3* VS 4*

[snoopy]

Would any one care to comment and or give opinions as to the differences...barring what is written...about the true differences in these tests as they are today? Does anyone feel that the lines are blurred somewhat and that we are seeing a move to four star with out sufficient time at three star...or has the three star become so difficult that there is a perception that three and four are all but the same thing, hence the move by many to do one 3 star and then make the jump upwards

[LexInVA]

I think there is a blurring of the lines not out of similarity but because there is such an emphasis placed on moving up these days that the two are kinda lumped together in their own category by many competitors and pros despite the technical differences between them. Just my two cents. :p

[Bobthehorse]

Well, you only HAVE to do one 3*, so that means one is enough, right?:rolleyes:

I agree, so much emphasis on moving up, so much ego. I guess a lot of people figure that if they are good enough to be at a 3*, they are good enough for a 4*.

[snoopy]

how many that barely acheive a qualifing score at Fairhill are entered the following year at Rolex. I will go so far as to say that Fairhill produces the worst results.

[Jazzy Lady]

I guess it comes down to riders not actually working to achieve the pinnacle of the sport. Sure, going to the Olympics is nice, but does one REALLY need to do a **** to prep for a glorified **?

Maybe the **** needs to be it's own level, not just dressage difficulty and a few more combinations... strictly speaking, qualifications to DO a **** need to be looked at. I like the invitational idea. Riders declare before if they would like to contest a ****. The FEI looks at the riders who are declaring and decide whether their records are strong enough to contest it or not. Not exactly an invitational per-say, but more like an approval for **** competitions. Qualifications mean nothing... if the pair has been competing at *** for say 2 years, and is barely scraping around and manages one clean run, they are not ready for ****. The FEI says, nope, not this year. Get consistent and then we'll see. If a pair has 2 clean *** runs and shows consistency at advanced horse trials and declares, FEI says, you seem consistent, we'll give you a chance and allow it.

Conversely, when you are playing at the **** level, hell even the *** level, maybe there needs to be more strict xc rules. 4 stops and you're out seems like a hell of a lot for a ****. If your horse isn't playing, out you go earlier.

These are just my thoughts... who knows really. But someone did post on another thread about Mt. Everest and trying to conquor it without preparation. The **** seems to be the same way.

Hell, if we can get around a *** without major issues, we must be ready for ****, seems to be a common attitude. Maybe more weight needs to be put on that "silly stop" that adds 20pp to the final score. Maybe that run with 20pp should NOT be a qualifying round because obviously, the communication was lacking on that "silly stop".

[Fence2Fence]

Well, I'm probably not answering Snoop's original question, but I wanted to add on to something JL stated...."Hell, if we can get around a *** without major issues, we must be ready for ****, seems to be a common attitude."

Yep, totally agree. Does this sound familiar "Hell, I got around at Training without major issues, we must be ready for Prelim." I don't think this attitude is just about pro or upper level riders. I think it's core to our eventing culture. So, is it really all that surprising that with bare minimum 'qualifying' scores that people are contesting the 4 star level?

I'm not just throwing this out there. Here on COTH, which seems fairly representative of the eventing community, when someone asks "Should I move up? When am I ready to move up?" The answers for the most part is "when you are bored." You can be bored silly at a level and still make blunder after blunder.

It's time for the eventing community to have an honest discussion about what skills/education riders and horses need to have at each level. I think Jimmy Wofford's chart published in PH was basic start on defining it, but, by no means complete.

[yellow rose]

I think people grossly underestimate the jump from 3* to 4* level.

I also think people assume that once a horse runs a 4* it is a 4* horse forever, but I don't think that is the case at all. They are very mentally fragile.

[lstevenson]

I think that the only difference is the length being slightly longer at 4 *, and the fact that there are less "let up" fences.

FWIW I think Fair Hill tends to be more like a 3 1/2 *.

[bornfreenowexpensive]

FWIW I think Fair Hill tends to be more like a 3 1/2 *.


I think I agree. Fair Hill is a pretty darn hard track xc....but then again, shouldn't a *** be a pretty darn hard track xc?

Jazzy posts some interesting ideas....and ones I support. I agree with rider responsibility and all....but I also think that the **** is the top of the sport, and NO One has an inherent right to play at that level. I think at least with Rolex...you add how cheap that event is to enter for the rider, with the low qualification requirements...it is just inviting some riders to enter for the hell of it.

[lstevenson]

I think I agree. Fair Hill is a pretty darn hard track xc....but then again, shouldn't a *** be a pretty darn hard track xc?



It is quite technical for a 3 *, but I think the terrain makes it even harder. The year I did it, it was a constant uphill pull from fence 7 to around fence 16 or so (which was a long way!), with just a few small areas of level ground to recover. The rest of the course is hilly too, but that one section was grueling. That, and the very hilly steeplchase course really took it's toll. The majority of the horses finished looking exhausted.

While my nutty OTTB was practically ready to go around again, thanks in part to Jimmy's Paris mountain!

[bornfreenowexpensive]

It is quite technical for a 3 *, but I think the terrain makes it even harder. The year I did it, it was a constant uphill pull from fence 7 to around fence 16 or so (which was a long way!), with just a few small areas of level ground to recover. The rest of the course is hilly too, but that one section was grueling. That, and the very hilly steeplchase course really took it's toll. The majority of the horses finished looking exhausted.

While my nutty OTTB was practically ready to go around again, thanks in part to Jimmy's Paris mountain!


Didn't mean to imply it was easy....not by any means. I get tired just walking it:lol:

Heard some stories about Paris mountain....do they still gallop there?

[lstevenson]

Didn't mean to imply it was easy....not by any means. I get tired just walking it:lol:

Heard some stories about Paris mountain....do they still gallop there?


Oh no, I didn't think you were implying that!

RE: Paris mountain- My top horse has been retired for 4 years, so I am not sure if they are using it currently. I was last there in 2004. But it is pretty awesome. It's about a 5 minute canter from bottom to top - straight uphill at about a 45 degree angle. The first time there, even the Advanced horses can't usually make it to the top. Usually they are breaking to the trot halfway up. It takes a couple of trips there for them to achieve it.

It is a fabulous fittening tool, as we never had to do speedwork at all to get them super fit.

The only bad part was walking down, which seemed to take forever.

[snoopy]

So if you believe fairhill to be a 3 1/2 star event...why would one enter that as their first three star CCI? The results over the past years would indicate that this is not an easy course and one that is not ideal for a first time. Then we have the flip side of the coin...JF in spring has become the "whoopsie" back up event in case something did not go as planned at Rolex. I have seen a trend towards making this 3 star very hard as well as riders and selectors or using this event as well as rolex as a selecton trial.
So in effect are we now going from 2 star basically up to 4 star and not giving the horses a fair shot at a TRUE 3 star. I believe 3 star to be VITAL in order to a have successful shot at four star. I also believe that there needs to be more time REQUIRED there before the move up...this does not mean your shot a team selection...if that is your goal...is completely out of the question as we know some 3 star combinations have been added to the list at times.

[lstevenson]

So in effect are we now going from 2 star basically up to 4 star and not giving the horses a fair shot at a TRUE 3 star. I believe 3 star to be VITAL in order to a have successful shot at four star.


This is true. Some obviously come through just fine, but how many horses are ruined mentally from going from 2 * to practically a 4 *?

Fair Hill has always been like a 3 1/2 *, so I think we should have somewhere else in the country a fair 3*, like I think Foxhall used to be, to bring the horses along more fairly.

I've actually never been to Jersey Fresh. Are the courses there getting harder and harder each year?

[snoopy]

[QUOTE=lstevenson;3326582]This is true. Some obviously come through just fine, but how many horses are ruined mentally from going from 2 * to practically a 4 *?
QUOTE]

I would suspect quite a few.

This is why I would hope the Bromont will be better subcribed...From what I am told, it is a true 3 star and very much needed on the calender.

[lstevenson]

This is why I would hope the Bromont will be better subcribed...From what I am told, it is a true 3 star and very much needed on the calender.


Yes it is. I'm sure the reason more people don't do it is just that it is so far away, especially with todays gas prices.

[NeverTime]

Having ridden neither :D, I think JF looks softer than Fair Hill -- certainly the terrain (or lack thereof) is less taxing. I've heard people say Fair Hill is a tougher fitness test than Rolex because of the hills, but I think the terrain would play almost as big a factor at Bromont.
The jumps at JF all look very jumpable and inviting -- or as inviting as *** fences can look! The course has a few technical accuracy questions, but generally things where the wrong answer will produce a runout rather than a wreck.
But I don't think Fair Hill looks that much stiffer. As it should be, it's certainly far closer to Jersey Fresh than it is to Rolex, IMO.

[denny]

Part of being able to do something really hard is having the necessary skills, but an equally important part is having the strong conviction that you can do it.

Now thinking you can is not the same as being capable, we know that.

This, for example, is one reason parents of teenage sons live several anxious years waiting for their idiot children to realize that driving fast while throwing the empties out the window is not maybe their best choice at that moment.
But the upside of that stupidity is that the kids think they are flameproof, and they dare do things that we, their parents, no longer can do, not because we`ve lost the skills, but because we`ve lost the dash, the daring, the basic belief in our immortality.

So it`s the classic double edged sword. The riders need the self belief, but they can`t always be trusted to make sensible decisions because of that confidence.

We need a system to filter them up ONLY if and when they`re ready, but without quenching their cockiness.

Not easy to figure out, but key.

[Bobthehorse]

In my opinion, there is a big difference between bravery and confidence.....and plain irresponsible arrogance.

I myself am no chicken when it comes to horses, and I am hardly ever scared. But I am never one to be reckless, either. I suppose its a fine line, but one that I personally dont find hard to recognize.

[Foxygrl516]

Reading this thread, I feel like I've missed something... Was the OP about the actual difference between a 3* and a 4*, or was it about ulr moving up too fast..? People that move up too fast is a MAJOR pet peeve of mine. I see it *all the time* at the lower levels, even through Intermediate (and maybe advanced occasionally). BUT, I am having a hard time following the conversation that is happening here.

Who are you seeing moving up to the 4* level "so fast"? I have SO many friends that are more than qualified to do a 4* but have not. I can't even think of anyone (I'm sure it has happened. Don't get me wrong. But off all the Advanced riders I know, I know of none) who moved up to Advanced in the Fall, did FHI and then went to Rolex. Atleast MOST at that level aren't in a huge hurry. That is one level I see a great respect for, even by riders who are there. And it's not like you can go school a 4* xc course to make sure you're ready. You run 3*s successfully, your horse is game and happy, you train constantly, and then you give a 4* a shot if you feel like it's a good idea for you and your horse. Sometimes you just can't know until you get there. But you DO know how your horse trains *every single day* and how easily he handled the 3*s he ran. Sometimes (Kim showed us this w/ Royal Venture and Maguire a couple of years ago) amazing 3* horses can't do the 4* level. But until they try, nobody would guess that. So when a first-4-star-horse has a bad go, you can't really assume the horse only did 1 3* and was rushed up to that level.

And I thought CCI 3* were supposed to be hard. Why is that such a bad thing? I've never heard any of the riders come off their 1st xc walk of the week saying "I'm not prepared for those questions! I thought it would be easier/smaller/less technical!" They always just say it's about what they expected, each with a certain complex that they will have to ride hard with their horse's tendancies. I've also never known a horse (or rider) to do an Advanced ht or 2 and then go to Fair hill. Our Advanced horse did 2 or 3 CIC 3*s (and several Advanced HTs) before going to his first CCI (at Jersey). You are all talking about jumping directly from 2* to 4* but that doesn't even make sense. They go from 2* to Advanced HT, which is considerably "harder". Then they do CIC3*s which is harder than a HT but not as hard as a CCI. And when they are ready, they try a CCI3*. There are several steps between 2* and 4* that y'all are missing.

I agree that our sport is suffering from some people moving up too fast. I also agree that it's not our Ammies causing the problems for the most part, and the BNR and ULR need to own up to that. But I can't think of a serious accident lately (that has caused all of this uproar) that was a result of a rider moving a horse up to the 4* level with only one 3* and almost no experience. It seems to mostly be ULR on up-and-coming horses that have been moved up too fast through the HT levels. Unfortunate accidents happen at 4*s, but that doesn't mean those horses/riders shouldn't be there. Does it mean they should have probably just pulled up before the accident? Yes.

[lstevenson]

And I thought CCI 3* were supposed to be hard. Why is that such a bad thing? I've never heard any of the riders come off their 1st xc walk of the week saying "I'm not prepared for those questions! I thought it would be easier/smaller/less technical!" They always just say it's about what they expected, each with a certain complex that they will have to ride hard with their horse's tendancies. I've also never known a horse (or rider) to do an Advanced ht or 2 and then go to Fair hill. Our Advanced horse did 2 or 3 CIC 3*s (and several Advanced HTs) before going to his first CCI (at Jersey). You are all talking about jumping directly from 2* to 4* but that doesn't even make sense. They go from 2* to Advanced HT, which is considerably "harder". Then they do CIC3*s which is harder than a HT but not as hard as a CCI. And when they are ready, they try a CCI3*. There are several steps between 2* and 4* that y'all are missing.


The point is that the gap in the level of difficulty between 3* and 4* is getting smaller and smaller.

I see both sides of it. One being that if the 3* is quite hard, and the horse/rider combination do well and finish confident, the move up to 4* should be fairly smooth. But the other side of it, is if the 3* is too big of a jump in difficulty from the 2* and Advanced HT, the horse may lose some confidence, even if they do make it around. And then when they move up to 4* the results can be disasterous.

Yes, CIC's theoratically should help bridge the gap. But are they? Most of the time they seem to run along side the HT, and then just add some length and a few more jumps.

The "line" that x-c courses balance over ,at ALL levels, is extremely important for the horses confidence. Yes, you want to test them to the point that is appropriate for that level. But if you cross the line you can ruin horses.

It's the same problem we have moving horses and riders up from Training to Prelim.

[Bobthehorse]

Our Advanced horse did 2 or 3 CIC 3*s (and several Advanced HTs) before going to his first CCI (at Jersey). You are all talking about jumping directly from 2* to 4* but that doesn't even make sense. They go from 2* to Advanced HT, which is considerably "harder". Then they do CIC3*s which is harder than a HT but not as hard as a CCI. And when they are ready, they try a CCI3*. There are several steps between 2* and 4* that y'all are missing.

But a combination is only required to complete one Advanced HT, one CIC*** and one CCI*** to qualify for a CCI****. So if someone were incredibly ambitious with an incredibly good horse, and they got around, ugly or not, they might think that they were ready for a 4*.

Yes, sensible and responsible people will recognize that this is nuts, they will recognize that any teensy issue on a 3* course will be magnified by a 4* course. They will value their experience at the 3* level and realize they are still learning. But I think there are more than a select few riders at that level that have developed such an ego that they miss a few things, because the want for 4* is so great. And when I watch videos of Rolex in comparison to Badminton, I find it very obvious.

[snoopy]

These last two posts sum up my thoughts EXACTLY...and was the point I was trying to get across with this thread.

[Foxygrl516]

Wow. I just typed a response and the internet ate it! lol! Don't you hate it when that happens?!

Here's the short of it though:

I agree with you. The qualifications for a 4* are minimal. Technically a horse/rider could do 1 Advanced HT, 1 CIC, 1 CCI and then a 4*. But do they??? I just don't see that happening. If we are here to argue that the qualifications leave room for arrogance and unprepared dangerous rides, then I'm good with that. They are quite simple qualifications. But I don't see how you can argue that they are even really coming into effect because I would be *shocked*...I would hang up my grooming bag forever if I found out that someone has actually done that. My rider was given a really hard time this year by other ulr because she only ran one Advanced HT this spring before Rolex. *But* she has been running this horse Advanced for FIVE YEARS! And she knew he was ready and she wanted to save his legs and keep him healthy. There was no need to run him more. They did a couple CTs and jumper shows and went on to have great runs at Rolex. But if everyone gave her a hard time about one prep HT after 5 years at the level (not to mention like 5 or 6 CCI3*s), do you really think they are going to move up after 1 Advanced outing EVER?! Not likely!

I think I'm just confused about the point of this because while you are right, the qualifications are minimal, nobody moves up at that level based on the minimal qualifying standards. So why are we complaining about it? The accidents we've seen at that level lately seem to be happening to pairs in which atleast one has run that level before. So they wouldn't count in this conversation. So who are we complaining about?

It would be really interesting to look up the records of the horses at rolex this year to see how "Fast" they got there. I doubt we'll see that any of them were running Intermediate last Summer. And the one person w/ the rep for moving horses up faster than anyone is Phillip Dutton. Anybody here wanna argue w/ him that his horses don't go well? I don't!

[lstevenson]

I agree with you. The qualifications for a 4* are minimal. Technically a horse/rider could do 1 Advanced HT, 1 CIC, 1 CCI and then a 4*. But do they??? I just don't see that happening. If we are here to argue that the qualifications leave room for arrogance and unprepared dangerous rides, then I'm good with that. They are quite simple qualifications. But I don't see how you can argue that they are even really coming into effect because I would be *shocked*...I would hang up my grooming bag forever if I found out that someone has actually done that. My rider was given a really hard time this year by other ulr because she only ran one Advanced HT this spring before Rolex. *But* she has been running this horse Advanced for FIVE YEARS! And she knew he was ready and she wanted to save his legs and keep him healthy. There was no need to run him more. They did a couple CTs and jumper shows and went on to have great runs at Rolex. But if everyone gave her a hard time about one prep HT after 5 years at the level (not to mention like 5 or 6 CCI3*s), do you really think they are going to move up after 1 Advanced outing EVER?! Not likely!

I think I'm just confused about the point of this because while you are right, the qualifications are minimal, nobody moves up at that level based on the minimal qualifying standards. So why are we complaining about it? The accidents we've seen at that level lately seem to be happening to pairs in which atleast one has run that level before. So they wouldn't count in this conversation. So who are we complaining about?


But there are still plenty of riders doing Rolex who don't look ready for it. Possibly because of:

The point is that the gap in the level of difficulty between 3* and 4* is getting smaller and smaller.

I see both sides of it. One being that if the 3* is quite hard, and the horse/rider combination do well and finish confident, the move up to 4* should be fairly smooth. But the other side of it, is if the 3* is too big of a jump in difficulty from the 2* and Advanced HT, the horse may lose some confidence, even if they do make it around. And then when they move up to 4* the results can be disasterous.



I have heard SEVERAL accounts of horses who have practically been ruined from running the Advanced at Red Hills HT this spring. They have lost their confidence and are just not into the game anymore. So that is an example of what suddenly doing a x-c course that is way harder than the usual for the horse can do to it.