them.

And then they take that poor skill set out cross country, over jumps that won't forgive them for it. Eeee-gad!

[austin]

last year when they asked for input on safety, I suggested they make the show jumping for each level 3 inches higher than the cross country. maybe then people will not be riding horses at a level whose talent is maxed out.

[poltroon]

So how far are you willing to drive to event? There are hunts now in Arizona, Wyoming, Colorado, Nevada and California, Northern and Southern. There are hunts in Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri and Oklahoma. There are hunts in Texas, New Mexico, and there's even a drag hunt in Washington State. There are still hunts in New England, most of them drag. There are drag hunts in Florida and in the Carolinas.

Honest question: do most of these hunts have facilities that would allow someone to haul 6-8 hours to them and stable overnight for someone to participate?

Also, though I have not experienced either directly, from what I have been told, the hunt in Southern California is quite a bit different, especially in terms of how well it prepares one for eventing, from hunts in Virginia.

[poltroon]

last year when they asked for input on safety, I suggested they make the show jumping for each level 3 inches higher than the cross country. maybe then people will not be riding horses at a level whose talent is maxed out.

That's already true at Advanced, and has been for years.

[austin]

Guess it was a good idea.

Now I know why so many rails are falling. still a member, but did my last event in 2004.

Back to the drawing board.

[pwynnnorman]

I agree with you completely Viney. XC is a different ball game (to keep up with the cliched metaphores). And pwyn, I do not see how hunting and steeplechase are equivalent. steeplechase = pace, speed, rhythm, while hunting = speed, stoping, good in group, can jump small fences. (no offence to those that participate in hunting, good horses and you need ability, but totally different from steeplechase.)

BTW, the only way I said they were equivalent was that they don't teach a rider how to ride a distance. That's it. I wrote nothing else about them.

BTW2, I do hope it is realized here that I am hardly referring to the pros in the "can't ride a distance" group. Obviously, there are riders out there who are very accurate -- and all the time, too. But there are riders who aren't, too. And IMO the number of riders like that increase as you go down through the levels. But at any level, the fact is that in most instances where rotational falls have occurred, the horse did not leave the ground at the right spot. (Sigh: and again, I did not say in ALL instances!)

So, to get back on track, collapsable fences will save the rider with no eye (or whose eye has just ceased to be effective for some reason) on the horse that won't make up for that fact. Eliminating that pair for taking down a collapsable fence will eventually force them to deal with whatever the hole existed in their skill sets that lead to the horse hitting that fence hard enough to bring it down.

[imapepper]

But I thikn we are wrong to assume that by the time a rider gets into or beyond prelim, that should STILL be emphasized. ACCURACY at ALL SPEEDS is a must in today's sport. And accuracy means control and an eye for a distance. It means you can see when you are dead wrong and correct it, slow down, circle or pull up.

You can lope around--forever, fast, slow, whatever--and still be clueless about where that horse is going to end up in front of that jump. Today, at the upper levels, you are risking your neck if you can't ride a distance.

Steeplechasing does NOT teach how to ride a distance! Foxhunting does not teach how to ride a distance. Learning how to gallop and jump out of stride does not teach how to ride a distance.

I think course designers would be nodding away with me right now: When they talk about technical courses, what would you say they are referring to? Placing a horse where, when and exactly HOW it needs to placed to negotiate one or a series of obstacles. That doesn't preclude jumping out of stride, but, by golly, there's MORE to it than that today! Come up with a way to insure that riders can learn what they need to learn--don't assume they will, especially if your assumptions are based on the standards of the past. Ask course designers. I feel certain they'd agree with me that distances are more important today that just pace and rhythm alone!

Vineyridge just pointed out that most of these falls are taking place at very straight forward jumps. I agree 100% that you have to be able to see if you are making a decent approach with a safe distance. But at the same time, I am not sure that cross country should be where the more technical questions are asked. What if cross country was less technical? What if the fences were not quite as imposing or had safety devices such as the frangible pins for the vertical faces? What about making anything beyond a certain width have a higher/more visible element on the backside? What if the showjumping phase required a more technical ride instead of asking a horse to negotiate these more technical questions over objects that don't fall down? That might bring the sport back in the right direction. Make cross country still about boldness and going forward and make the showjumping phase about the technical questions.

I also agree that moving up at any levels require a certain number of qualifying rides at the previous level. And if there are scary but clean rides reported by jump judges, additional qualifying rides or a test out should be required for a move up. I have seen some extremely scary rides at smaller fences but do not hear of the accidents because for the most parts the horses can save our incompetent @sses at the lower levels.

[poltroon]

I just read the list that YRAPmom posted. It made me sick at my stomach, especially after seeing the video of Frodo's fall and the newspaper pictures.

Let me ask a question for all of us to think about. The deaths and Laine's injury seem to have all occurred at easy, straight forward fences, according to the descriptions. We all agree that the "new" courses are different and highly technical in many of their required efforts. The deaths are not occurring at the technical jumps. Why? According to the FEI 2007 stats, rotational falls increased almost 20% in 2007, from 51 to 60.

Is it that the riders respect the technical, tough jumps more than the straight forward ones? Is it that they really don't know how to jump out of stride?

Those are the questions that have to be answered. Eliminating the straight forward jumps doesn't seem to me to be a very good answer for what ails the sport. They should be the EASY ones, the let up ones, not the killer ones.

Brian Sabo once told me to watch out for fence #5, regardless of what it was. I will mangle what he said and make him wince here, but basically, his point was that by #5, you're starting to 'read your own press releases' and feeling pretty good about yourself, your rhythm, and your horse - too good! - and #5 is about where the course designer starts testing.

I think that it may be a factor that the straightforward fences allow the rider to let his guard down just a wee bit, and maybe the rider is a little tired - often an easier fence is meant to be a bit of a confidence builder after a tougher segment - and so the accident happens at something meant to be easier, but was actually caused by the complexity of the earlier obstacles. Similarly, when I see the EIPH deaths, I am thinking that maybe they are related to the course after all, that the earlier segments of the course have stressed the horse's body (or in the case of the fences, mind) to the point that we have a problem.

Note, for example, that while straightforward fences are often where the accident occurs, they're (almost?) never fence #1. And yet, fence #1 is traditionally straightforward. If it were just the obstacle type, you would expect the accidents to distribute randomly and to include some #1 jumps.

[Picasso]

Usually I do agree with Wynn and this case is no different. For the sake of discussion, however, is building safer jumps mutually exclusive from returning to the long format? I would suggest that even on the off chance we could go back, wouldn't we still want the safest fence possible during the XC phase?

We have objects in space that can take pictures of peoples front yards! Surely we can build a fence that looks like cross-country jump that comes down. I don't think the horses will stop respecting them; otherwise we wouldn't have puissance night at the Washington Internationals. We just need to insist on it happening instead of wringing our hands saying, "what are we to do".

I love this sport, even at the weenie level that I compete! We are a smart, resourceful group. Let's gather our facts, gather our engineers, gather our artists and start developing some prototypes based on what we find. What we don't want to happen is paralysis by analysis or succumb to the doomsday naysayers.

[poltroon]

Viney, if it makes you feel better, though I have never foxhunted, indeed I've done a fair amount of galloping on the trails and crazy hills of Southern California. No jumps other than the random log, or homeless person, or abandoned furniture, or killer squirrel, though. :D

[pwynnnorman]

But at the same time, I am not sure that cross country should be where the more technical questions are asked. What if cross country was less technical? What if the fences were not quite as imposing ...

Because then the weight of cross country with respect to the other phases would change.

We need to remember all of the elements in this picture, I think -- and be consistent about how we relate to them. One thread on rider responsibility is contradicting another thread exhorting simplifying (ummm, and ain't that the same as "dumbing down"?) cross country courses. What the heck? We can't have it both ways!

I'm not saying this just off the top of my head. I, like many, have been reading what riders and course designers and TDs and others have stated. And so I really wonder why people keep failing to account for WHY WHY WHY technical courses exist today? What do you think is the answer to that, imapepper? Because if you come up with it, you'll realize why the wholesale incorporation of the open, galloping courses of yesteryear would turn eventing into a dressage show given the talents of today's horses (and riders).

Course designers haven't created technical courses for no reason. If you want to reduce the technicalities, come up with something to replace them that will keep x-c ahead of dressage and stadium jumping in terms of its relative importance in the results.

[poltroon]

Usually I do agree with Wynn and this case is no different. For the sake of discussion, however, is building safer jumps mutually exclusive from returning to the long format? I would suggest that even on the off chance we could go back, wouldn't we still want the safest fence possible during the XC phase?

We have objects in space that can take pictures of peoples front yards! Surely we can build a fence that looks like cross-country jump that comes down. I don't think the horses will stop respecting them; otherwise we wouldn't have puissance night at the Washington Internationals. We just need to insist on it happening instead of wringing our hands saying, "what are we to do".

I love this sport, even at the weenie level that I compete! We are a smart, resourceful group. Let's gather our facts, gather our engineers, gather our artists and start developing some prototypes based on what we find. What we don't want to happen is paralysis by analysis or succumb to the doomsday naysayers.

There's no question that we can. It's straightforward to make boulders out of styrofoam, for example. And I like the long format too.

The question is, is the collapsible fence safer, and with what parameters. Many people are worried that a collapsible fence could cause more injuries, and in my opinion, that's a very reasonable concern. So let's study this. Some of the study was done with the frangible pins. What parameters in a collapsible jump make it safer? As an engineer, I feel confident that jumps can be created that will get out of the way of the horse or will prevent the horse from flipping. If we can develop the parameters, we can then work on a way to make them affordable and resettable. As far as I know, there have been no serious accidents at a jump with frangible pins, but it also seems to me that they are not prevalent enough yet for us to bank on that.

For the hunter people, I've seen rotational falls over a standard type plywood coop or wall. It's just that (usually!) the horses aren't going as fast as event horses.

[pwynnnorman]

Ah, so that's how you spell "collapsible." :)

Seriously, though, poltroon: Let's not mix hunters up with falls. Hunters go with the "controlled, accurate riding" concept (expanded to infer "at any and all speeds").

[poltroon]

Because then the weight of cross country with respect to the other phases would change.

We need to remember all of the elements in this picture, I think -- and be consistent about how we relate to them. One thread on rider responsibility is contradicting another thread exhorting simplifying (ummm, and ain't that the same as "dumbing down"?) cross country courses. What the heck? We can't have it both ways!

I'm not saying this just off the top of my head. I, like many, have been reading what riders and course designers and TDs and others have stated. And so I really wonder why people keep failing to account for WHY WHY WHY technical courses exist today? What do you think is the answer to that, imapepper? Because if you come up with it, you'll realize why the wholesale incorporation of the open, galloping courses of yesteryear would turn eventing into a dressage show given the talents of today's horses (and riders).

Course designers haven't created technical courses for no reason. If you want to reduce the technicalities, come up with something to replace them that will keep x-c ahead of dressage and stadium jumping in terms of its relative importance in the results.

My feeling is that maybe we need to rethink this part, the relative scoring. The question is, finding an all-around combination of horse and rider, one who gallops cross country, who can jump stadium, who can do dressage. Is it really critical to the sport that we test bounces on cross-country? If we test them on stadium day, it's the same skill.

The reality of cross-country is that we've gotten to the limit of the equine athlete, and it has basically become, can you jump clean or not. "Not" is becoming elimination rather than just going to the bottom of the class. It used to be that going faster was better - but that was dangerous too, so now we have optimum time and even speed faults.

Even though most of our top riders have become very good at it, jumping cleanly around even a straightforward cross-country course is still an impressive skill. It's impressive even if every entrant jumps cleanly around.

Having cross country become "check, did that, went clear" is not the worst thing that can happen to our sport. Indeed, I don't think I'll ever be skilled enough to do even the most straightforward 3'11" cross country course. People who master show jumping and dressage will still have a new skill to master to get around cross-country, even if it doesn't overtly change the scores. We have cross-country at US Novice and Beginner Novice, even though that phase rarely changes the scores. It does sometimes, and that's sufficient.

A few years ago, I was a strict traditionalist. I wanted what we always had. Today, what I want is eventing to survive and thrive as a viable sport that is the ultimate test in horsemanship - and where a bad day is a big E or a large score, instead of tragedy.

[thumbsontop]

Interesting discussion. It will be interesting to see the first steps that the USEA takes. And I hope the UL riders are giving plenty of input (I'm sure they are) - especially those who have been around. My guess is that riders today are riding smarter, but that courses are obviously alot more difficult too. I'm not sure what they would think about over-regulating the sport.

As for the dressage, I do think that there's some merit to equalizing each of the 3 phases more. I'm not sure how - and of course not everyone will agree - but if XC is less "make it or break it" perhaps it would help. Of course, you know I'm all about lowering OT too.

I also don't really agree that stops cannot cause significant injuries or even deaths. There was a near miss in Intermediate this past weekend where the horse stopped and the rider swung her face across the top of the jump. She fortunately only lost teeth and needed stitches but it could have killed her.

Hopefully we'll start seeing some of these ideas put into place. It's easy to Monday morning quarterback - let's continue to make it a productive conversation. And like what was mentioned in Eventing magazine, remember that this isn't just a conversation among eventers/horsefolks. It is open on the internet for anyone to see.

[pwynnnorman]

I also don't really agree that stops cannot cause significant injuries or even deaths. There was a near miss in Intermediate this past weekend where the horse stopped and the rider swung her face across the top of the jump. She fortunately only lost teeth and needed stitches but it could have killed her.

But does it matter? Stops are what: 99.95% survivable for horse and rider? 99.999%? Should we waste energy trying to eliminate the injuries humans can cause upon themselves? Why not just focus on that which kills and ignore than which just doesn't (to any significant degree)? Why let such insignificance distract from the real tragedies to both rider and horse?

[RAyers]

I also don't really agree that stops cannot cause significant injuries or even deaths. There was a near miss in Intermediate this past weekend where the horse stopped and the rider swung her face across the top of the jump. She fortunately only lost teeth and needed stitches but it could have killed her.

I would say your analysis is lacking. A single instance does not a trend make.

The STATISTICS from over 600 rides in the UK show that 1 in 3 FALLS result in significant injury to the horse and 1 in 100 FALLS result in DEATH. See the study by Murray et. al, 2006.

As a matter of fact they show that the MORE refusals, the LESS likely a fall. Hmmm, stopping means less chance for injury or death.

Reed

[imapepper]

Because then the weight of cross country with respect to the other phases would change.

We need to remember all of the elements in this picture, I think -- and be consistent about how we relate to them. One thread on rider responsibility is contradicting another thread exhorting simplifying (ummm, and ain't that the same as "dumbing down"?) cross country courses. What the heck? We can't have it both ways!

I'm not saying this just off the top of my head. I, like many, have been reading what riders and course designers and TDs and others have stated. And so I really wonder why people keep failing to account for WHY WHY WHY technical courses exist today? What do you think is the answer to that, imapepper? Because if you come up with it, you'll realize why the wholesale incorporation of the open, galloping courses of yesteryear would turn eventing into a dressage show given the talents of today's horses (and riders).

Course designers haven't created technical courses for no reason. If you want to reduce the technicalities, come up with something to replace them that will keep x-c ahead of dressage and stadium jumping in terms of its relative importance in the results.

I guess when you put it that way....this is where the adjustment from the long format to the short format is really starting to take effect. But turning obstacles that do not fall down into technical questions is dangerous. I have seen very good riders at the Grand Prix level make some pretty ugly mistakes on a technical questions and tear down the fence. But they came down so the price wasn't quite as high as it's been for the eventers. Also, if cross country is as technical as showjumping, then it takes away from the purpose of show jumping (come back after being bold cross country and be rideable/careful over poles that come down). Sooner or later, it doesn't matter how good you are or how talented your horse is.... you are going to miss a distance. I guess I really don't have a GOOD answer to this problem. Maybe this is just part of the really not nice growing pains that will be coming from changing the sport to fit the short format. If I am not mistaken, part of the argument against the short format was that it would put too much emphasis on the dressage.

[poltroon]

I guess when you put it that way....this is where the adjustment from the long format to the short format is really starting to take effect. But turning obstacles that do not fall down into technical questions is dangerous. I have seen very good riders at the Grand Prix level make some pretty ugly mistakes on a technical questions and tear down the fence. But they came down so the price wasn't quite as high as it's been for the eventers. Also, if cross country is as technical as showjumping, then it takes away from the purpose of show jumping (come back after being bold cross country and be rideable/careful over poles that come down). Sooner or later, it doesn't matter how good you are or how talented your horse is.... you are going to miss a distance. I guess I really don't have a GOOD answer to this problem. Maybe this is just part of the really not nice growing pains that will be coming from changing the sport to fit the short format. If I am not mistaken, part of the argument against the short format was that it would put too much emphasis on the dressage.

Consider Beezie Madden and Authentic's fall at the 2007 World Cup. Total fluke, and a horse and rider who never miss. Authentic just completely misread the obstacle.

[TB or not TB?]

I doubt you/horse can die during tempis and canter pirouettes.

This is naughty of me to say, but a few horses HAVE died in the dressage from aneurysms.

It's been asserted for years that breakaway fences would be more dangerous, but I think, like with some of the other issues we've discussed, it's time to get some data. We need to study whether or not they are safer, and how we can make them safer. If we can quantify the necessary properties, I am confident that solutions can be engineered. For example, if we're worried about flying rails, tether them back to the fence with a breakable tether that will make them inclined to drop straight down rather than fly forward. The frangible pin is one solution, but perhaps we can have others for walls and other type obstacles.

This is absolutely valid. I have been pushing for a while about creating collapsible fences, and I realized that I have not fully explained what my definition is. Rails flying around is unacceptable. To me, a proper collapsible XC fence will look exactly like a solid XC fence, except that when the weight of a horse is applied as in a rotational fall or severe crash, the jump will collapse entirely in its own footprint, allowing the horse to regain the use of his front end to save himself.

I think a collapsable fence needs to be looked into, but it needs to withstand a horse banking it. Was it at the fork last year where Teddy banked a table easily? It was less effort for him than jumping the whole thing. What happened if that had collapsed on Teddy? A collapsable fence may cause more and different injuries. I'm thinking broken legs here...

Another very valid point. There are several ways to think about this matter, but we need to research it. Some ideas are: a jump with a solid top merely descends to ground level when a horse jumps on top of it, not splinters or breaks. Or, we build narrower jumps that prohibit banking.


Many sports have official accident compilations - fact checking, anecdote gathering gatherings of the stories and facts of fatal incidents. I guess TB or not TB is gathering some of that. Don't know if she has access to any backstory elephants in any deaths - was there chatter beforehand about the preparedness, skill, sobriety, tendency to stop/runout/take a flyer/scare the crowds?

Anecdotal information is very hard to come by. I can tell you that it seems to be about an even split of people with experience at or above the level they were competing, and those who are there for the first time. I will say that based on some of the records, I personally was surprised at the choice of some riders for entering, but this was only a handful.

Runouts/refusals don't cause deaths
I can't remember who said this, and I'm not trying to pick on them. This is technically true, except in two cases:

The horse slides to a stop and crashes into the fence
The horse puts on the brakes and the rider urges it on over the fence anyway - this is a classic recipe for a rotational fallFor the most part, refusals are what we WANT to see XC. Even if thrown off, the rider does not die from that type of injury.


Wynn, I agree with you overall, except for the part about the long format (which I would like to find a way to revive, but that's honestly just wishful thinking on my part:)). I believe this is the way to save our sport. Accidents will still happen, but the consequences will be acceptable. Coupled with the EIPH research, eventing could be one of the safest equestrian sports.

I agree that if someone made a collapsible fence fall, it should result in elimination. We might also consider a further impetus - paying for the fence to be rebuilt, or helping to reconstruct it.

Okay did I miss anything??

[thumbsontop]

But does it matter? Stops are what: 99.95% survivable for horse and rider? 99.999%? Should we waste energy trying to eliminate the injuries humans can cause upon themselves? Why not just focus on that which kills and ignore than which just doesn't (to any significant degree)? Why let such insignificance distract from the real tragedies to both rider and horse?

Very true wynn, and you're right reed, it's a single instance. I guess my point is I'd like to be careful not to say "a stop is much safer". I wouldn't want to assume that a stop at that speed would definitely be an acceptable choice - better certainly than death - but I think that other options for change (like lowering OT, therefore speed...or point value of xc by increasing value of other phases) would also need to happen.

I can't say that I even have a small fraction of the experience of these riders, but I for one, in a tight situation (and at nowhere near that level), usually prefer that the horse try the jump rather than stop. I'm sure it's completely different at that level, but somehow I feel like I have a better chance of staying on if the horse keeps moving rather than slams on the brakes. (Yes, one of those stupid self-preservation thoughts like "hold onto the reins at all costs" even though you're already on the ground). Can someone answer from experience what it's like?

[vineyridge]

Honest question: do most of these hunts have facilities that would allow someone to haul 6-8 hours to them and stable overnight for someone to participate?

Also, though I have not experienced either directly, from what I have been told, the hunt in Southern California is quite a bit different, especially in terms of how well it prepares one for eventing, from hunts in Virginia.

I would think that the Hunt Secretary would probably be the person to ask about accommodations when you visit. I do know that many, many foxhunters travel around to different hunts, have joint meets, etc., and those problems are solved for them.

I'm not sure which S. Cal. hunt you're talking about, but most of them hunt coyotes, which run faster and longer than fox, and the natural terrain is still natural terrain. Maybe they don't have the number of jumps that the back East hunts do, but they still have long and lovely runs from what I've been led to believe.

Where is Los Altos? Is that Northern or Southern?

[vineyridge]

Consider Beezie Madden and Authentic's fall at the 2007 World Cup. Total fluke, and a horse and rider who never miss. Authentic just completely misread the obstacle.

So did Meredith Michaels Beerbaum. Her fall was on the flat; horse zigged and she zagged. Everybody who rides is going to fall; doesn't matter how good they are.

[poltroon]

(Assertion that stops don't cause deaths.)

I can't remember who said this, and I'm not trying to pick on them. This is technically true, except in two cases:

The horse slides to a stop and crashes into the fence
The horse puts on the brakes and the rider urges it on over the fence anyway - this is a classic recipe for a rotational fallFor the most part, refusals are what we WANT to see XC. Even if thrown off, the rider does not die from that type of injury.


Christopher Reeve died (eventually) because of this kind of accident.

Yes, stops are much better than rotational falls - but we need to stay accurate with the facts.

[TB or not TB?]

Christopher Reeve died (eventually) because of this kind of accident.

Yes, stops are much better than rotational falls - but we need to stay accurate with the facts.

That's why collapsible fences is only part of the solution. :yes:

[poltroon]

That's why collapsible fences is only part of the solution. :yes:

Indeed, he could've had the same accident show jumping.

In general, stops are more survivable in terms of injuries per occurrence, but we also have a lot more of them.

[pwynnnorman]

The thing is, folks, you're kinda arguing from the standpoint of avoiding the tragedies only. I'd like to also emphasize the "rider responsibility" aspect. Getting eliminated for clammering over a jump could go a long way toward getting riders to re-think any "just do it" or "kick on" attitudes they might have about x-c (and to develop the skills needed to be more accurate in their riding).

Recall how we tend to refer to the "tests" which eventing presents horse and rider? Well, maybe we need a new "test": Can you clear these jumps safely? Right now, horses can clear jumps UNsafely with no repercussions unless they or their riders fall--and they often get praised for their determination-at-all-costs attitudes. Does that teach the rider to solve whatever problem created the issue?

(BTW, is Dutton right that one should "Let the fence be your brakes"? See what I mean? The man is awesome, but is that the right message given the nature of today's rider?)

No records are kept on HOW horses take jumps, so there's no way to know whether this or that rotational fall happened to a horse that had been clammering over its jumps a lot lately (or routinely, even). That record would be available if there was an OE (obstacle elimination). Pretty useful stuff for a future rider to know--and pretty scary stuff for a pro trying to get a good price for a youngster, too!

OE hits you where it matters most: the official record. I seem to hear a lot of people try pretty hard to protect their horses' records--withdrawing or retiring instead of being eliminated, stuff like that. Well, here's another reason to retire on course: Wildarse is having an off-day and you're having to chase his arse over jump after jump. He's getting stickier and sticker (or more and more rank). Are you going to continue in order to get that "completion" or better--or are you going to pull up rather than risk taking a (collapsible) fence down and earning an OE on the horse's record?

[TB or not TB?]

That's a good point, Wynn. I agree.

[fooler]

I see what you are saying pwyn, but from all the training I have had in europe and many north american styles, and the old school and new books I have read, courses I have watched and evaluated, it is pace and rhythm that get the horse and rider to a good distance. Pace and Rhythm are the MOST important factor in xc. Whether you are riding at a collected canter, or an extended canter, these should stay the same. Riders need to see the distance far in advance, so they can prepare for it in a controlled and rhythmical way. If you see the distance to close to the fence, and decide to break your pace to meet it, that is when mistakes and fatalities happen. That is when you meet the half strides and bad spots, forcing your horse to stop or try to rescue you. The steeplechase helps the riders prepare, to see the distance far in advance, to play with their pace and rhythm to find what works best on FORGIVING fences, before they must meet the technical, unforgiving fences of the xc course.

I do not compete in the hunters, I compete mostly in eventing/dressage/jumpers/equitation, and in all these disciplines, pace and rhythm is the most crucial factor. An equitation judge would much rather see a rider keep the pace and take the long spot as opposed to haul on the reins, or kick forward, breaking the horses rhythm in order to get "the" distance. Watch a good GP jumper round, their rhythm changes only minisculy, they find the long and the short spots but keep the horses rhythm none the less.


Agree. You can hear the ULR's on course, their horses have a rhythm that gets drummed into your head. Same with GP jumpers - the good ones.

Wynn - I am Jean Grizzell, have evented up to Prelim, was a fence-spy at the 1978 Worlds, groomed for my instructor's daughter at Chesterland, 1987, did Steeplechase box at Rolex in 1988 when she was long-listed. Also was around and groomed others who went to intermediate & advanced. I am a small r TD. Never did PC - my folks got me the 1st horse, Fooler, but provided little or no support. Had my 1st lesson 4 years after getting said green-broke horse and evented some 6 years later.
Just so you have an idea of where I am coming from.

Mike Plumb stated in a clinic in 1985 that he had always tried to place a horse in the perfect spot before the fence, but Anne Kursinski taught him to bring the horse at the best possible pace and balance to allow the horse to figure it out.
Bruce Davidson is still riding at the upper levels and competed at Burghley last fall. I am not a big Bruce fan, but respect his achievements and comments.
Jimmy Wofford has trained most of today's top riders - guess he knows a thing or two.

Problems that I see:
I was uncomfortable around 10 years ago when CDs' told me they were trying to make the fence's more friendly for the horse and rider, in case the rider got in wrong. That encourages riders, and in many cases their un-knowing families push them to move up.
Professional Event Riders - Good in that the Pro Riders pushed for needed changes. Bad in that pros have to make a living, usually involving more competitions, more students, more sales.
Large influx of new eventers - Good we must have new eventers to survive. Bad as many had not a clue about the sport and what is required to do well. Deep pockets can buy alot of pain and heartache.
NAYRC - Became the end all for many YR's and their parents, not to mention trainers and breeders. I saw this 1st hand when a trainer/breeder was just looking for the appropriately attractive YR to put on their mostly made horse to go to NAYRC. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't
Change to Short Format - see last 3 above. Horses are run more often, without the down time associated w/long format.
Spectator Friendly Events - 1st heard about this in the 80's when boarding at Flat Creek. They (USCTA & AHSA in those days) wanted the courses to be placed where spectators could see 80 - 100% of the course in a fairly central location. I like it as a TD as it is easier to track everything. Depending on the lay of the land, I like it as a competitor.

Today I see some riders totally focused on getting or worse "making" the distance. They are as frightening as the riders who can't seem to buy a distance or just don't care. The best are the ones who set a pace and rhythm that allow them to adjust the stride to meet the fence a good place. Everyone should jump judge or work at stadium just to see really good rides, really bad (& there are alot of those) and those in the middle. Most riders have some good fences and some not so good. I worry less over the ones who realised they missed the spot & do their best not to miss again than the ones who miss & haven't a clue they missed.

There is no easy answer. My heart says YES, YES to the collapsing fences, but my head says will that really work? Will it teach the horse and the rider anything? Really this is a question. We know many great event horses who respected the x-c fences but not the stadium, re: Charisma who jumped stadium by braille according to Todd.

I believe competitors AND horses should complete 6 events at a level before considering a move up. At least 3 of those events should be double clear at x-c, 2 double clear at stadium and no more than 2 rails at stadium at one event. That should show some proficiency at a level before move up. I am not as worried about placings as their ability to finish on their dressage score.

The long format was not perfect - but what we have now is no improvement at all.

We don't have all of the answers yet. We need to think and brainstorm as you are doing. Some of what you have presented I agree with. However H/J got into a problem focusing on riders position (perching), distances and spots - they are changing their process. Why should we go down that primrose path?
Let's learn from their mistakes! Then employ some of their proven training methods to improve our stadium, which should roll over, IN PART, to our x-c, but not dictate our x-c.

I do know that I do not want to repeat the pass 3 months in our sport. What a waste of life!

Everyone hug your ponies, big and small, young and old. Then go in and hug those who support you in this crazy wonderful sport.
Jean

[TB or not TB?]

There is no easy answer. My heart says YES, YES to the collapsing fences, but my head says will that really work? Will it teach the horse and the rider anything? Really this is a question. We know many great event horses who respected the x-c fences but not the stadium, re: Charisma who jumped stadium by braille according to Todd.


As usual, I don't have an answer to anything except some of the purely mechanical questions. However, since I can address that, I will. The collapsible fences would require EXTREME weight to fall - the weight of a horse. We're not talking about a dinky toothpick holding them together, or unattached poles sitting in cups. :)

[poltroon]

There is no easy answer. My heart says YES, YES to the collapsing fences, but my head says will that really work? Will it teach the horse and the rider anything? Really this is a question. We know many great event horses who respected the x-c fences but not the stadium, re: Charisma who jumped stadium by braille according to Todd.

One of the reasons we need data is to figure some of this out. For example, I wonder if it might be best to keep the fences totally solid at BN/N, add frangible pins at T+, then at the 3* and 4*, make them totally collapsible: at that point, the horse and rider have proven they know how to jump something solid, but if they miss the danger could be less.

One question would be, if you have a horse 'braille' a fence, can you make it so that it just falls away under him or supports him so that he's no less safe than when he flies it?

One thing I thought was wrong in the otherwise good NYT article after Red Hills was the implication that frangible pins were not in use because $70 was considered cost prohibitive. I think the real facts are more like:
- eventers don't really believe in the technology
- it's not $70 but $70 x 200 or so, maybe more, for most courses (is $70 per pin or per fence?)
- that cost doesn't count design or time considerations for altering the fences - figure many hours per fence.
- between the cost and the skepticism, people have generally gone slow in adapting fences.

So more work towards a definitive answer, that frangible pins do make fences safer or do not, will help. I believe that if everyone believed they would make the deaths and injuries stop, eventers would raise the money to pin every jump immediately.

[pwynnnorman]

I appreciate your mileage and observations, fooler -- as I appreciate that of the greats.

But the greats didn't ride today's courses and many haven't been teaching that many of today's riders.

I'm not saying that jumping out of the right pace and rhythm is wrong. But being able to truly see a distance is what let's you rest assured that your going to get there the way you are -- so no changes are needed -- or NOT -- so you need to adjust.

Y'see, in a perfect world, your approach would be as pristine as your rhythm. But the flowerpot that Laine fell over was preceding by a hill, surrounded by spectators and made more complicated by the swale a stride before take off (so I'm told--I wasn't there). The footbridge that The Quiet Man fell at came up on a few strides after a blind turn. Now, the question: Would they both be ridden the same way? Should Frodo and The Quiet Man themselves have been ridden the same way, in the same passive rhythm that is often espoused? And what if there is a stumble or a shy, such as due to the footing or the crowds? Your rhythm is gone, and often your pace is, too. Are you equipped to see what needs to be done or do you just "kick on"?

It's just not that simple any more -- and according to the statements I've read coming from course designers, that's intentional. And that's why the greats may be out of touch, in a way (and said, again, with all due respect).

Bruce is a TB man, as was Denny at his heydey--right? And what caliber of WB back in Mike Plumb's day did he chance to ride?

The courses are different, the horses are different. I watch video after video, plus as a jump judge, fence after fence, and I see LOTS of top riders making clear adjustments on their approaches. I see the far less frequent jump taken out of stride (like my fond memories of Mark Todd at the Viceridge Vee). I'd love to ask Mike E-S just what the percentage of that type of jump was at Rolex, Mark Phillips about Red Hills, etc., etc. I'd guestimate maybe 30%?

Rarely can riders just sit still on the approaches any more -- again, I'm talking about the upper levels, not the lower ones where you can indeed just "let the horse gallop under you." I can talk to you of complex after complex after complex where it is necessary to re-group out of the gallop into an entirely different frame and pace. I can describe to you tracks in both woods and fields, on hills and through quarries where you simply must alter the rhythm to navigate the track.

Indeed, it'd be an intersting experiment to take the Rolex "every ride" DVD that is coming out and count the number of times the top riders "took a pull" on the approach. Did their rhythm or pace change? No, but the balance shifted and sometimes the stride adjusted. Every time one would see that on the DVD, it's verification that you have to be able to see where you want to be, not just let it happen -- even if you are one of the current greats.

So that begs the question of WHEN are you supposed to start learning THAT aspect of x-c? When do you start acknowledging that you should be responsible for more than just rhythm and pace on many approaches you're going to face? When do you practice those others things and learn those other skills such that when they are TESTED -- and remember, course designers ARE testing them! -- you'll pass?

And what tells you you've failed, need to keep studying, need to retake the test and pass it, before you move up and try an even harder set of tests?

[lstevenson]

Wynn, the only thing I disagree with is that you said the riders would have to "slow down"... but I don't think that is what we want!! I thought everyone was in an uproar after Red Hills due to the video of Tantibes where he was going very slow. When Laine rode the footbridge at Rolex slow in '05(?) her horse tried to bounce it. I don't think slow is the answer, our riders just need to learn to gallop. Since there's no steeplechase, rider's never get a chance to.



I agree. I think the lack of steeplechase is definitely part of the problem. The steeplechase helps get both horse and rider sharp at galloping at speed in rhythm to jumps. I always thought it was amazing how my eye just clicked after having done steeplechase.

And for horses that tend to be even slightly backed off, like The Quiet Man may have been, steeplechase would have gotten him more safely in front of the leg. When the horse is well trained and in front of the leg, and the rider knows how to balance a horse at speed, things are usually successful.

[pwynnnorman]

But not only is steeplechase hardly the only way to learn how to gallop (although I must admit I liked Reed's idea -- or maybe it was RAyers -- to design x-c courses with a section of steeplechase built in at the beginning), it has always been an impractical idea since it was rarely encountered outside of the actual event (and if it WERE, why not still do it--outside of the actual event, that is?). And why aren't or can't the other ways being used to teach the same thing? And don't your approaches imply that without steeplechase, it ain't happenin'? But that's not the case either since horse trials never had steeplechase.

Ergo, steeplechase may have been ONE tool used in the past, but it simply couldn't have been the only tool.

Ergo, bringing back steeplechase cannot be the only answer.

Ergo, if it can't be the only answer, it also isn't necessarily the best answer.

Ergo, what else is there?

Foxhunting.

Apply same logic as steeplechasing.

Galloping racehorses.

Same problem.

Final ergo: Bringing back steeplechase cannot solve the problem any better than bringing back the long format.

[lstevenson]

I think the third level test is just about right - well within the capability of a good cross-country TB machine, difficult enough so that you have to be a pretty serious rider on the flat. But there may be more room for difficulty in SJ.


I agree with this also. I definitely don't think that dressage should be harder at the top levels.

There are many who believe that the submission required at the upper levels of dressage diminishes a horse's ability or desire to think for itself. And it's that extremely submissive and supremely trained dressage horse that is just waiting for the rider to tell it what to do when he meets a big x-c fence wrong. I want a horse on x-c that can think for himself when he gets in trouble.

Maybe riders nowadays are focusing too much on precision jumping and not enough on gridwork, which teaches the horse to think for himself.

I like to do gridwork and some lines set on the half stride, and make the rider just stay in balance and leave the horse alone. Let the horses learn (through their own mistakes on small show jumps) how to handle their own bodies when they meet the fence wrong. Let them develop their own eye. So that when the rider makes a mistake on x-c the horse can safely get them out of it.

I think very few riders actually do this on a regular basis, and that may be part of the problem. Steeplechase was one way to let the horse think for himself over safe fences. But maybe if riders simply trained their horse's eyes as well as their own more often, we might see a drastic reduction in rotational falls.

I can tell you that my top horse was a very hot, high strung runaway on x-c. The type of horse who would never, ever stop. And maybe it's because he was so smart and athletic, or maybe it's because I purposefully schooled him to think for himself... but in the whole time he evented from the time I got him as a 3 yo off the track until he was retired at the age of 15 (with over 80 starts at Preliminary to Advanced *** level) he never once had a fall or even came close to one.

Something else to think about.

[SLW]

[QUOTE=poltroon;3176768]Brian Sabo once told me to watch out for fence #5, regardless of what it was. I will mangle what he said and make him wince here, but basically, his point was that by #5, you're starting to 'read your own press releases' and feeling pretty good about yourself, your rhythm, and your horse - too good! - and #5 is about where the course designer starts testing.
QUOTE]

Very interesting point you shared. From Jimmy Woffords own Rolex course walk text on COTH online link: "The fifth fence in the bottom of the infield is the last of the fly fences, however, there is a subtle variation in the ground a stride away from the takeoff. If riders do not rebalance and reconnect their horses they may get an unpleasant surprise here.........For instance, the Flower Box at fence 5 is a simple obstacle, but the terrain in front of it will cause the intelligent cross-country rider to take a pull. They call this part of our sport "cross-country." I am glad to see a designer use the terrain to pose a problem."

[J. Turner]

To make my point, I'm going to begin and end with the same postulate:
Grand Prix show jumping weeds out horses and riders that can't go fast and clear over height and width. Maybe eventing should, too?

What if fences WERE all collapsable? Folks say that if the horse knows the fence will fall down, he'll get sloppy. But 1.) isn't that contradictory in a sport whose third phase has fences that fall down and 2.) maybe that type of horse--the type which doesn't care if he hits something hard enough to make it fall down--shouldn't be competing, at least not at the highest levels.

We talk about qualification criteria, but I wonder if we should consider, instead, figuring out a process of self-selection that will insure that as the courses get more challenging, the horses and riders MUST get more talented (and that doesn't necessarily mean in the classically "physical" way--"talented" can also mean WISE).

Look at Mr. Big, for example. Has he ever had a bad fall at the upper levels? He STOPS when he gets in wrong, right?

So maybe we should rethink what is basically just a huge assumption anyway (that if horses know the fence will fall, they won't respect it). Let's eliminate that type of horse from the upper levels by eliminating horses who take down collapsable fences on x-c.

And riders, too. Eventers should no longer find it acceptable to "scramble" over jumps when things don't quite go right. STOP, don't scramble. You scramble, you're eliminated. We must stop tolerating yahoo riding at ALL levels. "Kick on" must END. Ride wisely and skillfully or you do not advance.

Imagine the impact on an ambitious rider that getting eliminated due to pilot error would have. Imagine it now. What would that rider do in response? Remember, the cause was smashing so hard into a fence that it collapsed. How would the rider react to that elimination?

1.) Slow down and ride more cautiously until you are absolutely sure your horse has developed the skill and/or experience to take fences with more speed and/or until you are absolutely sure YOU can a.) see your distances and b.) adjust that horse to meet the right distance when going at speed down to a fence (and note, by "speed" I mean the normal UL speed expectations).

2.) Do not ride the horse that can't help you out when you make a big mistake.

OK, so what do you think? I think collapsable fences would satisfy both the PR issues and confirm that riders have the skill and the horse to take big jumps safely.

And so I repeat my postulate:
Grand Prix show jumping weeds out horses and riders that can't go fast and clear over height and width. Maybe eventing should, too?

I think the technology is out there to make solid fences that are collapsable. Ask all the stunt and special effects people in Hollywood.

As for rules on scrambling:

1) If the horse hits the fence with any part above the knee or hock (that impedes forward momentum?), there is a large penalty or elimination.
2) If the horse puts weight on the jump with the sole of its hooves or otherwise, there is a large penalty or elimination (to avoid tabling or bouncing jumps not to be built so or jumped so).

This of course would require judgement from the jump judges.

[poltroon]

Brian Sabo once told me to watch out for fence #5, regardless of what it was. I will mangle what he said and make him wince here, but basically, his point was that by #5, you're starting to 'read your own press releases' and feeling pretty good about yourself, your rhythm, and your horse - too good! - and #5 is about where the course designer starts testing.


Very interesting point you shared. From Jimmy Woffords own Rolex course walk text on COTH online link: "The fifth fence in the bottom of the infield is the last of the fly fences, however, there is a subtle variation in the ground a stride away from the takeoff. If riders do not rebalance and reconnect their horses they may get an unpleasant surprise here.........For instance, the Flower Box at fence 5 is a simple obstacle, but the terrain in front of it will cause the intelligent cross-country rider to take a pull. They call this part of our sport "cross-country." I am glad to see a designer use the terrain to pose a problem."

I didn't even realize that the flower box was #5. :o

[JER]

I'm not sure which S. Cal. hunt you're talking about, but most of them hunt coyotes, which run faster and longer than fox, and the natural terrain is still natural terrain. Maybe they don't have the number of jumps that the back East hunts do, but they still have long and lovely runs from what I've been led to believe.

Where is Los Altos? Is that Northern or Southern?

Los Altos is in the Bay Area. Northern to most, central to those who live in the real northern California. :)

I've hunted in SoCal. It's not exactly Ireland or Virginia. Terrain is very steep hills and rocks in some places, steep hills and chaparral in others. Very, very few jumps. Usually none, IME. Not much fun at all.

If you go further north, to Santa Ynez, you'll have a better time but it's still not the same as 'real' hunting. I don't know much about Los Altos but I assume it faces the same issues as other CA hunts, like shrinking fixtures.

I know people who go up to Reno and like hunting there but again, it's sagebrush and flat, lots of galloping but not the ideal and I wouldn't take an inexperienced horse out with them.

And yes, people do haul long distances to hunt but the truth is, your horse isn't going to get the same experience in CA as he would with the Piedmont.

(I'm sure you could ask these questions on the hunting forum and get better answers.:) Hunting is really fun in the right circumstances and no fun at all otherwise.)

[RAyers]

(Reed's idea -- or maybe it was RAyers...

Tomato, tomato. ;)

Reed