PDA

View Full Version : Why aren't all jump heights in the Metric system?



Dun Ciarain
Apr. 2, 2009, 03:20 PM
What is the rationale behind using the Metric system for measuring Jumper Division jump heights and the English system for measuring Hunter Division Heights?

Why not just use the Metric system for measuring all jump heights?

RioTex
Apr. 2, 2009, 03:25 PM
Why can't we use English for everything?

Dun Ciarain
Apr. 2, 2009, 03:35 PM
Why can't we use English for everything?

Well, the English don't even use the English system.

Since the jumpers are international and there are international classes at some shows, it makes sense to use a common measurement standard, not just one for the U.S. shows.

Everyone in the U.S. is used to the Metric system...our monetary system is based on the Metric system. Medicines are all despensed in the Metric system. Even sodas bottles are Metric.

mcm7780
Apr. 2, 2009, 03:36 PM
I would hypothesize that it's because the hunter classes we have in the US aren't anything like the hunter classes in places that use the metric system. Maybe since the classes here were made here and only used here, we use the English system. Since jumper classes are held all over the world, they use the metric system since most of the world uses it. That's just my guess!

Would make sense to use just one system. I'd have to vote for metric since that is more widely used.

pattnic
Apr. 2, 2009, 03:58 PM
Everyone in the U.S. is used to the Metric system...our monetary system is based on the Metric system. Medicines are all despensed in the Metric system. Even sodas bottles are Metric.

Pretty sure "20 fl oz" is not metric... (though the larger "2L" sure is)

dghunter
Apr. 2, 2009, 04:05 PM
Because I don't know the metric system :lol: Every time I'm looking at something and it has a metric measure I always call my BF who is a chemical engineering major and knows all those measurements.

But internationally it would make sense to use just one form of measurement. But for classes only held in the US, using what the US uses makes the most sense.

Dun Ciarain
Apr. 2, 2009, 04:28 PM
Because I don't know the metric system :lol: Every time I'm looking at something and it has a metric measure I always call my BF who is a chemical engineering major and knows all those measurements.

But internationally it would make sense to use just one form of measurement. But for classes only held in the US, using what the US uses makes the most sense.

Every science-based industry in the United States only uses the Metric system (maybe a few exceptions). I believe that even the aviation industry in the U.S. uses the metric system. So...we already use the Metric system here in many industries (and the list is growing).

My point is, since the jumper division has already switched, why not the hunters? It doesn't make sense to use one form of measurement for the jumper division and a different one for the hunter division.

Most people got used to the switch very quickly in jumpers.

kateh
Apr. 2, 2009, 04:35 PM
We're stooopid Americans and apparently can't handle a system based on tens. :rolleyes: :lol:

Seriously though, the jumper ring was getting some pressure to conform to international competition standards. No such pressure exists in the hunter ring. It may look simpler on a class list, but it's a lot of work to change all the existing literature and people are so entrenched in their "3' vs 3'6 etc" mindset.

Dun Ciarain
Apr. 2, 2009, 04:36 PM
Pretty sure "20 fl oz" is not metric... (though the larger "2L" sure is)

You're right about the 20 fl oz size. Most of what I see in the stores are the 1/2 liter sizes. I noticed that a few years back that the shampoo and conditioner (made in the U.S.) that I buy became available only in Metric sizes. There is definately a Metric "creep" happening. It would have made more sense to switch both divisions at the same time or not switch the jumpers.

RioTex
Apr. 2, 2009, 04:37 PM
Most people got used to the switch very quickly in jumpers.
It just started this year, didn't it? You are welcome to change the name to the American system, but the Europeans can have their metrics back. They don't think hunters are worthy, so what does it matter if we build jumps to different heights?:lol:

dghunter
Apr. 2, 2009, 04:38 PM
Every science-based industry in the United States only uses the Metric system (maybe a few exceptions). I believe that even the aviation industry in the U.S. uses the metric system. So...we already use the Metric system here in many industries (and the list is growing).

My point is, since the jumper division has already switched, why not the hunters? It doesn't make sense to use one form of measurement for the jumper division and a different one for the hunter division.

Most people got used to the switch very quickly in jumpers.

However, all of our major things are not metric (ie speed is still mph, not kph). You still see drinks advertised by ounces. People still tell you their height in feet and inches and their weight in pounds. I believe the US did try to switch once before but people hated it. (Someone can correct me if I'm wrong but I remember a past science teacher mentioning it). It didn't last very long. Here's the wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication_in_the_United_States Take it with a grain of salt as wikipedia isn't always the most reliable source ;)
However, I think the fact that the US as a country hasn't switched over might be part of it. And there's probably not a lot of demand in the hunters for it to be switched over. Maybe it will be like that 3'3" AO class. There was a demand and USEF met the demand. If enough people ask about it, perhaps they will do something about it. However, you won't find me asking for a switch :lol: I don't show in jumpers and I'm not a science person. I'm in Education (English) so I've never had to use metric before.

Dun Ciarain
Apr. 2, 2009, 04:47 PM
However, all of our major things are not metric (ie speed is still mph, not kph). I'm in Education (English) so I've never had to use metric before.

The speed limits in Ireland are (or were up until a year or so ago) still in MPH, even though everything else has been converted.

Everyone in the U.S. uses the Metric system. Our currency is based on the Metric system. Even the stock market changed. Stocks used to be priced in dollars and fractions of dollars not too long ago. I know that they changed them due to the international exchanges, but still, why would an industry, such as horse showing, simultaneously use two different forms of measurement for the same event?

Dun Ciarain
Apr. 2, 2009, 04:50 PM
It just started this year, didn't it? You are welcome to change the name to the American system, but the Europeans can have their metrics back. They don't think hunters are worthy, so what does it matter if we build jumps to different heights?:lol:

Actually, I've seen jump heights espressed in meters for the jumpers for several years. Maybe it is a mandatory rule now for the jumpers?

sopha
Apr. 2, 2009, 05:07 PM
At least for now, most barns and shows have standards that are drilled in English 3" increments. Keyhole track &/or new standards are very costly. Only the big shows and the big jump rental companies can afford to have everything in 5cm (2") increments. Many people I know have a cheat sheet.

ExJumper
Apr. 2, 2009, 05:18 PM
At least for now, most barns and shows have standards that are drilled in English 4" increments. Keyhole track &/or new standards are very costly. Only the big shows and the big jump rental companies can afford to have everything in 5cm (2") increments. Many people I know have a cheat sheet.

Did you mean 3" increments? 2'6", 2'9", 3', 3'3", 3'6"...

4" increments would make it impossible to have a 3' jump and a 3'6" jump using the same standards.

OnyxThePony
Apr. 2, 2009, 05:28 PM
Cuz TWOOOOO foot nine sounds way more impressive than POINT nine?? :lol:

or point eight..three... whatever it is

eclipse
Apr. 2, 2009, 06:00 PM
I thought it was because the new breakaway cups in the jumper ring all fit on a certain type of jump wing so I thought they made everything metric for ease of measurement. The breakaway cups aren't required in the hunter ring, so the old jump wings that are measured in feet & inches are still good to use! (could of been somebody blowing you know what up my butt for a laugh though!)

Dun Ciarain
Apr. 2, 2009, 06:07 PM
I thought it was because the new breakaway cups in the jumper ring all fit on a certain type of jump wing so I thought they made everything metric for ease of measurement. The breakaway cups aren't required in the hunter ring, so the old jump wings that are measured in feet & inches are still good to use! (could of been somebody blowing you know what up my butt for a laugh though!)

Breakaway cups for the jumpers but not the hunters? If the breakaway cups are a safety issue, why wouldn't you use them in both the jumper and the hunter divisions.

Sebastian
Apr. 2, 2009, 06:46 PM
Breakaway cups for the jumpers but not the hunters? If the breakaway cups are a safety issue, why wouldn't you use them in both the jumper and the hunter divisions.

There are a MILLION and ONE good reasons you could give for making the change... BUT, "Hunters," as we know it, is exclusively American. And very TRADITIONAL...so -- good luck with this. :winkgrin:

Seb :)

Seven-up
Apr. 2, 2009, 07:15 PM
Cuz the metric system is hard.:winkgrin:

sopha
Apr. 2, 2009, 07:31 PM
Breakaways are required, on the back element of oxers, in all rings.

dghunter
Apr. 2, 2009, 07:34 PM
The speed limits in Ireland are (or were up until a year or so ago) still in MPH, even though everything else has been converted.

Everyone in the U.S. uses the Metric system. Our currency is based on the Metric system. Even the stock market changed. Stocks used to be priced in dollars and fractions of dollars not too long ago. I know that they changed them due to the international exchanges, but still, why would an industry, such as horse showing, simultaneously use two different forms of measurement for the same event?

Where do you get that everyone uses the metric system in the United States? Just fyi the place where I check my stocks still shows them in dollars :yes: I'm sorry but if you really think this is an issue why don't you bring it up with the USEF and ask them why they changed one and not the other?
FWIW I see nothing in metric at the places where I go here in Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, and various trips to other states so not everyone in the US uses the Metric system. I'm in the US and I do not use the Metric system.

ETA: I'm also assuming by US you do mean United States. But it's been a long day so perhaps I'm wrong? But if that's the case then I still think that not everyone here uses the metric system.

Peggy
Apr. 2, 2009, 07:45 PM
2'9" is 2.75 feet, which translates to 0.838 meters (to three sig figs).

Last time I checked the US was still on the "English" systems of weights and measures. One thing that's definitely changed over my years of teaching chem is that an increasing % of students are already familiar with the metric system. Some of that arises from students who are already familiar with the metric system b/c they were born in a country that uses it. Thus problems that involve conversions within the English system are real head-scratchers (convert furlongs/second to miles per hour...).

dghunter
Apr. 2, 2009, 07:49 PM
2'9" is 2.75 feet, which translates to 0.838 meters (to three sig figs).

Last time I checked the US was still on the "English" systems of weights and measures. One thing that's definitely changed over my years of teaching chem is that an increasing % of students are already familiar with the metric system. Some of that arises from students who are already familiar with the metric system b/c they were born in a country that uses it. Thus problems that involve conversions within the English system are real head-scratchers (convert furlongs/second to miles per hour...).

Just out of curiosity are you guys supposed to teach with the metric system or English system or both? I remember in high school having to do some conversions but cannot for the life of me remember how we did lab reports :confused: Suffice it to say that Chemistry was not my best class, BF on the other hand... :lol:

Dun Ciarain
Apr. 2, 2009, 07:52 PM
Where do you get that everyone uses the metric system in the United States? Just fyi the place where I check my stocks still shows them in dollars :yes: I'm sorry but if you really think this is an issue why don't you bring it up with the USEF and ask them why they changed one and not the other?
FWIW I see nothing in metric at the places where I go here in Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, and various trips to other states so not everyone in the US uses the Metric system. I'm in the US and I do not use the Metric system.

Regarding Stocks:

Former System: IBM 112 1/5

Current System: IBM 112.20

The U.S. Dollar is on the Metric System since it is calcuated by factors of 10 and uses decimals. 100 cents to the U.S. Dollar just as there is 100 cents to the Euro.

Take a look in the grocery store. There isn't a single package that doesn't have a Metric weight on it. Many are sized in liters. Try taking a Tylenol or Motrin - the dosage is in grams, not fractions of ounces.

Peggy
Apr. 2, 2009, 07:52 PM
Just out of curiosity are you guys supposed to teach with the metric system or English system or both? I remember in high school having to do some conversions but cannot for the life of me remember how we did lab reports :confused: Suffice it to say that Chemistry was not my best class, BF on the other hand... :lol:We do pretty much everything in the metric system. The exception are those fun conversion problems in the first chapter when you're trying get the students using a system for said conversions. And, yes, I have included both furlongs and hands in those questions. I always provide the conversions within the English system and between English and metric for the students.

Horseymama
Apr. 2, 2009, 07:53 PM
I'm all for the metric system for jump heights in all rings. I mean, come on USA, the whole entire rest of the world uses it as their predominant measurement system! It's much easier. Just because it's not familiar doesn't mean we shouldn't do it! And who knows, maybe if the hunters were in metric, it might help it to catch on in other countries!

Peggy
Apr. 2, 2009, 07:56 PM
I'm all for the metric system for jump heights in all rings. I mean, come on USA, the whole entire rest of the world uses it as their predominant measurement system! It's much easier. Just because it's not familiar doesn't mean we shouldn't do it! And who knows, maybe if the hunters were in metric, it might help it to catch on in other countries!. Not quite. We are joined by Liberia and Myanmar, IIRC.

MaritimeH/J
Apr. 2, 2009, 08:49 PM
Canada:
- has hunters (!!) "other countries" ?
- uses the metric system (and we used to use feet and inches too, even tho everything else is metric, then it switched and no one complained tooo much, at least not where I'm at)
- uses breakaway cups for the back rails of all oxers as well (and I believe front pins must be plastic... don't quote me I'm not actively showing right now, there may have been some more changes...)


3' = .9m ("meter ninety" is what you hear it referred to as, instead of the mouthful of "point nine meters" but either way...)
3'3" = 1m ("one meter")
3'6" = 1m10 ("meter ten")
3'9" = 1m15 ("meter fifteen", and so on.....)
4' = 1m20...

All the heights work out to an even number. Some entry forms still have the "english" (isn't it technically called the imperial system?) numbers too, so there is no confusion. But everyone still refers to the heights in the hunters as "three foot" or "three-six" although the jumpers seem to use a combination of both, like: "I'm showing my horse three-six this summer but my coach is gonna take her in the meter twenties"

I think theres always going to be a period of changeover, and sometimes confusion, but things change, so why not? :)

dghunter
Apr. 2, 2009, 09:48 PM
I guess I look at it from the standpoint of the US tried once and it failed. From what I remember there was a big push in the 70s or 80s but it went away. If there's another push for it fine. But for now it doesn't appear the US is any worse for the wear.

Also, Dun Ciarain, I did just look at some of my groceries. The only thing my pasta has on it is a pound, my frosting is labeled in ounces, and my lemonade is in gallons (though it does have a liter measurement next to it). But my pasta has no metric labeling on it, nor does my frosting. So not all groceries have the metric system on it. And as sciences are one of the ones in the US to use the Metric System, it would make sense for their medicines to be in grams. At least to me. And I never look at the dosage in grams. I look at it as "I take two pills and a child above 12 can take one pill" as per the instructions on the box.

But as I said, I'm a firm believer that if there is a high enough demand for it that it will be changed. And yes people will be reluctant, and for those of us who are terrible at math it will be a real challenge figuring things out at first, but if the demand is big enough then the switch will eventually be made and stick. But the English System works just fine for me and I don't feel like learning a whole new system so I'll cross my fingers that by some miracle we don't switch before I die :lol:

Horseymama
Apr. 2, 2009, 10:10 PM
Yes, MaritimeH/J, I lived in Canada, I know about the hunters and metric system there. We (here in the U.S.) could take a cue from Canada, the metric system is much easier to understand and more like the rest of the world. (Except, I guess, Liberia and Myanmar!) :lol:

Dun Ciarain
Apr. 2, 2009, 10:15 PM
Also, Dun Ciarain, I did just look at some of my groceries. The only thing my pasta has on it is a pound, my frosting is labeled in ounces, and my lemonade is in gallons (though it does have a liter measurement next to it). But my pasta has no metric labeling on it, nor does my frosting. So not all groceries have the metric system on it. And as sciences are one of the ones in the US to use the Metric System, it would make sense for their medicines to be in grams.

I believe that all packaging has to have both systems of measurement on it.

If you look at the "Nutrition Facts" label, which is (by law) supposed to be on all food products - the amounts of fiber, carbs, etc. are only listed in grams. Whether people like it or not, the United States IS already using the Metric system. It's time to standardize. Using Metric measurements for Jumpers and English measurements for Hunters just doesn't make sense.

dghunter
Apr. 2, 2009, 10:25 PM
I believe that all packaging has to have both systems of measurement on it.

If you look at the "Nutrition Facts" label, which is (by law) supposed to be on all food products - the amounts of fiber, carbs, etc. are only listed in grams. Whether people like it or not, the United States IS already using the Metric system. It's time to standardize. Using Metric measurements for Jumpers and English measurements for Hunters just doesn't make sense.

Yes you are right about ingredients being listed in grams. I was simply referring to weight. Sorry about that. However, the weight was still listed only in English System.

If you feel that strongly about it write to the USEF. You may not accomplish anything but isn't it better to try and fail than to just sit around complaining about it? Complaining about it doesn't really accomplish anything. (We just had this talk in my class tonight too :lol:) Anyways I do understand your point about having them both be the same and I suppose as long as they were still called Adult Amateurs, Large Junior Hunters, etc... I wouldn't be forced to understand the metric system :D I try and steer as far away from numbers as possible anyways :lol:

Dun Ciarain
Apr. 2, 2009, 11:00 PM
If you feel that strongly about it write to the USEF. You may not accomplish anything but isn't it better to try and fail than to just sit around complaining about it? Complaining about it doesn't really accomplish anything. (We just had this talk in my class tonight too

I switched to jumpers (not because of the measurement system - but because I need numbers on the jumps so I can find my way around the course :lol::lol::lol:), so I now only look at the classes with Metric heights.

Actually, I'm not complaining, just making a logical point about the dual systems of fence heights at shows and trying to understand why it wasn't changed for both divisions. I'm interested in why people are so opposed to having only one fence measurement system for both jumpers and hunters. This is a debate thread, not a rant thread.

dghunter
Apr. 2, 2009, 11:07 PM
I switched to jumpers (not because of the measurement system - but because I need numbers on the jumps so I can find my way around the course :lol::lol::lol:), so I now only look at the classes with Metric heights.

Actually, I'm not complaining, just making a logical point about the dual systems of fence heights at shows and trying to understand why it wasn't changed for both divisions. I'm interested in why people are so opposed to having only one fence measurement system for both jumpers and hunters. This is a debate thread, not a rant thread.

Oops, sorry about that. I guess I forgot what you'd originally wrote :lol: I know I'm opposed because I don't want to learn something new with numbers :lol: I think that's probably the case with a lot of people. I know my dad feels the same way. People get stuck in their ways and don't like change. Also, hunters aren't as international as jumpers so that might be why jumpers switched. I honestly have no idea, JMO :)

dghunter
Apr. 2, 2009, 11:07 PM
ps: I'd be very interested to know why they switched one and not the other myself.

EasterEgg
Apr. 3, 2009, 05:45 AM
here in the UK I think we're fairly 'bi-lingual' when it comes to metric vs. imperial measurements.

For example:

Road signs are in miles and speed limits posted in mph. We buy our petrol in litres but my German car gives me fuel use figures in mpg. In a pub we buy our beer in pints but all other measures are in ml.

Horses can be measured in cms (height certs are measured in cms) or hands and the vast majority of people are fully conversant in both - e.g. I know that 15 hands is 153cms and that a pony measuring 122cms is 11 hands.

Fence heights at shows are now set using metric measurements, although you may find classes at unaffiliated (unrated) shows still offered in feet and inches. This applies to Working Hunter classes too. It's not difficult to learn - at first you just remember that 90cm is roughly equal to 3', 1m = 3'3", 1.05 = 3'6", 1.10 = 3'9", then after a while you stop doing the conversion in your head - just like moving to a different country and using a different currency.

I was completely stumped when I moved to the states as a teenager and had to learn to use imperial measurements at school. It is a generational thing though - I do all my baking/cooking using metric whereas my mother still uses imperial, as that's what she learned at school.

British Eventing have changed the names of 2 of their divisions this year, so rather than Intro, Pre-Novice, Novice, Intermediate, Advanced, we now have BE90, BE100, Novice, Intermediate, Advanced. Much less confusing and clearer for everyone I think.

trubandloki
Apr. 3, 2009, 07:33 AM
It does sound like you are complaining, sorry! If you are not intending to you are failing on that aspect.

We American types are able to handle the front of the package in ounces or pounds and the nutritional information in grams only shows that we use both systems in many places, not just jumps. So I do not see why this is that much of an issue for you.

You say we all use metric like it is the norm for life around here and hunter jumps are the red-headed step-child that is left. In general, though many of use encounter metric in various points of our life (like nutritional labels) and we do not implode we are still thinking and working in the good 'ol imperial system (or as you call it the english system). I think Engineering is a science and I know we still label pipes and ducts and air flow and such NOT using the metric system (pounds per square inch, cubic feet per hour, etc).

M. O'Connor
Apr. 3, 2009, 10:07 AM
Probably because there is no need for it at the present time.

Jumpers are an FEI discipline, and you will see metrics, Levels, and Ft/In used concurrently to designate fence heights.

Some may recall, or still be dealing with issues that arose in the changeover from Ft/In to metrics at the jumper ring, because the increments in height differences were not the same, and the jump standards needed to be modified to accomodate for it, either replaced altogether or fitted with tracks, which meant replacing the cups, which had to include provision for breakaways whether used with pins or pegs. Jumps are not cheap.

Hunters have been predicated on Ft/In for decades. Fence heights are pegged to Ft/In in the hunter ring. Hunters are not an FEI discipline, so there is no need to arbitrariliy go to the expense and bother of changing equipment, editing the text of all the rules, etc.

Dun Ciarain
Apr. 3, 2009, 10:19 AM
It does sound like you are complaining, sorry! If you are not intending to you are failing on that aspect.

We American types are able to handle the front of the package in ounces or pounds and the nutritional information in grams only shows that we use both systems in many places, not just jumps. So I do not see why this is that much of an issue for you.

You say we all use metric like it is the norm for life around here and hunter jumps are the red-headed step-child that is left. In general, though many of use encounter metric in various points of our life (like nutritional labels) and we do not implode we are still thinking and working in the good 'ol imperial system (or as you call it the english system). I think Engineering is a science and I know we still label pipes and ducts and air flow and such NOT using the metric system (pounds per square inch, cubic feet per hour, etc).


This is a question of logic, not a complaint. The question is: If you change one, why not change both at the same time?

Do you think "We Amercian types" (whatever that is supposed to mean) would think it logical to pull into a gasoline station and one grade of gasoline was sold in liters and one grade was sold in gallons??? It is the same thing as going to a horse show and having one divsion's heights are in meters and another division in feet and inches.

The only counter arguements to changing both that I have heard so far is that this is the way its been, so why change it or a nationalistic arguement, such as we are Americans, we don't have to change.

Dun Ciarain
Apr. 3, 2009, 10:34 AM
Probably because there is no need for it at the present time.

Jumpers are an FEI discipline, and you will see metrics, Levels, and Ft/In used concurrently to designate fence heights.

Hunters have been predicated on Ft/In for decades. Fence heights are pegged to Ft/In in the hunter ring. Hunters are not an FEI discipline, so there is no need to arbitrariliy go to the expense and bother of changing equipment, editing the text of all the rules, etc.

Well, jumper classes were also listed in feet and inches since at least the 1930's (I've seen prize lists at least that old) and people and horses managed to survive the switch.

trubandloki
Apr. 3, 2009, 10:37 AM
The only counter arguements to changing both that I have heard so far is that this is the way its been, so why change it or a nationalistic arguement, such as we are Americans, we don't have to change.

Then you did not read the post right above yours. That seems pretty darn logical to me.


The gas comparison thing just does not work. Hunters are one thing, Jumpers are another. The classes are totally different and run totally differently. Having two different measuring systems really is not an issue. At least not to anyone else.

To compare unrelated things - To you it must not be OK that they sell some fruit by quantity (3 oranges for a dollar) and some by weight (apples are $1.69/lb).

Madeline
Apr. 3, 2009, 10:40 AM
I think that hunter-land would have problems adapting. 3' sounds more impressive than .91m. 3'6" is much more impressive than 1.06m... And what would happen if they changed to simple metric measurements? 90cm is just under 3", so it would hardly require rewriting whole divisions. 100cm is just over 3'3", so that's probably OK too. But, omigod, 110 cm is more than an inch over 3'6" If the 3'6" divisionhs are hard to fill, imagine the difficulty of filling 110!

Portia
Apr. 3, 2009, 11:45 AM
M O'Connor is right. Jumpers were changed strictly to metric because:

(1) Jumpers is an international FEI discipline and the FEI only uses metric, so it was both inconsistent and confusing to the rest of the world to have our classes in feet and inches. Few folks in Europe or Asia would know what a Level 7 jumper was, or even readily translate what a horse jumping 4'6" was doing, but they instantly know what a horse who's been doing the 1.40 or 1.45 meter classes has done. For many years, any FEI-level class in the US has been run in metric, so the change was finally made for consistency with the rest of the world. And yes, what the FEI wants is very, very important to the USEF when it comes to the FEI disciplines.

(2) The jumper rules (Rule JP121) have for several years required that all back rails in jumper classes use "FEI-approved Safety Release Cups." All of the track safety systems are measured in metric, because that's what the rest of the world uses and the systems are designed and manufactured in Europe for the international market. (Last I heard, the only US-based approved manufacturer is Potter Steel in MA, and they make the breakaway cups rather than the track system cups.) So for the last few years since the safety systems have been required, many jumper courses have been using the track systems. Since the conversion from English measurement to metric is not exact, many jumper courses that were listed at a certain height were actually being run at a different height -- i.e., in a Level 3 3'6" jumper class, the oxers were actually set at at 1.05m (3'5) or 1.10m (3'7"). It was also difficult to get front rails and back rails to be even, when the front rails without the safety systems were drilled for English measures and the back were set for metric.

They started the official change-over two years ago. If you look at the 2008 Rule Book, you'll see that show managers were encouraged to run on metric but were allowed to still run the old levels. As of 2009, it's metric only.

Hunters did not and still do not have these reasons/pressures to change. Most importantly, hunters are not an FEI discipline. There is no international pressure to change, and no need to conform with an international standard. And you're not going to get the hunters to change just because the jumpers did something. They're entirely separate committees.

Effective as of this show year (12/1/2008) HU122.5 now requires that "FEI approved safety mechanisms must be used in conjunction with a cup that is at least 1 1/2 inches deep and at least 3 inches wide for the back rail of all oxers." However, there hasn't yet been a big issue with the heights being slightly off in the hunter ring (as it wasn't enough alone to force a change in the jumper ring). I think around here the hunter rings may be using the Potter Steel-style break-away cups rather than the track systems. But a show manager could explain much more how they are handling that.

RugBug
Apr. 3, 2009, 11:53 AM
Everyone in the U.S. is used to the Metric system....

Oh no they're not. I couldn't tell you how high any of the jumpers classes are. Most people I know just have it memorized in the feet/inches equivalents. All I know is that the 1.6M classes are HIGH and I don't want to ever do them. ;)

The U.S. does not use the metric system for measurements of height, length weight, etc. We still use the Imperial System for most things...and I personally prefer it that way.

Jumpers use metric because of the international component.

Hunters/Equitation use feet and inches because it's an American discipline...for the most part.



Actually, I'm not complaining, just making a logical point about the dual systems of fence heights at shows and trying to understand why it wasn't changed for both divisions. I'm interested in why people are so opposed to having only one fence measurement system for both jumpers and hunters. This is a debate thread, not a rant thread.

Let's standardize and go back to the Imperial system in the jumper ring. ;) Then I'd know what height was being jumped. :D

Dun Ciarain
Apr. 3, 2009, 12:34 PM
Oh no they're not. I couldn't tell you how high any of the jumpers classes are. Most people I know just have it memorized in the feet/inches equivalents (LEVEL 0 = 2'9" or whatever)

The U.S. does not use the metric system for measurements of height, length weight, etc. We still use feet and inches (Imperial System?)...and I personally prefer it that way.

Jumpers use metric because of the international component.

Hunters/Equitation use feet and inches because it's an American discipline...for the most part.

I would think that the horse community would want to embrace the metric system since so many of the products and tack we use are already sized in the metric system since it comes from overseas. Even Lexol, which is made in the U.S. by a company in Georgia is sized in liters.

I know that some people on this board drink wine or other spirits :lol:

Wine made in the U.S. is only sold in increments of liters. A standard bottle of wine is 750ml. Half bottle is 375ml. There isn't even a fluid once equivalent listed on them any more.

People don't think twice about buying 4mm or 8mm tape cartridges for their digital video cameras.

As one of the posters pointed out - many of the shows are using some jumps in the hunters that are sized for the metric system, since that is apparently the only configuration the jump cup tracks are available.

trubandloki
Apr. 3, 2009, 12:37 PM
I would think that the horse community would want to embrace the metric system since so many of the products and tack we use are already sized in the metric system since it comes from overseas. Even Lexol, which is made in the U.S. by a company in Georgia is sized in liters.



Saddles are measured in inches.... :yes:

Dun Ciarain
Apr. 3, 2009, 12:48 PM
Saddles are measured in inches.... :yes:

Yeah, and SmartPak sells items that are sized in Metric only measurements and lists them with an incorrect size in ounces.

FYI, I purchased a custom saddle last year and the rep told me the seat size in inches and wrote the size in centimeters on the order form. So, is it sized in inches or centimeters? Since it is being manufactured in centimeters, it is actually sized in centimeters, not inches. :yes:

ExJumper
Apr. 3, 2009, 01:07 PM
The simple point is, there is no need to change, so why bother? Why reprint prize lists, why force people to change the way they think and talk about the hunters? You say WHY does it have to be this way. I say why not?

It was LOGICAL to change the jumpers for FEI purposes that have already been explained. There is no logical reason to change the hunters over to metric except for the fact that it apparently bothers YOU that jumpers are metric and hunters aren't. No one in Germany is coming over here looking to buy a hunter to do 0.9m classes with and is getting all confused. It just isn't happening.

You say WHY, I say WHY NOT. Simple social inertia is on the side of keeping the divisions as 3', 3'6" etc. And you have to have a hell of a good reason to force people to change. "Because the jumpers do it differently now" isn't a good enough reason.

Really, OP, you seem to have some sort of strangely personal vendetta against feet and inches. Were you beaten with a yardstick as a child? :-) (Obscure Dave Attell reference: "Who do I hate to travel? Because my dad used to beat me with a globe!")



That makes me wonder, how do they mark off distances/strides over seas? Do they use a 12' standard stride for 3' courses? Or since they don't do hunters like we do, do they consider something else as a standard "stride length?" When distances between fences are marked on a course sheet are they marked in meters?

And you better believe that I'd pitch a fit if they started making my AA hunter course sheet with the number of meters between the two fences in a line. I would kill someone!

dghunter
Apr. 3, 2009, 01:17 PM
And you better believe that I'd pitch a fit if they started making my AA hunter course sheet with the number of meters between the two fences in a line. I would kill someone!

My horse and I have a hard time getting strides sometimes so I could always just say that I don't understand striding in meters as an excuse :lol: Perhaps this would work out okay for me ;)

Hunter Mom
Apr. 3, 2009, 01:22 PM
but it's a lot of work to change all the existing literature

people are so entrenched in their "3' vs 3'6 etc" mindset.

These are the two basic reasons we talk about how many miles vs. how many km something is - not just in the horse world. According to a bill passed by the US senate, we were supposed to be 100% metric in the mid-1970s. However, there was not enoguh funding to redo all mile-markers to km-markers (which would require roughly twice as many) and to redo all road signs. Hence, we're stuck with our system.

I've taught kids both systems. They are always shocked how much easier metric is. Unfortunately, we're at a disadvantage because the metric system is a "second language" for most of us when we go to scientific fields where it is used.

yellowbritches
Apr. 3, 2009, 01:28 PM
The whole problem with this discussion is that we are talking about the horse world, which does nothing logically. ;)

00Jumper
Apr. 3, 2009, 01:36 PM
The jumpers are very simple now.

.05m=~2 in.

So going from the fact that 1m = 3'3", you can figure 1.05m=3'5", 1.10m=3'7", 1.15m=3'9", 1.20m=3'11" and etc. There will have to be a jump larger than 2" at some point to make up for the inexact conversion, but that .05m to 2 in. is a useful rule of thumb.

As a science major, I say bring on the metrics. A number system based in tens? Methinks that's easier than the English system, which is frankly insane. ;) Of course, that might explain why the horse world still uses it.

Dun Ciarain
Apr. 3, 2009, 01:50 PM
The simple point is, there is no need to change, so why bother? Why reprint prize lists, why force people to change the way they think and talk about the hunters? You say WHY does it have to be this way. I say why not?

You say WHY, I say WHY NOT. Simple social inertia is on the side of keeping the divisions as 3', 3'6" etc. And you have to have a hell of a good reason to force people to change. "Because the jumpers do it differently now" isn't a good enough reason.

Really, OP, you seem to have some sort of strangely personal vendetta against feet and inches. Were you beaten with a yardstick as a child? :-) (Obscure Dave Attell reference: "Who do I hate to travel? Because my dad used to beat me with a globe!")

I was announcing at a show a few weeks ago and since the rules seem to change every year, even the two judges were confused as to how many refusals were allowed. It was 3 for a DQ in some levels in jumpers last year and 2 for others. Now it is 2 for all levels this year. They should have changed it to 2 refusals for all levels at once, rather than have some under one set of rules for a year and some under another set. I believe that the jumps height will be the next thing standardized as it is simply a matter of logic to have them all under the same standard of measurement.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but no one uses the same prize lists year after year, so why would prize lists have to be reprinted? After all, they seem to change fees on the prize lists every year :mad:

I don't have a vendetta against feet and inches. No, I wasn't beaten with a yardstick as a child, the teachers used a Latin book at my school :lol::lol::lol:

I know people who swore they would never use the Internet, never shop on-line and never bank or pay bills on line. Their excuse was that they had always done it a certain way and it was too tough to change. Of course, they are all now on the Internet and telling me it wasn't that hard to learn.

As the number of metric-sized jumps at show increase to a solid majority, I think that will be the tipping point.

ExJumper
Apr. 3, 2009, 02:20 PM
I totally agree about the refusals in the jumpers. That got really confusing really fast. And I understand how metric makes life easier in the jumper ring, too.

For example, you have a division run at one height but the classic is a few centimeters higher. There are classes run at SO many different heights that it's easier to keep track of them with fractions of meters rather than feet and inches.

However, I really don't think that the draw is there for the Hunters. The "major" divisions are at 3' and 3'6" (and 4'). Some zones have their AAs and Childrens at 3'3". You have 3 pony heights. And you have the dreaded 2'6" divisions. There isn't anything between the 3" increments.

Most importantly, though, the courses simply aren't changing that much throughout the day in the hunter rings. At big shows, the 3' ring won't change all day. Nor will the 3'6" ring. The pony ring will move around and the 2'6" horses may use that ring, too.

I'm a physicist. I use centimeters and micrometers and nanometers and I LIKE them. I use degrees kelvin. I use grams and AMUs. At work. But when I leave the office, my height is in feet and inches, my weight is in pounds, my thermometer is in farenheit, and my commute is in miles.

Like I said before, there just isn't as much incentive to change the hunters. There has been no issue with saying the Jrs are at 3'6" and the Childrens are at 3'. And the bulk of the prizelist is identical year after year for many of these established shows. The fees on the entry may change, but that's pretty much it.

It's not so much that it couldn't change, I just don't think it will any time soon. Other than "to match the way we measure the jumpers," there really is no REASON for it to change. Oxers are ramped in the hunters anyway, so you don't even have to worry about making a square oxer with one set of metric standards and one set of english standards.

You must hate Caesar, huh?

RugBug
Apr. 3, 2009, 02:35 PM
I would think that the horse community would want to embrace the metric system since so many of the products and tack we use are already sized in the metric system since it comes from overseas. Even Lexol, which is made in the U.S. by a company in Georgia is sized in liters.

I know that some people on this board drink wine or other spirits :lol:

Wine made in the U.S. is only sold in increments of liters. A standard bottle of wine is 750ml. Half bottle is 375ml. There isn't even a fluid once equivalent listed on them any more.

People don't think twice about buying 4mm or 8mm tape cartridges for their digital video cameras.


You can't seriously think this is some kind of argument, right? That Lexol and wine are sized metrically so we should convert?

1. People most often buy things based on a visual cue of size...not the volume contained. They might do a rudimentary price comparison between the sizes...and yes there would be confusion between a brand labelled in ml and one labeled in oz, but they're not figuring out price/per unit (usually).

2. Wine is labeled in ml, but we drink by the glass, not by the ml. Most people know a standard bottle of wine is 2.5 glasses. Serving size is still in oz.

Seriously, it's not a big deal. Outside of scientific industries, units of length, height and weight are still measured by the Imperial system. Please leave my inches, feet, yards, miles, ounces, and pounds alone.

RioTex
Apr. 3, 2009, 02:37 PM
How many kilometers in a five stride?

Dun Ciarain
Apr. 3, 2009, 02:52 PM
You must hate Caesar, huh?

Latin was taught at my school. The Latin text book was one of the larger textbooks in the school. None of the teachers actually ever used books to discipline students. Acting up in school meant a trip to Brother Draper's office - which meant detention - which could include extra homework assignments.

I agree that the jumps heights in hunters won't be changing soon, but it will become academic if all the jumps standards at shows are metric. As jumps standards are replaced over time, I see more jumps with the jump cup tracks. If the tracks are only made in metric sizes...

Dun Ciarain
Apr. 3, 2009, 02:56 PM
How many kilometers in a five stride?

None. Unless each stride is about 200 yards :lol:

RioTex
Apr. 3, 2009, 03:00 PM
None. Unless each stride is about 200 yards :lol:

Of course there is a conversion. 5 strides = .021 km. Useful.;)

Dun Ciarain
Apr. 3, 2009, 03:02 PM
2. Wine is labeled in ml, but we drink by the glass, not by the ml. Most people know a standard bottle of wine is 2.5 glasses.

What size glasses do you use??? You're pouring almost a half bottle of wine in each glass? You wouldn't last long in the bar business doing that.

dghunter
Apr. 3, 2009, 03:08 PM
None. Unless each stride is about 200 yards :lol:

My horse and I might be able to get that striding ;) But seriously, how do they measure strides using the metric system? I'm curious.

Dun Ciarain
Apr. 3, 2009, 03:11 PM
Of course there is a conversion. 5 strides = .021 km. Useful.;)

I wish five strides were actually the same five strides each time. It never fails, if it is a long 5 strides, I'm riding a short-strided horse, and if it is a short 5 strides, I'm riding a long-strided horse.:lol::lol::lol:

Rosie
Apr. 4, 2009, 02:24 PM
Portia,
that all makes sense to me. Since the change from "feet/inches" to meters the adult jumpers have varied in what they are setting the fences at. Used to be 3'3" and 3'6". Now it's usually 1.0 (3'3") and either 1.05 (3'5") or 110. (3'7"). Of course, being the wimpy older adult rider - 1.05 doesn't concern me, but 110. seems MUCH bigger than the old 3'6" fences. :)

I actually noticed Patrick has the AA jumper classes in Tyler set at 1.07 meters. He must have been reading my mind!

Of course the goal is High AA's so I'm going to have to get braver sometime. :)