What it takes to be a Successful "A" Hunter

[magnolia73]

Thought it would be an interesting topic. I think there is a strong perception that:
1. Since hunter people buy expensive horses, they tend to not need to put in practice.
2. That hunters are somehow easy.
3. That A shows have similar standards to local shows.
4. That spending enough money will get you success.

Earlier this fall, I remember lamenting to a friend that I would be "disappointed in where I was with my horse if I was trying to compete". She mentioned that no- if I was trying to compete, I would be riding more seriously, taking regular lessons (at least weekly), getting training rides and getting out to horse shows. In short- I'd be putting in the work and seeing results.

Growing up, I showed mostly local, but we had a few kids at the barn that did some A shows. Most of us took one group and one private lesson a week. It was a lot of hard work for everyone. Turnout was constantly maintained. Whiskers trimmed, manes properly pulled. Much effort was made to carefully manage shoeing and vet care. Hours of flat work and practice over fences went into the good and not so good show trips. Shopping for horses was a long process to find something suitable for hunters on our budgets- we often made trade offs in rideability to be assured of the correct hunter type. And like I said- we were merely a successful local hunter barn. Not winning at the big AA shows. It was a big deal if one of our riders got a prize at an A show.

I don't think people outside of hunters realize how important the "type" is and the level of work it takes to be so consistent and accurate over fences. It really is a large commitment of time and resources to be successful at this sport.

[Smiles]

1.Yes you need to put in the time to see results. (lessons and getting your horse schooled go along way)
2. Your horse needs to be presented for the job its doing. (Braided/clipped/clean)
3. You don't have to have an expensive horse but it does help....
4. Hunters is more than just finding all the distances. (lead changes/pace/straightness)
5. You don't need to win a blue to feel like you did a good job at the end of the day.
6. Yes it can be political but like life sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. So instead of blame your lack of winning on the judge go back and fix what you did wrong.
7. Just go out and have fun...

[findeight]

You need an "A" quality horse to be successful at "A" Hunters. No way around that.

It needs to...

Move at least an honest 7, 8+ is preferred.
Jump at least an 8 against the established standards.
Be attractive-it IS a show.

That is the short answer for the horse part. Those 3 things must be met. Probably 90% of all horses do NOT meet these.

That horse needs to be properly prepared, schooled, maintained and turned out according to established standards.

It also must be piloted around by a properly prepared, schooled, maintained and turned out rider according to established standards.

[Jsalem]

I'm a trainer with a program that includes both local and A/AA shows with good success at each level.

1. You need to start with the right material! Attractive (TB/WB/Crossbred/doesn't matter), good (hunter!) mover, good (hunter!) jumper, good fit for the rider (size, temperament, etc).

2. You have to design the right program that develops the horse's performance. Proper flatwork that enhances and beautifies the horse's body and strengthens the horse gymnastically, preserving and even improving his soundness. Proper o/f work that develops the horse's jumping style. A varied program (including out of the ring work ) that keeps the horse fresh and happy, thus preserving his expression.

The biggest challenge I face as a hunter trainer is finding the balance between training the horse and training the rider. In a perfect world, my riders would all have several horses to ride, so that they could have a "practice" horse. That's not usually the case. That one horse is supposed to teach the child to ride, allowing the rider to make mistakes in their lessons and allowing the rider to do the "drills" necessary to increase their skill level. Let's face it, the riders need to jump a lot of jumps to get better. At the same time, the HORSE needs an accurate, soft, confidence-building ride to improve.

So we try to design a program that includes the use of our professional rider to train the horse for HIS benefit and regular lessons to bring the riders along. The result is displayed at the horse shows.

What I see as the biggest misunderstanding among many of our competitors (and their parents) is exactly what it takes to be successful. At the local level, there is so much emphasis on "the numbers", "the lead changes", etc-- at the expense of the horse's movement and jumping style! That's where these riders aren't able to make the transition to the higher level shows. Their horses have become glorified school horses and their bodies show it! They don't have beautiful bodies, they don't move with the grace and strength of a nice hunter, and they jump in terrible form! And then we hear that "The Hunters" are all about buying an expensive horse. Not so people! It's all about starting with a nice type horse and being savvy enough to develop it correctly.

[Equinoxfox]

Hey "Findeight" you are so RIGHT.. I ride with Top Trainers here and they only show the "A" Hunters. You really have to have a top notch horse and it must contain alot of elements to be successful at that level. very hard to find horses like that .;)

[findeight]

Hey "Findeight" you are so RIGHT.. I ride with Top Trainers here and they only show the "A" Hunters. You really have to have a top notch horse and it must contain alot of elements to be successful at that level. very hard to find horses like that .;)

I'm old and the years have taught me that is true in ANY discipline.

You start with a horse that meets the minimum 7 mover, 8 skill level. Reining, Cutting, WP, Saddle Horses.

Doesn't matter. There is an established standard-start there.

BTW, current Hunter is the 7 mover, 8 Jumper minimum but really cute and attractive- AA quality and pinned well enough there but a nickle short of the top guns and not the winner.
Last one was 8+ movement and 10 jump but a 2 in temperment/adjustability.

There are other things that figure in but you cannot do it without meeting a minimum standard in the horse.

They do not have to be expensive but you need a practised eye and a way to get them made up to standard if you bargain shop.

[magnolia73]

very hard to find horses like that

Yeah- I don't think people always realize that a 3' horse means a lot more than jumps 3'. Or that a spectacular 3'6 horse is as rare as an advanced eventer or Grand Prix horse. There really is not a lot of room in the performance parameters for horses outside of some TB's and warmbloods. Occasionally you get a rare off breed that meets a standard so narrow that many purpose bred horses fail to meet it.

I think what comes off as snobbery or snooty is really simply the basic fact that you need every bit the rare horse that you need to succeed at the upper levels of any other discipline. I mean, I believe the jumps at Rolex don't exceed 4', yet people don't go around pondering entering since their horse can do both 4' jumps, gallop and get the flying change required in dressage. But I think people view the performance requirements for top level hunters as somehow frivolous or unimportant or easy to skirt.

[Equino]

I have nothing of significance to add. I agree there's a reason why a horse is $100,000 or $10,000 and not many can compete those horses equally. There are always exceptions though!

I show in the A/A's and although it is a "C" rate division, competition does get stiffer at the "A" rated and bigger "A" shows. My mare can hold her own, but I NEED to find 8 consistent fences to have a shot at ribbons. If I make any ammy mistakes, I'm out. So, that does motivate me to do better and better. I don't have the most natural eye, so I have to work at that. My mare doesn't need to be drilled over fences, so we do a lot of pole work, and I lesson whenever I can on other horses to improve my eye.

I keep my horses at home, so the one aspect in my control that I make sure to do my best is turn-out and prep for the ring, making sure they LOOK the part of a show horse. That starts Day 1: getting the horse healthy and ready to be fit-nutrition, vet/dentist work as needed, proper shoeing, general maintenance; and ends with the way I have my horse turned out for the show: clipped, mane pulled/braided, clean/properly fitted tack, hooves polished, etc, the best grooming job I can manage.

Like others said, the horse has to jump and move well. Doesn't matter how well prepped your horse is if he has poor form or a lousy canter. And the horse does need something special, the whole "IT" factor so it's remembered. I think that is what separates the GOOD ones from the average ones.

[Comfortably Numb]

I think also, A show mileage makes a difference. You can have the nicest horse out there, and if you only show at the local shows, he will go like a local horse.

[DMK]

well from personal experience I will say that if you have a lousy mover you can still do OK. But this assumes your lousy mover is VERY typey (meaning he really looks the part) and is a VERY good jumper - think more like 9+ instead of 8. Oh yes, and you have to show up and be very accurate. And at the end of the day if someone is all that AND a better mover, they are going to beat you so you should suck up and deal with it. But the odds are good if you are accurate you can own a good piece of the division. Too bad being good is a lot harder than people give hunter riders credit for!

Conversely I have seem more than a few average jumpers that were beautifully ridden, were lovely movers and were very, very, VERY consistent in the way they went. They almost never gave you a "10" photo, but presented an entirely different picture when you watched them go "live".

So there are some variations out there, but these are fairly small in the scope of things, and I think people who are not well versed in how top notch the competition can be at a top show think there is more variance in talent than there really is. Even if there were 5 poor trips out of 10, chances are the other 5 were really leagues ahead of the bottom 5. One of thos ebottom 5 might have pinnedeven 4th or 5th if there was a mistake, but that does not necessarily mean that horse was a legitimate competitor day in and day out with the top 5. Or at least not yet. That's what all that hard work and practice is for... ;)

Also, hunters can be cheap. But generally a cheap horse is one that is standing there, untrained with no real clue about how it will behave and jump in a ring with a rider at a show. You can buy a lot of cheap horses while looking for the one that does all those things wel lenough to do well at an A show. OR you can pay a lot of money to someone who has gone through a lot of cheap horses on the way to making up the one that can do all those things at an A show.

[TSWJB]

well from personal experience I will say that if you have a lousy mover you can still do OK. But this assumes your lousy mover is VERY typey (meaning he really looks the part) and is a VERY good jumper - think more like 9+ instead of 8. .
i know of a horse that wasnt the best mover, but he jumped very well. and the girl that rode him put in a fabulous trip and won the adult NAL finals on him. if you looked at the horse standing around, you would never have thought he could be a top AA horse. but with a great ride and his really nice jump, she managed to beat all the other really fancy horses in the class!

[M. Owen]

I just wanted to comment on the "expensive horse" perception. The poster who said that a truly good 3'6"+ hunter is rare hit the nail on the head! A horse that has the body type, movement, jumping ability, and temperament to be a top level hunter for the pro divisions is very rare, and that is why they are expensive. If you have all (or most) of those things plus is easy enough for an ammy to ride, well your price probably just went up even more. It is all just supply and demand. Several years ago, I rode at a barn that had people that showed at the higher levels, and have seen several horses/ ponies that were purchased for pretty hefty sums as green horses. Out of several cases, I can only think of three that became what the owners had really hoped for or more. The others were good hunters, but not outstanding and were not successful past the 3' level due to one thing or another. Ironically, one was purchased as an eq horse and turned out to be a great large junior hunter and won all over the place.

I have primarily shown at the B/C and smaller A level, with a couple of AAs thrown in. I never got above a 5th at an AA, but for me/ my horse, that was like getting a blue. The competition and effort required at an AA is quite different, even from a smaller A show. Even showing at the B/C level, I would expect a horse to be hunter type in look, movement, and jump, and be turned out in a manner appropriate for hunters: mane pulled, whiskers/ ears/ fetlocks clipped etc. If my horse had a heavy winter coat, I would expect to body clip for the sake of the horse from a cooling out perspective, but also to look appropriate. In my area, at the B/C shows in many cases you can win based on finding 8 decent distances, getting the #s in the lines, and getting your changes (not that all of those things are easy, particularly those darn distances!). This statement assumes you are on a horse that generally looks the part, i.e. hunter type, decent (but not stellar) mover, decent jump, and good manners. The horses will be well turned out (although maybe not braided) clothes/ tack will be well fitting, but may not be the most stylish brands.

At a smaller A show, everyone will get the #s in the lines, everyone will get the changes, the distances will be more consistent. I think at that point, things like style, consistency, rhythm become more important. Horses will be of a higher quality, 90+% of the horses/ riders will be well turned out and wearing the "in" tack/ clothing.

At an AA show, I think that is where you see the truly brilliant movers/ jumpers, and those soft, amazing riders where they appear to be doing nothing, but you know that is not the case! Turnout will be impeccable. I think that is where the cream truly rises to the top. At an AA show, there is also a huge difference between the horses you'll see in the 2'6" modified or pre-whatever classes and the ones you'll see in the 3'6" divisions. However, usually in lower height classes, you get TONS of entries, so even those become very competitive.

Whew, that is probably my longest post ever! I guess I just get sick of people slamming the hunters based on stereotypes. I will most certainly never play in the "big leagues," but I can appreciate what it takes.

[monalisa]

A few more things I would add to this conversation:

1) There are a lot of talented horses out there but there are things that narrow that field dramatically - consistency and soundness.

In order to be competitive you must have a horse that is consistent. By this I mean the horse needs to come out of the shute so to speak, the same or almost the same every time. There are lots of good horses out there who lack consistency and therefore do not win on a consistent basis.

The horse must be sound. And there is far more to this than meets the eye. The horse needs to be able to stand up to a program or schedule, to get it to its top form but must stand sound in the process. I am not talking about riding a horse to death, jumping it to death, but instead, just about keeping the horse fit, in work, and then getting it to the ring as a healthy competitor.

2) The rider has a lot to do with it. When I used to show a lot I found I was more competitive. Keep in mind, at the A level, you are generally showing with people who go out 2-4 times a month. If you aren't as sharp as they are even before you start competing, then you are already facing an uphill battle.

Someone once told me that "you are only as good as the horse you are on." There is some truth to that.

[foursocks]

Yeah, I think that the jump and a decent canter are the two most important things. And, for an ammy or junior horse, the ability to take a joke! ;)

My second junior hunter had a phenomenal jump- even when I rode like a moron and mangled the spot he jumped at least an 8.5. His canter was very nice, but we never, ever hacked him unless we needed some extra points for the champion or reserve and my trainers felt that the judges might throw us a bone. He had a trot like a sewing machine and when he was moving more slowly you could see that his conformation was....not pretty.

Anne Hall's Benjamin, who was in my barn, never hacked either, for similar reasons- a phenomenal jump and a good, hunter-y canter provides the best foundation to start with- at least for a 3'6"+ horse.

For a 3' and lower horse, I think you are going to have different priorities. But, in neither instance will a horse with a blah canter and a mediocre jump survive in really tough competition.

[Treasmare2]

I agree that a 3'6 horse needs to be all that. A special horse in all ways. In my experience some of the best ones have been a tad on the quirky side...seems to me that talent brings the ability to be ...hummmm....naughty on occassion.....it is what gives the top horses that "presense", that quality that most do not have. It can't be trained in...its there or its not.

[supershorty628]

You can have a non-typey horse or pony and still do well in the hunters. The medium pony that I showed last year was...let's call him homely, and was not a great mover, but he could jump the moon! I entered him in an online model and the judges assumed I had stood him up on a downhill slope, but no, he actually is built that way and has a big head. Despite all that, he did well all year at A and AA shows, but it did mean that we had to lay down 3 or 4 (depending on the show) beautiful over fences rounds to be in the tricolors.

http://pets.webshots.com/photo/2652860600054933411IgktsL
http://pets.webshots.com/photo/2286275770054933411oQPFbh

Those are two of my favorite pictures of him (and there are videos on my Youtube account). He could certainly jump, and as long as I rode him right, he would place very well at an AA show, but he's definitely an exception. I think a lot of people would overlook him as an A-circuit pony hunter just based on movement and conformation.

[Lucassb]

There have been a lot of good points made already. I particularly agree with DMK's post and know quite a few very successful hunters, particularly in the 3', who might not be Rox Dene in the air but who present such a compelling picture as they show over a course that they are frequently rewarded ... for "overall impression," if you like.

My ten year old has a very nice jump and a beautiful trot, but his canter, while not offensive, is nothing to write home about. When I find the jumps well, he will get a good piece of a competitive class and if I ride the hack strategically, showing off that trot and more or less hiding out while we canter, we will often get a nice prize in the US as well. However, I recognize that a better mover without major mistakes will always beat my best day; that is just reality.

[findeight]

But, Shorty, they would not overlook that jump and that can trump a clunky head and a 6 mover, long as you don't care about the hack.

[findlymine]

Lets look at it from this point of view.

Everybodfy wants to have the winner and the best mover and jumper. But, I think the most important thing to finding a horse to be competitive on the "A" circuit is how it fits the rider and how the rider looks and feels on the horse. I have sat with judges at some big shows and they have commented to me that the way the rider looks on the horse and the confident "look" about them is what sets many people apart from the winner versues a peice of the action. I have put many clients on a less expensive horse just because I thought that is what they needed to cofident and happy. The steady eddie in my book will get the ribbon over a flashier horse any day. Just my two cents I dson't know if anyone agrees with me good if not your intitled to feel that way.

[DMK]

You can have a non-typey horse or pony and still do well in the hunters.

Just to clarify,"type" and "conformation" are mutually exclusive terms. You can have tons of type and lousy conformation or have awesome conformation and not have type. But to be fair, this is a term of art and is easily confused unless you had this stuff drilled in your head early and often (like voting in Chicago!)

[Nickelodian]

This thread has been incredibly informative. I think I understand and comprehend most of it, except perhaps developing a horse's jump to the best of its ability.

If I wasn't such a chicken, I'd post a video of my pre-green for some opinions, but I'm so terrified he's going to get torn apart, maybe I just don't want to know.

;)

[supershorty628]

Just to clarify,"type" and "conformation" are mutually exclusive terms. You can have tons of type and lousy conformation or have awesome conformation and not have type. But to be fair, this is a term of art and is easily confused unless you had this stuff drilled in your head early and often (like voting in Chicago!)

My apologies. I'd always heard them used as synonyms. You learn something new every day!

[JumpingJack]

I find it interesting that no one has mentioned the ONE main thing that prevents many fantastic Hunters and riders from making it past the local shows.

M-O-N-E-Y

There are many people out there who purchase quality horses, who have talent up to whazoo, but can't afford the $15,000+++ per show season to be competetive. Even if they sink tons of money into training to get the horse top notch, +++++ on top of that just isn't feasible.

It's just astounding how this discussion can proceed without this being mentioned; especially in these times where people are hanging onto their homes for dear life.

$20,000+++ for the horse (which many people do even though they can't really afford it)
-Trailering
- Accomodations
- Groom
- Tack upgrades
- Show fees
- memberships
- Coaching and MORE

I mean come on....many a time one of the major reasons why a horse won't be successful is because the owner can't afford for it to be, typey or not. I know of one student in particular who purchased a bred to the nines KWPN mare in utero. She is a fool IMO, but she now has a beautiful filly that she can't even afford to show on the lines. If she had the funds, she could potentially clean up, especially since she is a very talented rider.

She won't, and neither will her horse.
Why? It's a sign of the times and the reality is, National showing is for the elite, or for those who pretend to be the elite every once in a while.

[SaddleFitterVA]

Really, the first answer that popped into my head was "Enough money for entries, stalls and training fees".

I currently have a fairly nice young horse, and as we go along, taking lessons, improving training, I have to make the decision on how much can we progress at our nice local shows, and how much harder will it be to move to the A shows.

It is a lot harder on the pocketbook. That is for certain!

Just to start there are only a handful of rated shows that are ship in/sleep at home distance, so add stalls and hotels to the price tag.

I need to start practicing braiding, because that one will add up fast at the big shows.

That aside, I still don't know if I know what it takes, but I seem to be getting closer. More lessons are needed and more showing is definitely important. The year I started going to shows 2 or 3x a month with another horse showed me that show practice is important. Our ribbons steadily improved, all year. I still struggle with adjusting pace and striding, and that pesky lead change. We chip away at it, making small improvements each year.

DMK does a fantastic job with her horse. He definitely has a superb jump. I don't know enough to rate jumps or horse movement (to the hunter standard) on a 1-10 scale though.

[DMK]

My apologies. I'd always heard them used as synonyms. You learn something new every day!

Yup, "type" is used to define what a horse looks like that is suitable to a certain job. It's easiest to classify type in breeds as they usually go to great lengths to document the breed standard. For an extreme example, a Shire has a very specific look and a defined breed standard. He could have absolutely lousy conformation and still be recognizable as a shire. In fact if you were judging a class full of shires and someone stuck a quarter horse in there, even if it was the best quarter horse on the planet, it still lacks "type" so it would place behind the most poorly conformed shire in the class.

That's an almost ridiculously obvious example, but that is the general idea behind the term "type".

That said, hunters are not exactly famous for having a specific type so it's a lot harder to pin down than breeds with a clearly defined standard. And plenty of people in all areas of horse breeding refer to a stellar example of their breed (for lack of better term) as "typey". But what I mean as a typey hunter and what an arab breeder means as typey are miles and miles apart, so it still goes back to that standard. And both of us could say something like "Damn that horse has tons of type, too bad his front legs were put on backwards!" and pay homage to the inherent difference in type and conformation. :lol:

SFVA - naturally I rate him as a 15, but I admit to being a tad barn blind. But given how bad he moves and how well we place, I'm inclined to believe he jumps tolerably well. :lol:

[pippy]

I agree that compatability (sp?) between horse and rider is so important...the whole overall picture. I also agree that some horses just walk in the ring, and you want to watch them. They sort of strut in, look around, and put on a "show" of their own.

[leelee]

I've sometimes wondered why it is that local show people and rated show people are so differrent; not just in the quality of their horse, but in their desire to be like those at the top of the sport. For example, why is it that everyone wants to be like so-and-so grqand prix rider, and yet they never use that fabulous rider as an example to follow? For once I'd like for someone to not tell me how high they've jumped, assuming that's going to fool me when I look at them on a horse and think - that MUST have been fightful.

People that show local shows need to experience a good rated show, to see how people are turned out not just for show, but for schooling as well. They need to watch people school and watch the pro's do training rides. I've always wondered why this doesn't happen. Go to a local show around here and you see it all: bad riding, skinny horses, horribly fitted tack, rainbow polos, etc. Learn the basics of riding and jumping, feed your horse, raise that noseband, opt for black polos, etc. This isn't hard stuff and it drives me crazy.

Sorry for going off topic, as well as all the random thoughts.

[LookinSouth]

I find it interesting that no one has mentioned the ONE main thing that prevents many fantastic Hunters and riders from making it past the local shows.

M-O-N-E-Y



Exactly. Success at the top levels in ANY discipline costs money. Alot of money. It doesn't matter if you have the most talented, typey, most consistent horse in the world with a talented rider aboard if you can't afford very regular lessons, coaching, entry fees not to mention keep up with the jones's in terms of turnout standards, show attire and tack:no:

All this in addition to the bare minimums like board, shoeing, vet care, supplements etc...

I think plenty of people completely understand what it takes to get to the AA level. I tend to think most people just can't afford to participate.

[spmoonie]

Exactly. Success at the top levels in ANY discipline costs money. Alot of money. It doesn't matter if you have the most talented, typey, most consistent horse in the world with a talented rider aboard if you can't afford very regular lessons, coaching, entry fees not to mention keep up with the jones's in terms of turnout standards, show attire and tack:no:

All this in addition to the bare minimums like board, shoeing, vet care, supplements etc...

I think plenty of people completely understand what it takes to get the AA level. I tend to think most people just can't afford to participate.

:yes::yes::yes:

[TheOrangeOne]

I think that overall impression and jump are about equal. You can't have the first without the second, but most of the consistent winners aren't the ones with their knees a their eyeballs, they're the ones who are attractive going around, the ones who makes the judge want to throw their boots on and go take it for a spin. They're the horses that are ridden well but don't require a whole lot of ride to go well, just all around good citizens who are definitely fancy but not the ones who go in and jump the crap out of everything but toss their head here and wring their tail there and just don't look like fun. Depends on the judge, naturally, and the division, but the right conditioning, turnout, etc. makes a huge difference. Some horse walk into the ring with a ribbon because they are so beautiful and good to their people.

[RugBug]

I think the most important thing to finding a horse to be competitive on the "A" circuit is how it fits the rider and how the rider looks and feels on the horse. I have sat with judges at some big shows and they have commented to me that the way the rider looks on the horse and the confident "look" about them is what sets many people apart from the winner versues a peice of the action.

While I don't think this is the most important thing, I do think it is a big factor. I currently own a horse with so much presence, he doesn't know what to do with it all. He's a nice mover, nice jumper, good canter. BUT, I ride him tensely and defensively and it shows. Shows enough that when I substituted another homely looking, horrible moving horse that I ride much more confidently for mine at a show, I had people saying they had never seen me ride better. The whole picture became that much better because I didn't seem to be worried about that whole ordeal.

As jumpingjack brought up, money does play a huge role in it. You have to have money for the trainers, the lessons, the showing. I'm selling Mr. Presence because he needs more show miles than I can give him to meet his potential. I usually show locally (although have a pretty good idea of what it takes for the big time) and the few times I've taken Mr. P to a bigger show his little brain has had a hard time coping. He needs to on the road so it becomes no big deal. It's about money. I would keep him if I didn't want the potential to go to an A here or there and not fret that I'm completely throwing my money away because my horse is going to be so overwhelmed by the atmosphere, etc.

While I have aspirations of being an A show rider, I know it's not realistic...and I constantly remind myself of that when I'm horse shopping. I don't need the next big star even if that's what I want. I need a horse that can get the numbers, do a change, jump in decent form and take a joke. That's enough to be successful locally...not so much anywhere else.

[superpony123]

I hate it when people say 'hunters/eq are so easy so i do jumpers'
.. not for nothing, but unless you're a successful grand prix jumper or winning pro working hunter rider, i don't think you can say hunters are too easy. It's an excuse some people use when they aren't capable of winning. It's pretty easy to complete a hunter course, YEAH. but it's also easy to whip around a jumper course carelessly. but is it easy to be competitive in rated hunters at A shows with big competition? not so easy. to put in PERFECT distances every time, with perfect rythm and movement, perfecform? i like to think that you shouldn't be so haughty as to say "hunters are too easy for me" until you can have consistently near-perfect winning rounds all the time. then we'll talk. and that's not in little wee-wee beginner hunters (this is not an insult to beginner hunters, i'm just saying that it's not as competitive of a division) i'm saying at least in the A rated hunters, like junior hunters and stuff.

it also really bugs me that people think extremely wealthy people aren't good riders (especially eq riders) beause they must have an expensive horse thus it must be an easy-to-ride horse and so it's definitely doing all the work and they muuuuuuuuust be sitting pretty. i'm sorry, but no. that's not how it works. let me tell you, i'm NOT wealthy and i can't go out and get a 70K horse whenever i feel like it. I don't have the money for that. but i understand that you DO have to learn how to ride. do you think jess springsteens horses are all perfect and easy to ride? i've seen them, and one of her horses looked genuinely complicated to ride. I know she's a better rider than me. people who like to say that winners only won because the winner has a more expensive coat or breeches or horse or soemthing--sorry, the people that say that nonsense are people who can't accept the fact that the winner simply rode better than them and probably had better turnout too. can hunters be political? sure. but it's never 100% political. you still have to ride.

going to an A hunter show takes a lot of work, patience, time, and effort. You have to learn how to play the part, and you can never go in, expecting to win anything with such large amounts of competition.

[LookinSouth]

I've sometimes wondered why it is that local show people and rated show people are so differrent; not just in the quality of their horse, but in their desire to be like those at the top of the sport. For example, why is it that everyone wants to be like so-and-so grqand prix rider, and yet they never use that fabulous rider as an example to follow? For once I'd like for someone to not tell me how high they've jumped, assuming that's going to fool me when I look at them on a horse and think - that MUST have been fightful.

.

I'd like to point out that this is not always the case. Perhaps it depends largely on one's location? Our "local" CHJA/NEHC shows have alot of the very same competitors that show at the "A" and AA shows in Zone 1 and go down to FL. The divisions are still extremely competitive and those winning consistently are the same people that show on the A circuit. Of course there are those that strictly do the local rateds but I wouldn't say there are many who are scary or ignorant of what it takes to compete at the A level. Not at all.

Now if your talking about fairs and "open" type shows? Well that's a whole nother ball of wax......

[SaddleFitterVA]

I've sometimes wondered why it is that local show people and rated show people are so differrent; not just in the quality of their horse, but in their desire to be like those at the top of the sport. For example, why is it that everyone wants to be like so-and-so grqand prix rider, and yet they never use that fabulous rider as an example to follow? For once I'd like for someone to not tell me how high they've jumped, assuming that's going to fool me when I look at them on a horse and think - that MUST have been fightful.


Hmm, let's see, which part of the top-pros would you like us to emulate? The entire program?

One top pro, I go to his barn and there is a large staff of grooms and barn workers. His barn is spotless. He is up and in the barn by 5am, can be seen coaching riders all day long at big rated shows, then will go put in a winning or near-winning round in the big jumper classes that afternoon.

He probably rides 5-10 a day these days...I bet it was 10-14 a day back when he was younger.

Another pro I know is up and rides from 6:30am until 1 or 2, then starts teaching lessons. Until 7 or 8pm at night.

Now, I get up around 5:30 or 6am...have a bit of coffee, stumble outside to feed the herd. Groom and tack up one horse, ride. If I was quick or have no early meetings, I can get on another. If I have truly early meetings, I skip the ride and get to work.

I work roughly 9:30 or 10 to 6 most days. I have a 45 minute (each way) commute. 8 or 9am meetings kill my schedule.

To take a lesson, this is done in the evening and I have to get home (often a bit earlier, meaning time must be made up on another day), catch horse, clean horse, load in trailer (luxury item....I can leave it hooked up), drive 45 minutes to an hour for lesson, ride, clean horse, reload, go home, prepare breakfast for herd, change out blankets on horse who just got ridden in lesson, turnout, go inside, eat a bit (or not) and go to bed soon....I am back inside around 9:30pm on lesson days.

The best a working adult can do for "emulating" the top pro, is to PAY the top pro to have the horse in their program. I heard rumors that the rate at the top jumper pro above I sometimes take lessons with is $3000/month. I do believe you will be successful in that program.

My horse budget, including feed and care for 6 horses is not 3000/month. Much less ONE at a fancy barn.

So, since my priority in life is riding not paying someone else to ride my horses, I happily forgo showing at the top levels more than a handful of times a year. I love riding. I ride each horse, to see what that horse can do, which means I currently have one horse who likes low jumpers or XC (I don't really event though), one who loves dressage, the young one who might just be a hunter or jumper, another who is a blast on trails and foxhunting. I've had a couple of nice horses in the past couple years so was able to do some local hunters.

I feel that I am a reasonably good rider and I've realized you DO need the right horse for the big shows. I won't waste my money at the shows with the wrong horse, it is counter productive.

[magnolia73]

I think there is a pretty big range of quality at local "hunter" shows. Up in Ohio, where I grew up, many barns did both the A shows and the local circuit. Many a local medal champion also went to the Maclay.... and a couple won or placed very high.

There is a local circuit here in NC that is perfect if you don't jump over 2'. The quality reflects the nature of the competitors- often beginners on lesson horses out to try something new. Lots of mom's blazer and breeches with paddocks and illfitted pads. There is another circuit that one of the big show barns hosts- I imagine those shows offer a higher level of turnout.

Now saddlefitter- I have seen photos & videos of you at shows- you are not scary, wearing bright polos or turned out poorly. OK- I have seen a photo or two of you on Aster that defies gravity- but that horse was an incredible jumper- you probably did jump 5' on her!

I didn't really start this topic to dis local shows or state the obvious- $. Money is a necessity at the highest level of any discipline. Shoot- its a necessity to own and maintain a horse properly.

I think the idea of performance vs type is interesting. At the big AA is there ever a case where style and type can have a small performance flaw and beat a flawless performance of a horse with more mundane style and not so typey?

[leelee]

Sorry, what I meant by trying to be like a top rider is trying to ride your best, learn good exercises to practice, be neat and clean, etc. I work full time as well. I didn't mean ride 7 horses a day or shell out money for a big trainer.

I also wanted to point out in my prior statement the amount of bragging I hear from riders that shouldn't. I don't feel as though I'm the only one to notice it. Being proud of an accomplishment is one thing, but talking yourself up as a rider is only going to make you look stupid.

There are some people that show locally that could very easily do well at rated shows. There are those, however, that are doing everything wrong; and with the resources available today, I'm surprised that some kids are so adequate or even proud with what they do on a horse. It is easy to tell who is willing to learn the correct way to ride and who is not.

This certainly doesn't not go for all people. I'm in CNY and there seems to be a lot around here. Then again, this is definitly not horse country.

[DMK]

I think the idea of performance vs type is interesting. At the big AA is there ever a case where style and type can have a small performance flaw and beat a flawless performance of a horse with more mundane style and not so typey?

At Big AA shows all the way to local shows, although I suspect a judge would truly never know s/he did it. Meaning its a subconscious thing. We all have something we truly love, and I have seen horses I just loved from the time they took their first step in the ring. That horse has to work extra hard to lose points in my eyes. Meanwhile an unknown entity or a horse that I just instinctively don't like as much has to work a wee bit harder to gain points. Then the problem is multiplied when you have a horse in the ring who you have seen go many times and turn in many a flawless round and again, you really like this horse. That horse comes with a bit more street cred in your eyes than the next horse.

Now I believe just about every judge sits down to judge each round fairly, but there's no getting around the subjective nature of hunters and human nature. It's not evil or deliberate, it just is. So yes, I think it happens.

Of course the key difference between me and some of the more hysterical elements of the interweb tubes is I don't get my panties in a wad when it happens and spend 5 pages ranting about how has screwed [insert name of screwed party] and it's not [stamps internet feet] fair. :D

(This has been a most likely unsuccesful attempt to prevent an otherwise interesting thread from devolving into an [I]"ohmigod rated hunters are so @#&! unfair!" rant by people whose most pertinent credentials are that they drove by a rated show. Once. You may now return to your regularly scheduled thread. ;D )

[leelee]

Hmm, let's see, which part of the top-pros would you like us to emulate? The entire program?


I meant riding correctly. You don't need to be on a 250K horse and pay 3K a month to ride correctly. Sorry to upset you.

[Trixie]

Leelee, I really hope you phrased what you said incorrectly. Unfortunately, you not only managed to insinuate that local riders ride badly, but also that they're clueless about horse care and turnout, and that they don't even try to do things right.

There are many riders that show locally that are FANTASTIC riders, strive to ride the very best they can, and take the sport very seriously indeed. They work hard at riding correctly and try to learn and absorb as much as they can.

There are many riders that show at "A" shows that ride poorly and are perfectly fine with that, because it's a hobby. At that point, they're generally less prone to making turnout mistakes, but just as prone to riding errors.

And vise versa.

It is NOT a difference between "local and rated show people" it is merely a difference in how the riders view the sport, at whatever level they choose to compete. If one is taking it seriously, it shows, regardless of the venue.

[Lucassb]

I find it interesting that no one has mentioned the ONE main thing that prevents many fantastic Hunters and riders from making it past the local shows.

M-O-N-E-Y

There are many people out there who purchase quality horses, who have talent up to whazoo, but can't afford the $15,000+++ per show season to be competetive. Even if they sink tons of money into training to get the horse top notch, +++++ on top of that just isn't feasible.
(snip)

There is no doubt that regularly showing in the AA circuit can cost a fortune. However it is equally true that many of the top pros were *not* wealthy - and got to the very pinnacle of the sport by working hard and making opportunities for themselves rather than just flipping open a checkbook. Harder? Without question. But when you see the likes of Margie Engle or Andre Dignelli... they are living proof that $$$$ is not a requirement. Quite a few of the top Eq riders did the working student route and became successful at the top, many without even a horse of their own.

That very talented rider with a super horse might not get to HOTY, but if they are willing to work and have family support (meaning emotional/practical support not $$$) it is not unrealistic to think they could show successfully at the A show level. Learn to braid, be a working student, etc - there are time honored ways to get there.

There is no particular magic about big AA shows. Not everyone at those AA shows has an entourage of grooms, BNTs, etc. Yes, many do - but there are ship ins at WEF just like there are anywhere else, and there are also people who do self care there, braid their own, etc and hold their own.

My young horse will show again at WEF this year, as he did last year. I will not be there; I will be home working to pay his bills - my family isn't wealthy (and we aren't paying $3k a month for his program - he lives with a NBNT (not big name trainer) who does a very nice job with him. He is successful even though his barn is literally in his backyard, no army of grooms, etc.)

This horse is a beautiful mover with a lovely jump and he was rewarded for both in his baby green classes. His best result IIRC was a third in a good sized class of very nice horses, quite a few of whom came from the BNT barns. I was able to afford him because I bought him as a baby, before he was started. When I got him at 3, he was barely backed.

WEF was his first show ever, and he has only gotten better since then - but he doesn't go every week, too expensive for my blood. He did a few weeks of VT and was first and second out of more than 50 in his classes there. Again without a BNT, grooms etc.

Despite the lack of all the BNT trappings, to Leelee's point, the horse is always turned out to the highest possible standard. Elbow grease costs nothing but time and attention. I agree with Leelee that many (not all) local riders *do* appear to subscribe to a very different standard of turnout and execution - which is perfectly fine; it's a free country and if you want to ride in rainbow polos etc you are more than entitled. However, you ought not then complain about how snooty the A show hunter people are and how the only reason you didn't place was politics, and frankly you hear that a lot.

[leelee]

Leelee, I really hope you phrased what you said incorrectly. Unfortunately, you not only managed to insinuate that local riders ride badly, but also that they're clueless about horse care and turnout, and that they don't even try to do things right.

There are many riders that show locally that are FANTASTIC riders, strive to ride the very best they can, and take the sport very seriously indeed. They work hard at riding correctly and try to learn and absorb as much as they can.


"There are some people that show locally that could very easily do well at rated shows. There are those, however, that are doing everything wrong"

I don't think I said all local riders ride badly?

[Linny]

I'm sure that many riders and horses that could do the A's are not because of $$$. It's a fact of life that they cost more and that it takes more (and possibly better) training to succeed there.

To do A's and AA's a horse should have "the whole package" of movement, rhythm and style of the jump. Add to that the attitude to handle challenges posed by conditions and rider error.

I'm sure that many trainers who focus on C's and locals could take the right riders/horses to bigger venues and do well, but most don't have access to the stock or clients with the money to do it.

A very good A hunter is expensive because it's got all the basics and because alot of time and effort has been put into him. You can find young, well bred hunter prospects at barns everyplace and they are also expensive, if they have the movement, attitude and jum-even while green. Sure, diamonds in the rough are out there but it takes a very educated eye to spot them. There are lovely OTTB hunters that cost next to nothing and are winning at big shows or that could do so BUT then you will have the expense of training.

I do agree that (sadly) alot of locals and C's are populated by trainers that take shortcuts and send out less then ideally turned out animals. (I grant that because many are schoolies that they aren't going to carry the condition of a well prepared showhorse.) Go to a local and look around. Watch when that A show rig pulls in with it's greenies or young/beginner riders. EVERYTHING about their turnout and preparation stands out. I am not talking about TS' vs. riding tights or Beval's vs. Dover's. I'm talking about gleaming coats, evenly pulled manes, sparkling white socks and hoof polish. These are the details that GM harps on in his PH column.
I know that none of those details is going to make a schoolie into an A show hunter. The horse must be of the highest quality. He might be ugly and even have less that perfect conformation (except in models and confo) but in motion must present the highest standard. I know of a few horses that don't look great standing still. They don't always take a great jumping pic, but the overall impression is one of smooth, consistent galloping and jumping. I used to show one of these. We always entered and left the ring at a trot because when he slowed down you could see how God-awful looking his was. Once he was moving along, all you saw was what a good boy he was!

[Ray]

At Big AA shows all the way to local shows, although I suspect a judge would truly never know s/he did it. Meaning its a subconscious thing. ...........
(This has been a most likely unsuccesful attempt to prevent an otherwise interesting thread from devolving into an "ohmigod rated hunters are so @#&! unfair!" rant by people whose most pertinent credentials are that they drove by a rated show. Once. You may now return to your regularly scheduled thread. ;D )

LOL on the "attempt" - too funny!

In my experience, the bigger the show, the better the judge and the least biased. I show my completely non-typey draft cross at one AA show a year and that is where we got our best ribbons last year. My 15.2 mare has only an OK canter, and is short strided, but loves her job, jumps in great form, has a great rhythm and looks pretty cute all braided up. Very gratifying to find a great round will be rewarded :)

[LookinSouth]

"There are some people that show locally that could very easily do well at rated shows. There are those, however, that are doing everything wrong"

I don't think I said all local riders ride badly?


Maybe I'm wrong but I am pretty sure she is referring to your first post....it does have an insulting tone to anyone who might compete at the local level that is a serious rider and puts alot of effort and time into their turnout, riding and horsemanship. Some people can't afford to show AT ALL and yet are extremely dedicated and serious riders striving to improve and grow in their skills.

To me the level at which one shows does not separate the wheat from the chafe in terms of true perserverance and dedication as a RIDER and HORSEMEN. The backyarder who is out riding in a cold driving rain in the middle of December working on their flatwork prepping for the local show series is no more or less dedicated than those that board and train in top programs working on their flatwork in a nice warm indoor prepping for WEF.:yes::winkgrin:

[Rubs Not Pats]

You can win in the ammy divisions with a horse that does not move well if your horse has a decent jump and a good long lopey canter. My horse is the most offensive mover ever for the hunters, we get excited when she does better than last! She moves in a super frame, doesn't change speed, has an enormous stride but a bit too much knee. The key with the ammy divisions is accuracy. My horse with an accurate rider will win in the OF. She does better as the fences get higher. She is a O.K 3' horse, decent 3'6 horse and nice 4' horse. Oh what I would give for the regulars to be 4'6! She is super athletic and gets bored and just canters the 3'6, she is starting to get bored in the regulars. Eventually, she will probably end up in the jumper ring, but right now, we are having fun and being fairly successful in the regulars. I do her in the A/A's and have a much tougher road. There are a lot of horses who are scoped out at the 3' and try real hard, so from a form perspective look better.

[SaddleFitterVA]

I hope to make it to a few rated shows this year. I'll start out at the locals, since it is a lot more cost effective to practice over a nice course 10 miles from home than it is pay all the rated overhead fees.

I'm seriously toying with Lexington, VA for one of the winter shows though. I just love the Horse Center. I have a horse who doesn't seem to get phased much at bigger shows, so that helps me a lot.

Today, we just rode in a fantastic gymnastics clinic, and I'm again, at my usual crossroads...this clinic is an option for the next 7 weekends, but I need to decide, show or clinic? If I want to use different horses, I could likely do both, at least if I stay home.

I'll be on a fairly tight budget this year and will try to make a few A shows. Perhaps someone will resurrect this thread at the end of the year and those who are trying to show in the hunters will be able to report back how well their program worked.

Luckily I have friends who don't let me go into the ring too unkempt. Which is why Magnolia could comment that I am reasonably tidy! :D

[leelee]

Maybe I'm wrong but I am pretty sure she is referring to your first post....it does have an insulting tone to anyone who might compete at the local level that is a serious rider and puts alot of effort and time into their turnout, riding and horsemanship. Some people can't afford to show AT ALL and yet are extremely dedicated and serious riders striving to improve and grow in their skills.

To me the level at which one shows does not separate the wheat from the chafe in terms of true perserverance and dedication as a RIDER and HORSEMEN. The backyarder who is out riding in a cold driving rain in the middle of December working on their flatwork prepping for the local show series is no more or less dedicated than those that board and train in top programs working on their flatwork in a nice warm indoor prepping for WEF.:yes::winkgrin:

My apologies, then. I meant those bad riders who don't put in the effort; and in my experience I've come across more at the local level than at the rated level.

[Trixie]

Leelee, I was referring to your first post, which I thought was pretty offensive.

I've sometimes wondered why it is that local show people and rated show people are so differrent; not just in the quality of their horse, but in their desire to be like those at the top of the sport. For example, why is it that everyone wants to be like so-and-so grqand prix rider, and yet they never use that fabulous rider as an example to follow? For once I'd like for someone to not tell me how high they've jumped, assuming that's going to fool me when I look at them on a horse and think - that MUST have been fightful.

People that show local shows need to experience a good rated show, to see how people are turned out not just for show, but for schooling as well. They need to watch people school and watch the pro's do training rides. I've always wondered why this doesn't happen. Go to a local show around here and you see it all: bad riding, skinny horses, horribly fitted tack, rainbow polos, etc. Learn the basics of riding and jumping, feed your horse, raise that noseband, opt for black polos, etc. This isn't hard stuff and it drives me crazy.

You did not exactly leave allowances for those that show locally but work hard and turn their horses out well. Instead, you pretty much insinuate that those that show locally are poor horsemen who starve their horses and can't ride. That's why I said that I hope you were merely speaking incorrectly, and not that you actually meant your comments the way they sounded.

[3Dogs]

Rubs not Pats - you have hit it! There are plenty of top 3'6" horses that do not win the hack, may not get close to the hack. Only one class, and if all the other parts are superb, you can win big time. In recent memory, I know Kim Quinn has won champ indoors (and lots more) older A/Os with a horse that moves quite "hunter" terrible :eek: But dead on, floats the reins, horse a great jumper - winner! So all this emphasis on that 8-10 mover? Great if you can get it with a terrific jump but hardly a career ender if the horse jumps 10+, every fence the same, stays in the same rhythm -

This 8-10 mover seems MOST important in the 3 foot ring, since gosh knows, hitting 8 fences accurately is always challenging, and at that level, with 30 odd entries, winning the hack becomes VERY important!
Personally, I think the AAs should get handicaps or a drop fence choice :lol:

[KateD]

Ok, I have a very stupid question... Does someone have some video footage (Youtube maybe?) of a good hunter (7+ mover and jumper?) I don't really know much about the hunters and with my current horse probably won't get to do them above local level because of a kind of an old injury (short step in left hind) but I'm really curious about it!

[kellyb]

If someone is telling you that hunters are easy and that your horse makes it look simple - be proud. :D

[EllenAspen]

Here's one....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-wL0G0-wBY&feature=related

[Trixie]

If someone is telling you that hunters are easy and that your horse makes it look simple - be proud.

:lol: Ain't that the truth. I LOVE it when I hear that I only won such and such because ammy hunters are all made.

My trainer has ridden my horse perhaps two or three times?

[kellyb]

:lol: Ain't that the truth. I LOVE it when I hear that I only won such and such because ammy hunters are all made.

My trainer has ridden my horse perhaps two or three times?

Yep. I just take those comments with a grain of salt. I'm glad that spectators don't see the intricacies of everything I am asking for, rating, framing, getting that perfect spot, etc. It defeats the point of having a nice hunter round if it is a fight to get your horse to go smoothly. :)

[chawley]

I think also, A show mileage makes a difference. You can have the nicest horse out there, and if you only show at the local shows, he will go like a local horse.

This is not necessarily true. While mileage in the ring is important, how a horse goes is a result of how they are trained and ridden, not how difficult their competition happens to be.

[chawley]

Here's one....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-wL0G0-wBY&feature=related

Love him!!

[pippy]

Here's one....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-wL0G0-wBY&feature=related

I was just looking at a picture of this horse in the chronicle tonight, and thought, "I would love to see this horse go." Thank you so much for posting that. He is a beauty.

[whbar158]

To me money pretty much says it all. I guess because I have often been on the outside looking in. Don't get me wrong there are NICE horses out there that people have gotten cheap and put a lot of time and training in. My horse a little QH I got for under 10K, I did pay for the best training my parents could afford and went to the shows we could afford. Is my horse fancy? Not really. Do the nice horses have to make mistakes for me to win? Most of the time. My horse is very hard to ride, even though he is extremely well trained (now!). I pretty much did just the local C shows around here, and the local A's on him as it was not worth my parents money to send him far away. I won some classes, but I worked hard for it. I very much resent the attitude that "if you have only done local or smaller shows you aren't a good rider" as I recently had someone tell me that. I didn't do the bigger shows because I couldn't afford the show fees and I didn't have the horse to do it (again didn't have the money to buy the horse, actually my parents said they could buy me a nice horse if I just wanted it to be in our backyard and stare at it! haha). While my horse isn't the nicest or fanciest he is so much fun to own and play with!

Heres a picture of him :) and just curious what would you rate his jump in this picture?

http://pets.webshots.com/photo/1375771760050200882MeDCuG

[TheOrangeOne]

I have a nice horse, I know people with nicer horses, none of us are getting a ribbon if we miss a jump. :lol:

[chawley]

I have a nice horse, I know people with nicer horses, none of us are getting a ribbon if we miss a jump. :lol:

So true! There are horses in the barn where I ride that are $200K+ (not mine!), but they still have to jump eight fences well without mistakes.

[snaffle635]

In addition to the qualities mentioned earlier, the horse has to enjoy the lifestyle. They have to be comfortable travelling all over the place, sleeping in strange stalls, showing at different places and different times of day, getting lunged, being cooped up in a stall most of the time, etc. You can have a good mover with a great jump and a terrific training program, but if the horse gets stressed out over the lifestyle, he's not going to make it as an AA hunter.

[Linny]

Your horse could cost a million bucks but if you miss you lose. That said, you can find a perfect 8 fences on a typical "local level mega champion" but if you are at WEF or Devon or even HITS etc, you won't pin.
In terms of care, there is a shine to a coat that you just can't apply with one good bath. The muscle tone and development needed to compete at AA shows requires a serious commitment to horse fitness. The daily grooming and feeding and exercise routines show up in the coat, the demeanor and the carriage. The horse has to "have it" to start but that extra work is what makes a superstar hunter.

[Sunny14]

While we all want to have the best jumper and mover in reality there have been some great one's who could not win a hack to save their life. Anyone remember Lyrik ? She won everything over fences but never came close in the flat. Same with Whadyasay.