Question--why are hunters now seemingly more limted than 30 years ago?

[Ladybug Hill]

I keep hearing that this horse or that horse (hunters) has limited scope and can only do 2'6 or 2'9, maybe 3 feet.

I find this strange as back when I was a child there were not even classes for less than 3 feet in my area. 3'0 to 4 feet were EXPECTED heights. No one thought twice about this. Even many of us that rode "honies" rode to those heights. It did make it a bit hard to get a very young just started horse into the show ring quickly. Many of the hunters were TBs then.

NOW, we have the influx of WBs into our hunter ring, but I keep hearing that many of the hunters are limited in scope and can only do 2'6 or up to 3 feet.

I am curious to hear the perception of others. What is the cause of the poorer performance or capability of our hunters?

Poorer breeding?
Poorer riding?
Lesser expectations of our horses?
Or maybe even higher expectations--in that our horses must be more stylish and therefore stop at the appropriate heights?

[3Dogs]

I will take a stab:

I grew up riding when no fence was under 3'6" - I exclude the pony classes, but I did pony jumpers then horses. I then left showing for school, more school and even more school, and a profession. I kept riding, but in the hunt field. When I returned, the shows were full of 2'3", 2'6" and 3' classes. So what happened?

Well, I suspect that the riding world expanded and the horse buying public changed - and along with that, the expectations changed. I missed the galvanic shift, but what I see is that given the size of the 3' foot classes and down, show managers have a cash stream and the entry of many weekend riders, with limited access to continuous training (and I won't mention what kind of training - that's a whole nother story), emphasis moved from great jumping horses to the horse with a temperment of a saint and as flat a mover as could be found - jump ability coming in third or fourth in priority. If Betty or Bob Joe can have a hack placer, on a horse that will take a joke, then yahoooooooo! Not a bad thing, just a different kind of horse. Most horses can get over 2'6" or 3', no matter the breeding.

Not to mention how much money it takes to get a horse to the 3'6" ring in hunters, when you can't possibly win enough money (most times - hunter derbies notwithstanding) to pay your way with winnings, so -

My pet peeve: maybe some of these 3 foot horses COULD jump higher but they spend so many years in the 3 foot, jumping jumping jumping - well, frankly, I think horses do have just so many jumps in them. By the time they are introduced to 3'6", they are flat and have lost what potential they might have had. And until they (show managers) incent folks to move up, with better money, then what trainer urges their clients up?

A little bit on training: I am hard pressed to find the trainers today (there are some, don't get me wrong) that have time or will to really work with a young hunter to make them up for 3'6" and higher. They import the European horses because so many of them have all ready had the jumper/dressage work put into them.

[Hampton Bay]

I do dressage and have never shown on the hunter/jumper circuit, but could it possibly because all those 2'3", etc classes have been added, so now people will buy a horse who cannot jump over 3'? So before when the classes started at 3' and a horse was expected to jump those heights, only the horses who could do it were sold as hunters. Now that there is an option to show at a lower height, a whole new market has opened up for horses that wouldn't have been able to cut it in the hunter ring before?

Just a thought, I know nothing about the h/j world.

[not again]

Okay, going for the Greyhair award here.....
Ruxton did his first year green (3'6"), ending up fourth in the country as a three year old (he only did the indoors in the fall). The next year he won the year end award for second year green (3'9"). After that he was year end champion I think seven times, including one year when he pulled a tendon in Florida and was out for half the year. He was also several time hunter grand champion of all divisions for the then AHSA. Soooo, the talent was there from the beginning.
And there weren't any lower divisions to puddle around in anyway.

Kind of like eventing. You did one Jenny Camp and then you went preliminary. Jenny Camp was 3'7" like prelim but had a shortened cross country.

First you learned to ride. Then you learned to compete.

[TrueColours]

3Dogs - I think you've nailed it on the proverbial head with all of your comments ... :)

I, too grew up where we debuted our hunters in the First Year division at 3'6", next year we did the 2nd year's up to 3'9" and then if we and the horse had the talent and desire to do so, we went up to the Regular Division and jumped around 4' - 4'6" on a regular basis. The Regular classes tended to be in the 4' - 4'3" range and the Stake classes and the Classics would be up to the 4'6" max

A/O's always showed at the 3'6" level and I cant even think of any class that was below that. If you wanted to jump 2'6" and 3' you found a schooling show that offered classes at that level

I think it also helped that in my younger days I schooled with the likes of Torchy Millar, Tom Gayford, Doug Henry, Gord Kirton, etc - all GP and Olympic riders. There was no such word as "cant" or "too high" or "can you lower that by 6 holes" ;). They set the jumps and you jumped them and it was that simple. So when you schooled at 4-4'6" at home on a consistent basis and in "those days" in a 60 x 120 arena with 10-15 jumps crammed into there to boot, you learned how to ride every available square inch in that arena and when you got to a show and the jumps were 3'6" or 4' and spread out in a BIG space and not crammed together, it was actually easier at shows than it was at home. Plus we schooled over all of the jumper jumps at home and the more user friendly hunter jumps at shows, so again - our hunters got used to jumping liverpools with coloured rails, coloured walls, etc at home and what they saw in the show ring on the weekends was much easier for them to deal with

I think today if all you offered was 3'6" and above, you would cut out a huge segment of the riding and showing market that simply has "0" desire to jump around a course of that size so the trainers and show organizers have simply evolved to satisfy and fill that demand, wherever it may lie

[fish]

I don't think it's the horses who are limited at all, but rather the ambitions of the people. As others have said, 30 years ago, there weren't any classes for hunters under 3' (let alone "jumpers"), so anyone who wanted to show over fences had to learn to negotiate a 3' course, like it or not. Many of us were scared at first, but did what we had to do so we could join the game. Now that challenge has been removed-- and there are even 2' jumper courses for people who don't want their form challenged either :(.

As for the horses, IMO, most of the ones doing 3' (and below) now, could probably jump rings around the ones who did 3'6"+ back in the 70's. I knew several nondescript school horses who'd been picked up at meat sales, etc., who routinely jumped 4'. A lot of them didn't do flying changes (and were certainly not much to look at), but I remember it being pretty much unthinkable that there was such a thing as a sound horse who couldn't jump 3'. Heck, we had OTTB's with knees too big to bend doing 3'6".

[CBoylen]

I don't think the horses are different, but the expectations for the classes are different. Most of those limited horses for sure could get around a larger course, but probably wouldn't be competitive. A lot of it has to do with step. On an outside course with no set lines you can get away with a lack of step and still manage larger fences, whether by adding or carrying a lot of pace. With a course with lines set on the long step, and the expectation that the horse carry a slow pace for that set number, it takes more scope and step. Plus I think a lot has changed with the desired jumping style, and the standards necessitate a scopier horse for each level. I don't think there are a lot of horses limited to 3' and under by their ability to get to the other side, but there are a lot limited by their ability to get a ribbon.

[coriander]

It was a different time, with different shows. The courses were different - jumping was more out of stride as opposed to in the required number of strides, and brilliance was rewarded. That could include the occasional gleeful headshake or other exuberance that will take you right out of the ribbons today, even with every spot perfect. A cross-canter didn't necessarily kill an otherwise good round. As one of my favorite trainers used to say - "back then it was run and jump." The whole fashion was different. As were expectations.

[goodmorning]

I'll put another thought out there that I've heard over and over from a few top trainers in the area. Let's get back to the basics, and talk about step and scope and way of going. When you have these fancy WBs that jump knees-to-eyeballs and move with more 'athleticism' they usually are not going around 'on the buckle' - and therefore have little issue going around making the strides and jumping nicely. However, to do that at 3'6 w/o an accurate requires abover average scope & a big enough step to get you out of a jam, and this is not something the horse who jumps 'great' at 3' may have, so yes the horse is topped out because of both the rider & its own step. When you are looking at a 3'6 horse, you need something with a huge step, that can go around on the buckle and at the same time get a rider out of trouble if needed. The WBs that can do this are probably the ones that could deal with the big jumps (think Popeye and Cunningham) and they are priced accordingly. A horse that can do the 4'+ jumpers may only be able to do the 3'6 hunters....loping around over a 3'6 & making it look good isn't easy. So when you factor in the lifestyle of the current ammy & their riding ability & price-range, you end up with a fancy 3' horse. Makes sense to me, particularly when this 3' horse sells in the mid 6-figures -- that's a pretty nice paycheck for all involved ;)

So, to make a long story short, yes I am blaming part of this on the Euro import that is so popular. If you're going to use these guys for breeding, breed for the 3' crowd or breed to the ones that can handle the big jump & are probably jumper bred.

[grayfox]

I don't think the horses are different, but the expectations for the classes are different. Most of those limited horses for sure could get around a larger course, but probably wouldn't be competitive. A lot of it has to do with step. On an outside course with no set lines you can get away with a lack of step and still manage larger fences, whether by adding or carrying a lot of pace. With a course with lines set on the long step, and the expectation that the horse carry a slow pace for that set number, it takes more scope and step. Plus I think a lot has changed with the desired jumping style, and the standards necessitate a scopier horse for each level. I don't think there are a lot of horses limited to 3' and under by their ability to get to the other side, but there are a lot limited by their ability to get a ribbon.

Well said CBoylen.

[fish]

Maybe I've gotten senile, but as I remember the 70's, short-strided horses were penalized for adds, and fresh ones for head-shaking, etc., just as they are now-- and that includes over the outside courses. The one big difference is the changes-- until some time in the late 70's/early 80's, counter-cantering the corners was not a major fault, although breaking stride/trotting was. Then, as now, the more limited, short-strided horses would not get ribbons against big moving, scopey horses, and a quiet horse would beat a cavorting one every time. (That's why there were show hunters out there with barn names like "Ace"-- many of whom were suddenly retired with the advent of testing.) And then, of course, there's the matter of the "jumper" classes-- in which 'getting to the other side' IS the name of the game-- then, now, always-- the difference being that back then, the height of jumper fences usually started where hunters left off: 4'. My head still spins when I open a prize list for an A show and see "level 0 jumpers -- 2'9" "??!!??.

Hence, I still maintain that the main difference accounting for the supposed "limitations" of today's "horses" over larger fences is that nobody HAS to jump higher than 2'9"in order to compete. As someone else suggested, it used to be that many of us spent years riding at home, working until we got comfortable enough over 3' courses to be ready to show at all, with getting ribbons at the better shows being yet another issue. People (and horses) simply don't have to do that anymore-- they can spend their lives showing at 3' and under if that's what they want to do-- and get recognition for it at the big shows, too. Trainers and show managers make much more $ this way, the people showing can have more years experiencing the joys of competition without ever confronting lumps in their throats, so what's anyone to say? There are up sides and down sides to pretty much everything.

Again, I don't think it's the horses who are-- in any way-- "limited" in their abilities, especially compared to those we used to ride and show over higher fences. It is, instead, the "expectations" and ambitions of owners, trainers and riders who no longer need to do the bigger courses in order to go out and show (let alone win ribbons).

[3Dogs]

Agree with many of the comments - yes, counting strides was something I had to learn (and it was HARD :lol:) when I came back to the show ring in the 90s, and yup, no outside courses, but I don't agree that there is a sea of horses who COULD do 3'6" and up but we are holding them back due to no expectation. . I have seen many a good "pre-green" go to the 3'6" ring and clearly get overfaced - their jump does not hold up to those extra 6" (with step) - just saw one at Thermal in fact - wowzer in the lows but flat at the 3"6". So I really do think we are looking at different horses now - we just didn't see the 3 foot horses years ago - although perhaps the ones that didn't excel at 3'6" would have exceled at 3 feet. Don't know.

[fish]

Agree with many of the comments - yes, counting strides was something I had to learn (and it was HARD :lol:) when I came back to the show ring in the 90s, and yup, no outside courses, but I don't agree that there is a sea of horses who COULD do 3'6" and up but we are holding them back due to no expectation. . I have seen many a good "pre-green" go to the 3'6" ring and clearly get overfaced - their jump does not hold up to those extra 6" (with step) - just saw one at Thermal in fact - wowzer in the lows but flat at the 3"6". So I really do think we are looking at different horses now - we just didn't see the 3 foot horses years ago - although perhaps the ones that didn't excel at 3'6" would have exceled at 3 feet. Don't know.

Sure, we saw 3' (and 3' ish) horses back then-- doing lows (at 3'3"), children's, lower level eq., etc., etc.-- and 3'6" was a real separating point then, too. IMO, the differences were
(a) that there wasn't a proliferation of under 3' classes at A shows as there is now; so
(b) neither people nor horses made show "careers" for themselves at 3'-- i.e., 3'6" was not only the dividing line between "recognized" and "unrecognized," but it was where one aimed to get "recognition" at all.

I definitely agree that the popularity of low level hunter courses has probably affected the kinds of horses we're seeing-- e.g., you have a great point re: the horses who are "wowzer" over 3', but bottom out at 3'6". By the same token, there are a lot of horses who canter over 3' fences as if they were x-rails, not bothering to use themselves until this marvelous explosion happens at 3'6" (or in some cases, even higher). I wonder how many of those horses end up doing nothing because there are so few riders with the kind of motivation and/or skill to test what might happen at those heights these days.

Don't know what the upshot of that is-- except as another indication of how complex and fascinating our sport is. I just wish our 3'6" + classes weren't shrinking so!!! Wouldn't it be a shame if the wow horses at 3' became so popular that legitimate 4' hunters too bored at 3' to use themselves were phased out of existence???

(Sorry if I'm rambling-- I'm trying to give my brain a relief from tax-scrambles :()

[3Dogs]

Fish - I share your fear re: the disappearing 4 foot horse

and many a trainer has said to me that it isn't the three foot WINNER you want for your next A/O mount - implying that if they are perfect at that height, that probably is their MAX height :lol: -

[nightsong]

I agree that the HORSES are still quite capable of the heights, but the RIDERS aren't at that height level yet, whether it's actual ABILITY or just COMFORT LEVEL/CONFIDENCE. Heck, when I eas showing a 13-hand pony all those years ago, we were jumping 3'.

[YankeeLawyer]

Well, before the internet was around, would people generally have heard of horses for sale that were so "limited"? Now, due to the availability of the internet, one can see ads for anything from a backyard horse in Iowa to a top A circuit horse in the Northeast. Yet, the very best horses are more likely to change hands via word of mouth, or through trainers / agents, and thus are not even in the general pool of ads that many people browse. Exactly where are you looking at ads for all these "limited" hunters? And in what price range?

[VirginiaBred]

With the number of strides being taught and all the talk about adds or leave outs, riders today have been "dumbed down" (much like this country).

Back in the day horses & ponies ran and jumped. Jumps were more formidable and riders rode off their eye. It was WAY more fun.

Today's rider is a product of the system. Not the horses. No limitation there.

[fish]

I don't think there's anything ""dumb" about counting strides, practicing adding and leaving out, etc. Quite the contrary, IMO, using a bit of math to analyze and plan your courses and develop your horses' adjustability-- and your own eye, is the intelligent way to go-- and was what we did back in the 70's, too. Then and now, can you really imagine any top rider, whether it be in the hunters, jumpers, or eventing, walking a course and NOT counting strides, making decisions "about adds or leave outs," where to turn for the strides to work, etc.? It's the building of courses so low and repetitious that all you have to do is glance at them to know what you've got to do to pin, that makes counting strides seem "dumb." The standardization has reduced the analytical/adjustment aspects of riding hunters to almost nil (especially if the trainer rides the horse around first so the horse learns the numbers!) Unfortunately, for many riders, I suspect that counting strides has not gotten much beyond a help to maintaining rhythm and an assist at knowing when it is/is not OK for the horse to take off-- still a useful thing to have and teach, but something we used to have to get beyond in order to show. This is, of course, entirely appropriate when when so many classes are devoted to relatively novice riders who simply would not have been "ready to show" back when o/f classes for horses and riders above short stirrup started at 3'. On one hand, I think it's great that these riders have opportunities to get out and have fun competing. On the other, I regret the absence of effective incentives for them and their often very talented horses to take on more challenges. Perhaps the hunter derbies will help-- they look like such fun, I do have high hopes that this will happen.

"Back in the day," courses were more both bigger and more fun. Like many others, I have missed the outside courses which were so various and interesting because they posed so many different problems--- like how to negotiate trees, or combinations set downhill, uphill, or cross-terrain in the mud.... I still chuckle to remember one rainy, muddy A show at which the trainer of the last horse in a class said: "all you have to do is get one stride in the in-and-out and you win," because the slick footing and downhill terrain had induced everyone else to chicken out and add.

Getting old I guess... I could talk about the "good old days forever." :D I think today's horses are wonderful: breeders have done and are doing a super job. Now I'd like to see course designers doing more to get them and their riders eager to move up.

[Janet]

To expand on what CBoylen said-

It is not that horses "don't have the scope to jump 3'6"".

It is that horses "don't have the scope to jump 3'6" at the pace rewarded today in the form rewarded today".

In the days when hunters at recognized shows started at 3'6"
- Most hunter courses were on an outside course
a- The expected pace was considerably faster than expected in the ring today
b- The distance bewteen fences was long enough that "counting strides" was not a big deal
c- "Roundness" over the top of the fence was not as desirable as it is now. In fact, being "too round" was considered either "an indication that the horse is trying really hard and can't jump any higher" or "the horse is better suited to the jumper ring".

Even in the ring, the pace was faster than today, and excessive "roundness" was not rewarded. And because he pace was faster, it was a lot easier to to "make the strides".

There are lots of horses that can jump 3'6" with nice (but not really "round") form, and "make the strides" out of a faster pace.

There are not a lot of horses that can jump 3'6" with a really "round" form and "make the strides" out of a slower pace.

[meupatdoes]

I don't think the horses are different, but the expectations for the classes are different. Most of those limited horses for sure could get around a larger course, but probably wouldn't be competitive. A lot of it has to do with step. On an outside course with no set lines you can get away with a lack of step and still manage larger fences, whether by adding or carrying a lot of pace. With a course with lines set on the long step, and the expectation that the horse carry a slow pace for that set number, it takes more scope and step. Plus I think a lot has changed with the desired jumping style, and the standards necessitate a scopier horse for each level. I don't think there are a lot of horses limited to 3' and under by their ability to get to the other side, but there are a lot limited by their ability to get a ribbon.

I completely agree with this.

The horses don't just have to jump the jumps, they have to have a quiet, easy, rocking chair canter around the whole course. Plenty of horses can get to the other side, but then the lines in between require a little more pace.

I have a lovely horse who I believe could jump 3'6" (I've never tried on him). He could certainly do the 3'3" A/O division. The jumps are not the problem.

The problem is in between.

Over 2'6", he looks rocking-chair smooth and has a lovely hunter canter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZViMJAGsvTg
He scored 82 and 83, and was 3rd in the Classic across the Hi/Los at three heights and the Jr. Hunters.


Over 3', we have to up the pace a little:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EM98lJlEG7g
In that class he was 5th and 6th out of 7.

There is a difference in the canter between the two rounds, and that difference is what holds him back, not the height of the jumps.

[fish]

OK-- I definitely agree that that huge rocking chair canter is a big difference between then and now. Where I disagree is with the statement that it "wasn't desireable" back then because "a faster pace was expected," or "the distances were so much longer that strides didn't make that much difference." Back then, what I remember was that horses who had the huge step, lopey canter and round, slow "take my picture" jump were very, very rare-- and worth huge fortunes because they could make distances look easy that the vast majority of the horses had to run and flatten to reach. People who had them were definitely at an advantage, but they were so rare that those on smaller, shorter strided, quicker, flatter horses could still win big if they put in good, consistent rounds. Now, perhaps huge, huge-moving and round horses have become so much the norm that that kind of step/form has become a necessity where it used to be a rare luxury-- and perhaps that is a big reason why people are choosing to stay at 3' and below???

My guess is that there are a lot of factors in operation here. Whatever they are, I do wonder what can (or should??) be done to encourage more participation at 3'6" and up.

[baywithchrome2]

The one factor that has not been brought up in this thread is the training of today's horse and rider.... of the lack thereof.

[chunky munky]

One factor that I do not think has been addressed is that the nature of the hunter show these days is that people want to show their own horse. Years ago the majority of the horses in the upper level classes were all ridden by professionals. A good pro can take a very average horse and jump it around at 3'6", today's amateur not so much. For those newer to the sport, we have not always had amateur hunter divisions. And though back then there were some standout horses that would most likely be competitive today there were plenty of donkeys as well:lol:

[YankeeLawyer]

Back then, what I remember was that horses who had the huge step, lopey canter and round, slow "take my picture" jump were very, very rare-- and worth huge fortunes because they could make distances look easy that the vast majority of the horses had to run and flatten to reach. .

I completely agree with this. I am not sure how far back in time people have in mind, but I do know that as early as the mid-eighties, the slow rocking canter / round jump / knees high and tight approach was considered highly desired and rewarded handsomely. My top hunter had that style and scope and he was WEF champion and champion at indoors, including MSG (and I have to admit I found riding him to be somewhat disconcerting as he always felt so sloooow cantering to the jumps).

And of the A shows I attended from Vermont to Palm Beach, the only one that really had a big, galloping outside course was Fairfield (others had outside courses, but none as formidable as FCHC, and all the others had related distances with jumps having maybe 8 strides between them, max.).

[fish]

One factor that I do not think has been addressed is that the nature of the hunter show these days is that people want to show their own horse. Years ago the majority of the horses in the upper level classes were all ridden by professionals. A good pro can take a very average horse and jump it around at 3'6", today's amateur not so much. For those newer to the sport, we have not always had amateur hunter divisions. And thogh back then there were some standout horses that would most likely be competitive today there were plenty of donkeys as well:lol:

I think the point some of us have been trying to make is that there were a lot of us who wanted to show our own horses (or donkeys ;)) back then, too (and/or couldn't afford professional rides), and went over 3'+ for precisely that reason: recognized shows just didn't have many (if any) classes under 3', for adults.