PDA

View Full Version : Interesting view point from Boyd



snoopy
Oct. 19, 2009, 09:50 AM
I am not sure as to how to interpret this comment. Those who did decide to WD did so for the welfare of their horses...That is also to "man-up".


http://www.eventingnews.com/stories.php?news=20091018B-Boyd-Martin-Claims-his-First-CCI-3-Star-Win-at-Fair-Hill-International&title=Boyd Martin Claims his First CCI*** Win at Fair Hill International



"He's a tough mongrel of a horse, a lot of the horses here today were not fancy show ponies - if you saw them as people they'd be barflies", said Martin of the select group of horses that conquered yesterday's cross-country course. "When it comes down to a gladiator style fight, you get the tough horses and riders, the ones who can man up when things aren't perfect."

Eventer55
Oct. 19, 2009, 10:05 AM
"He's a tough mongrel of a horse, a lot of the horses here today were not fancy show ponies - if you saw them as people they'd be barflies", said Martin of the select group of horses that conquered yesterday's cross-country course. "When it comes down to a gladiator style fight, you get the tough horses and riders, the ones who can man up when things aren't perfect."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but he seems to contradict himself. First he says they were NOT fancy show ponies which says to me they were tough and gritty. Then he says they were "bar flies" Not sure what they were???

Also, I do think to say the ones who "man up" are the toughest (parahrased.) Not the best thing to say.

snoopy
Oct. 19, 2009, 10:26 AM
I get his point, definitily...BUT...I think that it was wise for those who did not feel the conditions were right for their horses to WD. I do not think it showed lack of "balls" not to run. From what I gather, this was not a bit of drizzle and some slick grass.

raave05
Oct. 19, 2009, 10:35 AM
granted, I'm not riding around these big courses and i don't know how bad the conditions really were, but isn't the point of a three day event to show who has the most "complete" horse. its not just about speed and endurance, but bravery, toughness, and rideability.


seems like we really are getting a little smarter these days and taking care of ourselves and our horses better, but this risk aversion takes away some of the cowboy in the sport, and with it a little bit of its soul...

Hilary
Oct. 19, 2009, 10:47 AM
I think the bar fly comment isn't really complimentary - bar flies are tough gritty, maybe a bit seedy.

If a rider chose not to take his/her horse around that course we shouldn't fault them. They know their animals and themselves. Some horses are tougher than others. They don't care about weather, footing or conditions. Some horses care greatly and don't like to jump in deep mud, or when the ground is hard - pick your less than ideal condition - but some horses will get out there and get the job done no matter what.

I think that was his point.

secretariat
Oct. 19, 2009, 10:55 AM
The Saturday evening press conference discussed these issues pretty thoroughly.
http://www.videobypatrick.com/
It's never WRONG to decide to ride another day, and we should be very careful to NOT CRITICIZE those who run. Brian O'Connor's comment Sunday morning on "the incredible horsemanship" he saw on Saturday was particularly poignant.

mjrtango93
Oct. 19, 2009, 11:00 AM
The *** horse I was grooming for was withdrawn cross country morning. Why did they withdraw, the horse has already ran a 4-star and is qualified for anything she wants to do. We got to the barn Saturday morning to find him up to his fetlocks in standing water. They were not about to risk an injury to him, and they hacked the course to shreds trying to make it safe enough to run anyway. Honestly at that point, why bother. We packed up and got him out of there and he is on his way home. I feel it was definately in the horses best interest to not run and risk injury when he was already standing in his very own water jump in his stall.

flutie1
Oct. 19, 2009, 11:11 AM
I don't think the comment was disrespectful of those who opted out. Just a statement of the two types of horses and riders he sees in our sport - the old fashioned "gladiators" and the modern short format type "show ponies." Remember what his orientation is - wild wooly Aussie!

subk
Oct. 19, 2009, 11:21 AM
The comment really doesn't bother me. He was describing the horses that ran, not the ones that didn't. While I understand why someone reading might jump to that comparison, I doubt it was intended.

I don't expect top riders to be particularly good at PR. Boyd by his action demonstrates himself to be a pretty good horseman, unless he actually does something with a horse that shows disregard I'll leave him where he is in my estimation.

bornfreenowexpensive
Oct. 19, 2009, 11:24 AM
I don't think the comment was disrespectful of those who opted out. Just a statement of the two types of horses and riders he sees in our sport - the old fashioned "gladiators" and the modern short format type "show ponies." Remember what his orientation is - wild wooly Aussie!


I agree. Comeon folks....get a grip. Everyone knows that you make the decision based on what is best for each horse and Boyd wasn't saying anyone decision not to run was wrong....but I did watch a lot of the xc for the *** (didn't watch any of the **)...it was probably on the whole the best group of horses and riders that I've seen at Fair Hill in a few years. Mostly top notch riding and very few problems (compared with typical years).

Boyd's horse that won looked like he was just skipping around the course....and I saw him at the back 1/3. I wasn't surprised he made time...he was holding his lines the best of any of the rides which made for a very smooth trip.

I'm sure there were pleanty of horses that WD because they didn't need the run but would have been fine....and I'm sure that there were a few that it was a good thing they were WD because even in the best conditions, it would have been iffy to watch them go around. The conditions did weed out some of the riders....in a manner far more effective than any qualifications any governing body will ever come up with.

The ones that did go....made the decision that they were ready and the conditions were acceptable (even if not ideal). The footing actually held pretty well but was a bit heavy so the less than really fit horses were tired by the end....but many didn't look tired. You risk injury to your horse any time you run and jump.....and at this level, even more so. The sport has never been one about perfect conditions and perfect footing....although that is ideal....it has always been about doing the prep that you need to for the less than ideal conditions......and then the rider giving the horse the best ride to help them both succeed. And for the most part....that is what I saw...really good riding and well prepared horses riding in not perfect conditions (but not dangerous conditions either).

Jazzy Lady
Oct. 19, 2009, 11:24 AM
You really had to know your horse to run out there. Everyone who ran, ran it very smart. Most retired after their first problem. Most of the horses that were out there were lighter horses who could handle the mud. The footing actually held up quite decently. Had 1/2 the feild not w/d then that could have been another story.

I was suprised they chose to pull so many fences from the course. It watered down both courses a lot, but mostly the **. Why not adjust the time instead o pulling everything off? The ** was much twistier than the ***, but the only combinations left in were the water and the sunken road and the turning question in the ring.

There was still a lot of trouble out there for both levels, but the riding was smart and for the most part, the horses of the riders who opted to go looked fantastic. It's about all three phases.

Don't get me wrong, I could never have ridden my horse in that, but that's due to the way he is and his past. Everyone makes individual decisions hopefully, and choosing not to run for whatever reason is NEVER a bad idea... however, choosing to run even when the going is not great isn't necessarily a bad one either, depending on the horse.

Halfling
Oct. 19, 2009, 11:52 AM
Personally, I commend every rider who chose to withdraw their horses on CC day. That shows true love of the animal and respect for same if they did not want to risk injuring their horses. I also don't fault those who chose to go for it. My biggest fear was that some young hot dogs would not use sound judgement seeing that they had a shot of placing due to all of the withdraws. Not so. Apparently, most riders rode conservatively and smart.

I do wonder how the final placings would have ended up had those who WD chosen to run. Some excellent horse/rider combos chose not to run. Does the fact that almost half of the riders that withdrew their horses before the CC detract/take anything away from the final placing? Would the top ten have been the same? Don't know, as I am a DQ, not an eventer. I admire the courage and heart of the horses that do event, however it is not my thing. Love to go to FH each year to watch though.

snoopy
Oct. 19, 2009, 11:57 AM
Since I did not see the course or the conditions, just wondering if the type of modern course actually makes these conditions more dangerous. With so many combination/cluster jumping efforts where even the smallest of slip could have disasterous results, will we see more elective withdrawls? The old, more straight forward courses and the weather conditions may not have seen so many decide to WD. I think it should be noted that some that I spoke to would have liked to have completed but already had their qualifications for next year and thought it was not worth the risk. I think there are many factors for a decision to withdraw. I believe it is the "man up" comment that did not sit well with me.

kcrubin
Oct. 19, 2009, 12:05 PM
I agree. Comeon folks....get a grip. Everyone knows that you make the decision based on what is best for each horse and Boyd wasn't saying anyone decision not to run was wrong....but I did watch a lot of the xc for the *** (didn't watch any of the **)...it was probably on the whole the best group of horses and riders that I've seen at Fair Hill in a few years. Mostly top notch riding and very few problems (compared with typical years).



I agree with this comment. It seems someone always has to dissect remarks and try to find something to criticize.
Perhaps those folks should find something more constructive to do with their time and energy imo - volunteering, working for a non-profit, you know . . . get a job . . .

kcr

bornfreenowexpensive
Oct. 19, 2009, 12:10 PM
Since I did not see the course or the conditions, just wondering if the type of modern course actually makes these conditions more dangerous. With so many combination/cluster jumping efforts where even the smallest of slip could have disasterous results, will we see more elective withdrawls? The old, more straight forward courses and the weather conditions may not have seen so many decide to WD. I think it should be noted that some that I spoke to would have liked to have completed but already had their qualifications for next year and thought it was not worth the risk. I think there are many factors for a decision to withdraw. I believe it is the "man up" comment that did not sit well with me.


The *** was a very straight forward *** course...with many of the combinations being removed. The few combinations left in rode best when ridden forward...there were a few accuracy questions...espcially in the holding the lines...and a few just straight forward galloping fences.

The "man up" comment was I believe because the conditions SUCKED for the rider more than the horses. It was cold and WET and very miserable to be outside...but the footing wasn't as bad as I have ever seen. Very well established turf....the footing had been hard leading up to the event and most of the rain was steady and light so it had time to really soak in. The organizers did a very good job at putting down a lot of stone dust where needed and the volunteers kept the take off and landings well groomed. I think it was better conditions than if there had been no rain and the ground stayed rock hard...but that is just me I suppose.

At least at the *** level, I didn't see any really trouble with the footing in terms of slipping or struggling.....but yes, if you asked most folks there.....it was the sort of day that MOST of us would have given the ponies a day off and stayed in bed if given a choice....in fact...from Thursday on it was like that. It just wasn't pleasant...and the type of day one stays inside curled up with a good book and hot coco.

But it was the sort of conditions that 15 years ago...I do believe MOST competitors who were entered would have still run....and would have been fine. It is a different sport now.

snoopy
Oct. 19, 2009, 12:13 PM
The *** was a very straight forward course...with most of the combinations being removed. The few combinations left in rode best when ridden forward...there were a few accuracy questions...espcially in the holding the lines...and a few just straight forward galloping fences.

The "man up" comment was I believe because the conditions SUCKED for the rider more than the horses. It was cold and WET and very miserable to be outside...but the footing wasn't as bad as I have ever seen. Very well established turf....the footing had been hard leading up to the event and most of the rain was steady and light so it had time to really soak in. The organizers did a very good job at putting down a lot of stone dust where needed and the volunteers keep the take off and landings well groomed.

At least at the *** level, I didn't see any really trouble with the footing in terms of slipping or struggling.....but yes, if you asked most folks there.....it was the sort of day that MOST of us would have given the ponies a day off and stayed in bed if given a choice....in fact...from Thursday on it was like that. It just wasn't pleasant...and the type of day one stays inside curled up with a good book and hot coco.


http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=man+up

For me anyway, I have only ever heard the term "man-up" used in the number 1 instance...so reading it in that context, it can come off a bit....

But it could also be used in the number 3 context, which would validate the opinions of most of the posters.

tle
Oct. 19, 2009, 12:17 PM
I agree with this comment. It seems someone always has to dissect remarks and try to find something to criticize.
Perhaps those folks should find something more constructive to do with their time and energy imo - volunteering, working for a non-profit, you know . . . get a job . . .

kcr


A single comment taken out of context, put into electronic format and spread only by reading can certainly cause ANYONE to wonder WTF? Add the possibility of a cultural barrier and it's certainly not beyond the realm of possibility for folks to get the wrong impression of the comment. so to tell them to go get a job is a bit rude.

flutie1
Oct. 19, 2009, 12:22 PM
I didn't see the courses either, but it could be that certain fences may have been pulled because they had become inaccessible to emergency vehicles (such as ambulances equine rescue. etc.)

I keep thinking back to Bruce's text book round at Rolex on Little Tricky a few years back when the rain had been falling hard for several days. He knew his horse's capabilities just as Boyd did this year at FH.

TBCollector
Oct. 19, 2009, 12:25 PM
Good god...
I love what he said. Great analogies. And any horse at that level is a brawler.

JER
Oct. 19, 2009, 12:29 PM
But it was the sort of conditions that 15 years ago...I do believe MOST competitors who were entered would have still run....and would have been fine. It is a different sport now.

You would have had phases A-C to see how your horse was feeling and how it was handling the conditions.

But then eventing didn't exactly 'man-up' to retain the LF.

LisaB
Oct. 19, 2009, 12:33 PM
Love it!
I correct me if I'm wrong but I think what snoopy is trying to point out is that there's only one spot to jump a lot of jumps. A lot of skinnies and angles and especially the higher you go, there's less wiggle room. So, when you're walking a course that has less than ideal conditions, you have to take into account that EVERY horse is going to jump and land at the exact same spot. And how much are those takeoffs and landings going to deteriorate over time.

lstevenson
Oct. 19, 2009, 12:39 PM
I think some are reading far too much into that comment. I took his comments to mean ONLY that only the toughest, grittiest horses perform well at the top levels under miserable conditions. And I think it's very true.

bornfreenowexpensive
Oct. 19, 2009, 12:40 PM
You would have had phases A-C to see how your horse was feeling and how it was handling the conditions.

But then eventing didn't exactly 'man-up' to retain the LF.


no it didn't....and why I said it is a different sport now...in many ways.

I found it interesting how many spectators showed up (I questioned my sanity when I did)....but many were old school (and had good rain gear!)......and was really impressed with the volunteers (no idea how they could all be so cheery)!

purplnurpl
Oct. 19, 2009, 12:41 PM
"He's a tough mongrel of a horse, a lot of the horses here today were not fancy show ponies - if you saw them as people they'd be barflies",

"When it comes down to a gladiator style fight, you get the tough horses and riders, the ones who can man up when things aren't perfect."

lol. I love the quote in bold.

As to "man up". I'm going to guess he was going for def. #1.

eh. well...who pays the vet bills on his horse? Is it HIS horse or an owners?

Personally, I have been working on a soft tissue injury that has used up 2 years of my horse's life and 20K of my money.
I'd rather not, "man up" in such conditions. I only have one. Boyd has many to choose from and some on a wait list I'm sure.
The sport is already dangerous for horse AND rider. Unless I'm at a world games or needed the run for Rolex I would have packed my bags and saved my horse and myself for another day--as many did.
No point in spending that much money just to be miserable (when you don't really need the run for a QR) or cause a career ending injury. Sure injuries can happen anywhere but the % is increased in boggy going.

To all his own.
Boyd obviously made a great decision to run...and win. : )
Hope everyone made it home with tight cold legs.
(especially my BF Roanoke)

bornfreenowexpensive
Oct. 19, 2009, 12:43 PM
Is it HIS horse or an owners?




It is his own horse....an OTTB that he brought up the levels and got in Aus.

Ca dreamin
Oct. 19, 2009, 12:46 PM
The "hero of the day" award goes to each true horseperson who made tough decisions for their horses' welfare, not their personal glory. I look forward to such people of character representing our country.

snoopy
Oct. 19, 2009, 12:52 PM
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=man+up

For me anyway, I have only ever heard the term "man-up" used in the number 1 instance...so reading it in that context, it can come off a bit....

But it could also be used in the number 3 context, which would validate the opinions of most of the posters.




Just to make it clearer....I do not fault those who chose to complete nor those who chose to WD.

When one is familiar with the term "man up" and when one is used to hearing it according to def:1, it does read...in comment...not so nice.

Of course, the term is broad in compass, as seen by its use it def:3 and changes the whole meaning of the comment.

I was just taken back by his remark because as I said, I am used to hearing in regards to def:1 which does those who chose to WD a disservice.

It really is one of those comments that gets lost in translation hence the title "interesting" view point by Boyd.

Mach Two
Oct. 19, 2009, 01:00 PM
Didn't look at the film clip, and I wasn't at FH...but I LOVE the quote.
Jim Wofford said once that a four star (don't all you jump on this, I know this show was a three star) horse was like the guy who flies to a strange country, swaggers off the plane and wants to know where the toughest bar in town is. He walks into that bar and says "What are YOU lookin' at?" (I'm paraphrasing Jim)

No shame in withdrawing if the conditions don't feel right for any horse or rider, but it sounds like Boyd is willing to cowboy up and ride like the top riders of 15-20 years ago, with the confidence that his horse is prepared and can tackle a course, in the conditions described. That kind of eventing isn't for everyone, and certainly it's not for the faint of heart or limp of wrist.

Interesting comment earlier that the horses on course were the lighter ones. I'm grossing my fingers...is that gritty, "kick on, get on with it" brand of upper level eventing coming back? I hope so.

Gestalt
Oct. 19, 2009, 01:04 PM
I didn't see the courses either, but it could be that certain fences may have been pulled because they had become inaccessible to emergency vehicles (such as ambulances equine rescue. etc.)

I keep thinking back to Bruce's text book round at Rolex on Little Tricky a few years back when the rain had been falling hard for several days. He knew his horse's capabilities just as Boyd did this year at FH.

Absolutely! I remember that ride and it's the only thing that made Rolex good for me. Just before that I saw Titliest die after hitting a fence. :(

The "man-up" comment, after reading the meanings from the link Snoopy posted, is like what the folks around here mean when they say "cowboy-up". It means for the person to get tough, not for them to make stupid decisions that make injure or kill their horse.

retreadeventer
Oct. 19, 2009, 01:08 PM
I agree. Comeon folks....get a grip. Everyone knows that you make the decision based on what is best for each horse and Boyd wasn't saying anyone decision not to run was wrong....but I did watch a lot of the xc for the *** (didn't watch any of the **)...it was probably on the whole the best group of horses and riders that I've seen at Fair Hill in a few years. Mostly top notch riding and very few problems (compared with typical years).

Boyd's horse that won looked like he was just skipping around the course....and I saw him at the back 1/3. I wasn't surprised he made time...he was holding his lines the best of any of the rides which made for a very smooth trip.

I'm sure there were pleanty of horses that WD because they didn't need the run but would have been fine....and I'm sure that there were a few that it was a good thing they were WD because even in the best conditions, it would have been iffy to watch them go around. The conditions did weed out some of the riders....in a manner far more effective than any qualifications any governing body will ever come up with.

The ones that did go....made the decision that they were ready and the conditions were acceptable (even if not ideal). The footing actually held pretty well but was a bit heavy so the less than really fit horses were tired by the end....but many didn't look tired. You risk injury to your horse any time you run and jump.....and at this level, even more so. The sport has never been one about perfect conditions and perfect footing....although that is ideal....it has always been about doing the prep that you need to for the less than ideal conditions......and then the rider giving the horse the best ride to help them both succeed. And for the most part....that is what I saw...really good riding and well prepared horses riding in not perfect conditions (but not dangerous conditions either).

Amen, as always, the voice of reason - and just to be clear I have personally ridden in conditions very similar to this at a much lower level THREE TIMES this wet year, so I know it's doable - and some of those upper level riders who did compete at Fair Hill, did indeed compete at those events, too -- so I think we all just sort of knew the ground and knew how it was, and those that come from far way probably did not, and didn't have a good idea how much it would take out of their horses to run over it. Those are big fences, you have to know your horse, anything new to the level, probably was scratched. Boyd and Phillip etc. also now have a good idea of how their horses will run in the future should courses come up deep, and that's valuable information in a potential four star horse.

Threeday33
Oct. 19, 2009, 01:09 PM
I don't have a major problem with what he said, because as others have said, he didn't seem to be bashing the ones that withdrew. In fact, he withdrew one of his *** horses, didn't he?

A point nobody has mentioned is how little practice we have riding in the mud. At least in our area, most events cancel when the footing is bad, so we ride on good footing more often than not. I am not even allowed to gallop on the properties I use for galloping if it is soft because it will tear it up.

I withdrew my ** horse who is definitely one of the horses he described...he is a fighter and will stop at nothing. He doesn't know how to stop or run out. He has jumped clean around 2 advanced courses this season and would have jumped around the course on Saturday if I had asked him to. In my opinion, that is even more reason not to run him 66 horses into the division when it will make his job very difficult. I would not have been one of the ones to have 1 stop and retire if the footing started to give him trouble. My guess is we would have gotten around clean or gotten hurt.

Chrissy

retreadeventer
Oct. 19, 2009, 01:14 PM
The "hero of the day" award goes to each true horseperson who made tough decisions for their horses' welfare, not their personal glory. I look forward to such people of character representing our country.

Well, I would rather that they RAN if they are going to represent our country. Can't win it if you aren't in it. Our best shouldn't be on the sidelines, they should be running. As Bornfree said, it was difficult, not dangerous.

In my opinion, "Hero of the Day" goes to the volunteers of Saturday. Without them, nothing would have happened. No one gets the right to whine about footing more than they. They had to stand, walk, and work in it ALL day, not just for 7 to 9 minutes.

Mach Two
Oct. 19, 2009, 01:15 PM
I withdrew my ** horse who is definitely one of the horses he described...he is a fighter and will stop at nothing. He doesn't know how to stop or run out. He has jumped clean around 2 advanced courses this season and would have jumped around the course on Saturday if I had asked him to. In my opinion, that is even more reason not to run him 66 horses into the division when it will make his job very difficult. I would not have been one of the ones to have 1 stop and retire if the footing started to give him trouble. My guess is we would have gotten around clean or gotten hurt.

Chrissy

Good call, Chrissy, you know your horse well, and he'll run another day. 66 horses going before you changes a lot of factors!

Threeday33
Oct. 19, 2009, 01:24 PM
I think there is a fine line then between difficult and dangerous...in my opinion, it definitely was dangerous to run. Even though there were no major injuries that we know of and riders rode smart, I do feel the conditions were more than just difficult. I was out there with other riders for the beginning of the ** division and we saw horses having plenty of trouble with the conditions. There were very deep holes just in the galloping lanes and no footing left in front of some of the fences. We all made the decision to pull because of dangerous conditions.
Chrissy

retreadeventer
Oct. 19, 2009, 01:29 PM
I think there is a fine line then between difficult and dangerous...in my opinion, it definitely was dangerous to run. Even though there were no major injuries and riders rode smart, I do feel the conditions were more than just difficult. I was out there with other riders for the beginning of the ** division and we saw horses having plenty of trouble with the conditions. There were very deep holes just in the galloping lanes and no footing left in front of some of the fences. We all made the decision to pull because of dangerous conditions.
Chrissy

All I can say is two ground juries made up of people with about a hundred years cumulative eventing sport experience thought it well enough to run. If they had decided it was dangerous they would have cancelled it. As I say, I've run in similar three times this year and you would be surprised sometimes at how it rides until you ride in it. I know I learned something about what I and my horse can do at our level (MUCH lower than this level being discussed, so the size of the questions and the difficulty certainly factors in, which I will grant you, obviously.) I don't think there will be much second guessing of the juries' decision to run, because I think the very best horse in the competition did win. And there were multiple double clears in show jumping - so those that ran were obviously fit to continue.

denny
Oct. 19, 2009, 01:32 PM
Hey, guys---

Boyd is under 30, male, and an Aussie. If HE wouldn`t take a shot, who would?

Yes, eventing has changed, some good, some bad. I have an old book (not that old, maybe early 70s) which describes the event horse as "The gladiator of equestrian sport."

Back then you just went, because it was the ethic of the times. Now we are far less tolerant of putting horses into danger, not a bad thing.

But we have lost, along with that, much of the old "Kick on!" mentality.

It`s almost impossible to have it both ways.

FairWeather
Oct. 19, 2009, 01:52 PM
I took it to mean that it was going to take a very particular (tough) kind of horse to go around decently--regardless of an owner/rider decision.

RAyers
Oct. 19, 2009, 01:56 PM
I saw no malice in the comments either. Around here, the "barflies" are the blue collar brewery workers and hard rock or coal miners. I took it as he was simply pointing out the difference between types of horses at the level. There are the one that aren't mudders and others that are. It is up to the riders to decide if they are going to be their horse's advocates.

Reed

Mach Two
Oct. 19, 2009, 02:00 PM
Hey, guys---

Boyd is under 30, male, and an Aussie. If HE wouldn`t take a shot, who would?

Yes, eventing has changed, some good, some bad. I have an old book (not that old, maybe early 70s) which describes the event horse as "The gladiator of equestrian sport."

Back then you just went, because it was the ethic of the times. Now we are far less tolerant of putting horses into danger, not a bad thing.

But we have lost, along with that, much of the old "Kick on!" mentality.

It`s almost impossible to have it both ways.

God, I just love ya for that, and you too, bornfreenowexpensive.
There will be many who will find a balance. I had one horse I'd run in the mud, one I'd have withdrawn. I personally miss the gladiators...and they didn't seem to get hurt a lot back in those days.

LLDM
Oct. 19, 2009, 02:06 PM
I saw no malice in the comments either. Around here, the "barflies" are the blue collar brewery workers and hard rock or coal miners. I took it as he was simply pointing out the difference between types of horses at the level. There are the one that aren't mudders and others that are. It is up to the riders to decide if they are going to be their horse's advocates.

Reed

Oh. Well then.

Around here barflies are just kinda slimy alcoholics with nothing better to do than drink on the governments dime. And they are not the type to be motivated enough to actually brawl with anyone - as it cuts into their drinking and pity-party time.

That's why didn't get the comment at all. And was hoping the down-under version was better than our local version of bar fly. Just seemed rather disrespectful to the horses.

Reminds me of a bad joke - "So a TB and a WB walk into a bar..."

SCFarm

gardenie
Oct. 19, 2009, 02:15 PM
I kid you not my legs are some sore from spectating and just walking round that Fair Hill XC course with my girlfriends, and I'm pretty fit. Kudos to those who ran, and kudos to those who didn't. God bless those who put on the event and those who volunteered too...

No one has any say about when to run one's horse other than that horse's crew. Getting to the ***/** level is not accomplished by sissies.

I will agree that to complete that event's xc you had to kick on, and mean it right out of the box. And I thought Boyd was right on about who could win Fair Hill under the conditions. If anyone who didn't run took offense to his thoughts, too bad. Somehow I really doubt they did. I imagine they thought what I did...dammit, these transplanted Aussies need to get their asses kicked by Americans ;-). Anyway, you cannot please all of the people all of the time.

I am pleased that they took out many of the combinations, because there was so little chance of getting a clean shot at take off except for the first couple of combinations due to the accuracy required.

What a mudfest and my car still is covered! Love Fair Hill!

Jazzy Lady
Oct. 19, 2009, 02:35 PM
For some horses and riders, the conditions are dangerous, but for some they aren't and their horses are more than capable of handling it and handling it well. To flat out say that the conditions were dangerous is a little extreme.

They were difficult, they were wet and they of course offer more of a risk than perfect footing, but it doesn't mean the conditions were dangerous. The ground jury made the right call. It's up to the riders to decide whether the horses and them are good for it. I would say most who went xc were not green to the level.

there was lots of safe riding out there. I didn't see a horse slip once. I saw some sticky jumps and some horses tiring at the end, but I thought for the most part the footing held up well. My legs were sore and tired from slopping around in areas where it was a foot of mud, but xc wasn't like that because everyone wasn't on it all day every day.

Every time you leave the start box you are taking a risk, perfect footing or not. Some people ran, some didn't. Everyone who ran, ran smart. There was a lot of good horsemanship shown at Fairhill, both by those who chose to run and by those who chose to go home.

gchildean
Oct. 19, 2009, 02:38 PM
For some horses and riders, the conditions are dangerous, but for some they aren't and their horses are more than capable of handling it and handling it well. To flat out say that the conditions were dangerous is a little extreme.

They were difficult, they were wet and they of course offer more of a risk than perfect footing, but it doesn't mean the conditions were dangerous. The ground jury made the right call. It's up to the riders to decide whether the horses and them are good for it. I would say most who went xc were not green to the level.

there was lots of safe riding out there. I didn't see a horse slip once. I saw some sticky jumps and some horses tiring at the end, but I thought for the most part the footing held up well. My legs were sore and tired from slopping around in areas where it was a foot of mud, but xc wasn't like that because everyone wasn't on it all day every day.

Every time you leave the start box you are taking a risk, perfect footing or not. Some people ran, some didn't. Everyone who ran, ran smart. There was a lot of good horsemanship shown at Fairhill, both by those who chose to run and by those who chose to go home.

Well said!

bornfreenowexpensive
Oct. 19, 2009, 02:44 PM
For some horses and riders, the conditions are dangerous, but for some they aren't and their horses are more than capable of handling it and handling it well. To flat out say that the conditions were dangerous is a little extreme.

They were difficult, they were wet and they of course offer more of a risk than perfect footing, but it doesn't mean the conditions were dangerous. The ground jury made the right call. It's up to the riders to decide whether the horses and them are good for it. I would say most who went xc were not green to the level.

there was lots of safe riding out there. I didn't see a horse slip once. I saw some sticky jumps and some horses tiring at the end, but I thought for the most part the footing held up well. My legs were sore and tired from slopping around in areas where it was a foot of mud, but xc wasn't like that because everyone wasn't on it all day every day.

Every time you leave the start box you are taking a risk, perfect footing or not. Some people ran, some didn't. Everyone who ran, ran smart. There was a lot of good horsemanship shown at Fairhill, both by those who chose to run and by those who chose to go home.

Agreed...well said. My legs/back got sore walking around all day because I was wearing HEAVY waterproof boots and LOTs of layers of clothes....and I'm not fit;)

yellowbritches
Oct. 19, 2009, 03:18 PM
I saw most of the 2 star and all the 3 star. In the 2 star, a lot of the riding looked like a lot of people not really sure how to ride in the mud (and that's also where all the RFs happened). In the 3 star, MOST of the riding I saw looked great...I got to see exactly what I wanted to see- how good riders ride in less than great conditions.

The riders at the top of the leader board (in both divisions) put in classy performances. Their horses looked fighting fit and ready to conquer the world. I watched all three of the top finishers on Saturday (and Boyd's other horse), and you wouldn't have known the footing was questionable. The horses were confident and sure of themselves. Their riders rode them in such a way that every foot fall was hammered securely in the ground. It was spectacular to watch.

I also saw people pull up when they decided it wasn't there day. Bravo to them, too. I would have loved to talk to a couple of riders after the stopped since their horses looked great, but they know the horse and they feel the footing. Kudos.

I also have total respect for those who chose not to go. HOWEVER, I don't think that makes those who ran worse horsemen and women than those who didn't run. Everyone wakes up Saturday morning and walks that course again. They take into account when they'll go and the horse they are sitting on. They take in their experience and their horses' experience. Some say "we can do this. No sweat." Some say "We can't do this. Let's go home." Some say "There is no way in hell I want to do this." Some say "I'll give it a go and pull up if it doesn't feel right." THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH ANY OF THESE RESPONSES. These are the choices everyone has to learn to make in this sport. Hopefully, by the time you are running around a 3 star, you know how to make the right one for your horse. Boyd really looked like he made the right one for his (that horse was FUN to watch).

I like his comment and the "bar flies" analogy makes me giggle...I can see that. :yes:

SevenDogs
Oct. 19, 2009, 03:42 PM
All I can say is two ground juries made up of people with about a hundred years cumulative eventing sport experience thought it well enough to run. If they had decided it was dangerous they would have cancelled it. As I say, I've run in similar three times this year and you would be surprised sometimes at how it rides until you ride in it. I know I learned something about what I and my horse can do at our level (MUCH lower than this level being discussed, so the size of the questions and the difficulty certainly factors in, which I will grant you, obviously.) I don't think there will be much second guessing of the juries' decision to run, because I think the very best horse in the competition did win. And there were multiple double clears in show jumping - so those that ran were obviously fit to continue.

Well, I would rather that they RAN if they are going to represent our country. Can't win it if you aren't in it. Our best shouldn't be on the sidelines, they should be running.le double clears in show jumping - so those that ran were obviously fit to continue.


.... and perhaps you are NOT in the best position to "second guess" those that chose not to run and make assumptions as to whether or not they are fit to represent this country based upon your three LOWER LEVEL runs this year! Honestly, retread -- that was just obnoxious. I don't doubt the expertise of the GJ or other officials but what is safe (and worth the risk) for some, may not be for others. Is that what we really want to instill in our riders? Don't use your own judgement or trust that you know your horse better than anyone else (hopefully!). If the GJ says it's okay, you ride no matter what? Seriously?......

This sport is full of choices. We make choices every single day that affects our horses. I think the fact that we, as riders, are charged with making the best decisions for our horses on any given day is one of the most important aspects. I think it very interesting to hear from riders who made both choices (sometimes the same rider choses to run one horse and withdraw the other, which makes it even more interesting).

Let's not judge someone either way on what they decided THIS ONE DAY! I am going to assume one thing : Every rider knew more than me when they made their decision on whether or not to run, so it makes absolutely no sense for me (or anyone else) to judge whatever decision they made or, worse yet, make blanket statements like everyone should have run or no one should have run. It made sense for some to run and some to withdraw... period.

FairWeather
Oct. 19, 2009, 03:48 PM
We watched boyd come through the second water with Neville, and it was foot perfect. Neater to watch was the track he took--one that nobody else that day had taken (that I could tell, or that I saw)

Threeday33
Oct. 19, 2009, 04:12 PM
I don't disagree with the ground jury's decision to run. I actually appreciate it that they left it up to us. They did a fantastic job of working with the cards they were dealt. They made the courses less dangerous with the modifications (which I think were the right modifications).

I really just think they were sitting on a very fine line of difficult vs. dangerous and it was up to each rider to use their best judgement and decide if the modified course with bad footing was worth running with each individual horse this weekend or not. Many factors, other than the opinion of the rider on how dangerous the conditions made the course influenced those decisions (experience, order of go, qualification needs, availability of another ** or ***, etc).

I did see a fair amount of slipping when I was out watching the early ** horses. One horse was fishtailing as he turned and galloped up the hill after fence 9. One slid into fence 15, which resulted in a rider fall and stung leg (we are assuming that is all it is). And another slid in the turn on the way to fence 8 and propped in the approach, causing him to slip more, and led to a runout and the rider retired. That was all in the first 10 riders. That was all I needed to see to feel the conditions would be dangerous by the time 60 horses ran in front of me.

I completely agree that there was a lot of good horsemanship shown both by those who chose to run and by those who chose to go home.

And, thank you to all of the organizers and volunteers for doing a fantastic job in miserable weather!!!

Chrissy

ntoeventing
Oct. 19, 2009, 04:22 PM
With regard to the original question at hand...I think Boyd's statment was meant to point out the yucky conditions riders had to endure, and what a feat it was to actually tackle the cross country courseI seriously don't think that his comments were meant to demean, or trivialize any of the horses or riders. Nor was it suggesting that people shouldn't have withdrawn their horse.

The decision to withdraw is the right of the rider, and under circumstances of questionable safety, or wanting to preserve the health of their horse, it is admirable for a rider to withdraw. I don't think Boyd meant anything negative with his statement following Fair Hill.

retreadeventer
Oct. 19, 2009, 05:51 PM
Guys I think Boyd said "barfight" not "barflies".

RAyers
Oct. 19, 2009, 06:01 PM
Nope, the quote is "barflies." Anyway, if it was "bar fight," then the sentence would make no sense.

Reed

TxEventer81
Oct. 19, 2009, 06:24 PM
Remember what Threeday33 (**I think**) said... Boyd scratched his second horse... Rock On Rose. I would very much doubt that he would be criticizing himself for scratching.

JER
Oct. 19, 2009, 07:02 PM
Nope, the quote is "barflies." Anyway, if it was "bar fight," then the sentence would make no sense.

Reed

Barfly was a good movie. Maybe Boyd is just being literate/cinematic and offering a metaphor of event horses as Bukowski characters.

In Barfly, bar fights are an integral part of being a barfly (to wit: those obligatory nightly fights between Mickey Rourke and Frank Stallone) so maybe everyone is right.

:)

RAyers
Oct. 19, 2009, 07:36 PM
Or he could be using the metaphor of the type of flies that populate many bars and the hardy nature they must have to survive?


;)

retreadeventer
Oct. 19, 2009, 07:43 PM
Nope, the quote is "barflies." Anyway, if it was "bar fight," then the sentence would make no sense.

Reed

Where you there?

RAyers
Oct. 19, 2009, 07:52 PM
Where you there?

No, I can only go off the quote in the article and I would be very surprised if the reporter was so far off in publishing the quote that the term barfly was the specific term.

JAGold
Oct. 19, 2009, 08:12 PM
All I can say is two ground juries made up of people with about a hundred years cumulative eventing sport experience thought it well enough to run. If they had decided it was dangerous they would have cancelled it. As I say, I've run in similar three times this year and you would be surprised sometimes at how it rides until you ride in it. I know I learned something about what I and my horse can do at our level (MUCH lower than this level being discussed, so the size of the questions and the difficulty certainly factors in, which I will grant you, obviously.) I don't think there will be much second guessing of the juries' decision to run, because I think the very best horse in the competition did win. And there were multiple double clears in show jumping - so those that ran were obviously fit to continue.

No. The ground juries decided that, with modifications, the course was safe enough to give riders the option of running. The role of the ground jury is not to certify that the course is safe for every horse that has met the entry qualifications. The role of the ground jury is to present a fair test that the rider (and trainer, owner, and others immediately involved in the team) can decide whether or not to tackle.

A competition that is appropriate for a given horse and rider under one set of circumstances may not be under another set of circumstances. Riders should be incorporating all of the information -- about the course, the weather, the order of go, and other factors that are not known when they enter -- when deciding whether or not to compete. Eventing isn't war and it shouldn't be life or death. It's a careful calculation of risk versus benefit. When the risks and benefits change, as they did at Fair Hill, so should the decisions for people close to the margin.

Also, each competition should fit into the plan for the development of horse and rider. Competitions should teach the horse and rider something, but not ever horse and rider want to learn the same lessons. They don't all have the same goals. Maybe horses whose riders have the goal of representing the US in competition do need to learn to compete in the mud -- but that doesn't mean that every rider has that as a goal. (I'd also argue for a horse trials rather than the longer CCI course as an appropriate venue for experience competing in the mud.) And competing in the mud doesn't teach every horse and rider the same thing. For example, while some will learn to attack and to be aggressive, others will have their natural tendency to attack punished by ground that gives way. Saying that competitors should run no matter what puts entirely too much weight on one competition relative to the long-term plan and career of horse and rider. There are times to educate horses and times to preserve them. The mark of a good upper level rider is being able to distinguish between the two!

I don't think anyone is second-guessing the ground jury's decision not to cancel XC, just as I don't think anyone who is well informed, including Boyd Martin, is questioning the decision of any riders who chose to scratch. There is nothing one-size-fits-all about eventing, especially at the upper levels.

SevenDogs
Oct. 19, 2009, 08:50 PM
Thank you JAGold! Outstanding post!

Meredith Clark
Oct. 19, 2009, 08:58 PM
The Saturday evening press conference discussed these issues pretty thoroughly.
http://www.videobypatrick.com/
It's never WRONG to decide to ride another day, and we should be very careful to NOT CRITICIZE those who run. Brian O'Connor's comment Sunday morning on "the incredible horsemanship" he saw on Saturday was particularly poignant.

There were some really awkward moments in that! I think some of the riders were tired/delusional :lol:

"Doug don't you get help every night from Sinead? " :eek: TMI

Boyd talks about his horse and how the course rode in the video around the 6min mark

ps- whats the back story with Kheops Du Quesnay? Phillip said he didn't want to get too emotional when talking about him.

S A McKee
Oct. 19, 2009, 09:37 PM
No, I can only go off the quote in the article and I would be very surprised if the reporter was so far off in publishing the quote that the term barfly was the specific term.

USEF reports the statement as follows:

"He’s a real tough mongrel of a horse,” said Martin. “If you look at all the top horses here – they aren’t show ponies. You’d see them in a bar fight.”

Either way, doesn't do much good for Eventing's image.

LexInVA
Oct. 19, 2009, 09:43 PM
I think it would have been cooler if he had said they were pirates. But that's just me.

Snapdragon
Oct. 19, 2009, 09:45 PM
USEF reports the statement as follows:

"He’s a real tough mongrel of a horse,” said Martin. “If you look at all the top horses here – they aren’t show ponies. You’d see them in a bar fight.”

Either way, doesn't do much good for Eventing's image.

Why is that? I think all the great previous posts about how a rider takes into consideration his or her horse, the conditions, etc. were right on.

These are tough horses, and tough riders--I think that's a good thing. I could definitely see my mare as a bar fly AND getting into a barfight--and winning! :lol:

bornfreenowexpensive
Oct. 19, 2009, 09:48 PM
USEF reports the statement as follows:

"He’s a real tough mongrel of a horse,” said Martin. “If you look at all the top horses here – they aren’t show ponies. You’d see them in a bar fight.”

Either way, doesn't do much good for Eventing's image.


oh give me a break. I describe my mare as a chain smoking biker chick.....why, because that is her personality. She is a tough tough bitch and not a soft cuddly pet (snapdragon...she might get on with your mare!). So was her mama (a tough tough mare and not cuddly) who ran 100 races and retired from the track sound and clean legged...that is an athlete. His description is that his horse is tough and doesn't need perfect conditions and everything easy to rise to the top and put in a great performance. This is a desirable trait in any performance horse...that tough drive...and one that is found in a lot of race horses....and a lot of top horses in jumping, racing and eventing. They are not pretty show models who run screaming into cover if they get a rain drop on their hair afraid that they will melt.


and for those wondering about the quote...it is from his blog.

lionstigersbears
Oct. 19, 2009, 09:59 PM
oh give me a break. I describe my mare as a chain smoking biker chick.....why, because that is her personality. She is a tough tough bitch and not a soft cuddly pet (snapdragon...she might get on with your mare!). So was her mama (a tough tough mare and not cuddly) who ran 100 races and retired from the track sound and clean legged...that is an athlete. His description is that his horse is tough and doesn't need perfect conditions and everything easy to rise to the top and put in a great performance. This is a desirable trait in any performance horse...that tough drive...and one that is found in a lot of race horses....and a lot of top horses in jumping, racing and eventing. They are not pretty show models who run screaming into cover if they get a rain drop on their hair afraid that they will melt.


and for those wondering about the quote...it is from his blog.

Totally agree. That this quote is even a debate makes me sad for the future of our sport. Having a 'tough' horse is not a bad thing!

kcrubin
Oct. 19, 2009, 10:05 PM
USEF reports the statement as follows:

"He’s a real tough mongrel of a horse,” said Martin. “If you look at all the top horses here – they aren’t show ponies. You’d see them in a bar fight.”

Either way, doesn't do much good for Eventing's image.

I guess it depends on what you want our image to be - it works for me!

JAGold
Oct. 19, 2009, 10:10 PM
For what it's worth, the quote on Boyd's own blog (http://boydandsilvamartin.blogspot.com/) says "barflies:"
Neville’s a tough mongrel of a horse, a lot of the horses here today were not fancy show ponies – if you saw them as people they’d be barflies. When it comes down to a gladiator style fight you get the tough horses and riders, the ones who can man up when things aren’t perfect.

subk
Oct. 19, 2009, 10:12 PM
I think it would have been cooler if he had said they were pirates. But that's just me.
Lex, fighting in a bar is probably just a misdomenor. Being a pirate is a felony. You want them to be a badass, but not a reprobate. Then also you have the whole problem of Talk Like a Pirate Day for an animal that can't talk.

I like the image for eventing that Boyd puts out there. "Show Ponies" indeed. What do you think this is, a YEH class?!

Arcadien
Oct. 19, 2009, 10:15 PM
I like the image for eventing that Boyd puts out there. "Show Ponies" indeed. What do you think this is, a YEH class?!

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!

:)

JER
Oct. 19, 2009, 10:17 PM
Totally agree. That this quote is even a debate makes me sad for the future of our sport. Having a 'tough' horse is not a bad thing!

I think the real debate is about the 'man up' part of the quote -- and that is a very legitimate debate. What does it mean to 'man up' when conditions might not be right for your horse?

But whatever -- barflies, bar fights, pirates, fruit flies...

riderboy
Oct. 19, 2009, 10:34 PM
Totally agree. That this quote is even a debate makes me sad for the future of our sport. Having a 'tough' horse is not a bad thing! My God, whether it's this or "man up" who cares? Is this really a big concern in anyones life? Hug it tight and let it go. I think everyone is reading WAY too much into whatever he said.

Ajierene
Oct. 19, 2009, 10:39 PM
Lex, fighting in a bar is probably just a misdomenor. Being a pirate is a felony. You want them to be a badass, but not a reprobate. Then also you have the whole problem of Talk Like a Pirate Day for an animal that can't talk.

I would much prefer a pirate horse. At least a pirate horse knows what it is doing. Pirates are also much more cunning than barflies. Then there is the treasure to think about....maybe my pirate mare will tell me where her's is buried if I'm real nice to her.

Barfights are 99% of the time participated in by drunk people that don't even know why they are fighting and end up in jail 'sleeping it off'. Ruining people's lives with no explanation - then possibly driving home drunk and being involved in an accident.

TB or not TB?
Oct. 19, 2009, 10:50 PM
But whatever -- barflies, bar fights, pirates, fruit flies...

Fruit bats??? :eek:

RAyers
Oct. 19, 2009, 11:32 PM
USEF reports the statement as follows:

"He’s a real tough mongrel of a horse,” said Martin. “If you look at all the top horses here – they aren’t show ponies. You’d see them in a bar fight.”

Either way, doesn't do much good for Eventing's image.

The quote I was referring to was the one in the snoopy's link also duplicated by JAGold.

In a side bar COTH article in 2001 I said about my horse, "It looks worse than it feels. He's like a 3 year-old with Attention Deficit Disorder. He used to be totally unratable." So, I see nothing wrong with Boyd's description.

Reed

subk
Oct. 19, 2009, 11:42 PM
I would much prefer a pirate horse... Then there is the treasure to think about....maybe my pirate mare will tell me where her's is buried if I'm real nice to her.
You've watched too many Disney movies, or have a crush on Johnny Depp.

*I* on the other hand am a direct descendant of a Revolutionary War privateer, and I can tell you a *real* pirate horse would dump you in the water jump before even thinking about telling you where their treasure is buried...

Equa
Oct. 19, 2009, 11:59 PM
Unless Neville Bardos has changed since becoming an American (which I doubt), then Boyd's comments really make sense. Neville is named after a character in a film about a notorious gangster, Chopper Reid ("Chopper"). The character's name in the film is actually Neville F*****g Bardos, but the EFA wouldn't let Boyd use the middle part....

The last time I saw Neville at a competition, he kept pulling away from the truck and creating havoc and picking fights with the other horses...

Mach Two
Oct. 20, 2009, 12:01 AM
Heck Susan, I'd ride a horse that was a little bit bar fly, a little bit Johnny Depp....oh wait a minute ...I had that horse already.:winkgrin:

Mach Two
Oct. 20, 2009, 12:08 AM
I think the real debate is about the 'man up' part of the quote -- and that is a very legitimate debate. What does it mean to 'man up' when conditions might not be right for your horse?

But whatever -- barflies, bar fights, pirates, fruit flies...

Seems from the results that the conditions were just right for Boyd's horse. But it takes a certain kind of man or woman to boot up and vest up and glove up and helmet up and ride when one has to ride in less than perfect conditions.
Not saying that scratching when conditions don't feel right is the wrong thing, but it's eventing not posing for the oxer picture It's a different kind of mindset, and not a wrong thing, either.
To each his or her own.

dogchushu
Oct. 20, 2009, 12:27 AM
Oh. Well then.

Around here barflies are just kinda slimy alcoholics with nothing better to do than drink on the governments dime. And they are not the type to be motivated enough to actually brawl with anyone - as it cuts into their drinking and pity-party time.

That's why didn't get the comment at all. And was hoping the down-under version was better than our local version of bar fly. Just seemed rather disrespectful to the horses.

Reminds me of a bad joke - "So a TB and a WB walk into a bar..."

SCFarm

Huh. I'd always heard the term "barflies" used to describe alcoholic older women on the prowl! I was wondering how they had an advantage cross country! :lol:

Mach Two
Oct. 20, 2009, 12:34 AM
They are used to fighting for position at the bar?

LLDM
Oct. 20, 2009, 12:35 AM
Hey, I'm still waiting for an in-depth debate on the characteristics of the Australian vs US-East Coast vs US Western bar fly. 'Cause if Boyd is insulting any eventing horses in this country by comparing them to an East Coast bar fly, then I'm going to chain to a bar stool in VA Beach 6 weeks after tourist season is over until he takes it back! That boy thinks he's tough now? Ha!

SCFarm <why yes, I am kidding>

Ajierene
Oct. 20, 2009, 09:26 AM
You've watched too many Disney movies, or have a crush on Johnny Depp.

*I* on the other hand am a direct descendant of a Revolutionary War privateer, and I can tell you a *real* pirate horse would dump you in the water jump before even thinking about telling you where their treasure is buried...

Pshaw....your just upset that your ancestors never told anyone where their treasure is buried - or that they didn't have any. Imagine all the horses you could buy and compete with that treasure! Yep, now we know the truth about you!

S A McKee
Oct. 20, 2009, 10:44 AM
The quote I was referring to was the one in the snoopy's link also duplicated by JAGold.


Reed

I realize what you were quoting. However, I was pointing out that your insistence on the wording may be incorrect given that USEF has a different version. Just because a possibly incorrect quote was sworn to by JAGold doesn't make it gospel. LOL
And I think this sub topic is because someone disagreed with you on the quote and you got all defensive about it.

And to whoever implied that you'd like eventing to have a rep comparable to barfighting, just WOW. What were you thinking !!!

JAGold
Oct. 20, 2009, 02:53 PM
I realize what you were quoting. However, I was pointing out that your insistence on the wording may be incorrect given that USEF has a different version. Just because a possibly incorrect quote was sworn to by JAGold doesn't make it gospel. LOL
Uh, I copied it -- and linked to it -- directly from Boyd's blog. I'm not claiming it's gospel, but I doubt Boyd misquoted himself.

bornfreenowexpensive
Oct. 20, 2009, 03:03 PM
And to whoever implied that you'd like eventing to have a rep comparable to barfighting, just WOW. What were you thinking !!!


Eventing may not be like a bar fight....but some of our horses have the personalities that WOULD get into a bar fight....that is how I understood Boyd. Actually....a lot of top athletes have that sort of personality. They are opinionated, strong willed and tough.....I like those traits in a top horse. And most (not all) of the top horses that I've known in both eventing and jumpers I would describe this way.

Mach Two
Oct. 20, 2009, 04:33 PM
And most (not all) of the top horses that I've known in both eventing and jumpers I would describe this way.

Same here...I have known only a couple of UL exceptions, and like bornfreenowexpensive, I've been in the trenches with them under pressure.
They are usually tough and swaggering sorts. Ever see Virginia Leng's description (from a late 80's video) about her horses?

GotSpots
Oct. 20, 2009, 04:49 PM
Eventing may not be like a bar fight....but some of our horses have the personalities that WOULD get into a bar fight.... Some of the top riders, too . . . . ;)

SevenDogs
Oct. 20, 2009, 04:50 PM
Come to think of it, I believe there was a barfight at the WEG in Spain. New Zealand riders involved..... no horses that I know of..... :lol:

RAyers
Oct. 20, 2009, 04:53 PM
I know of two former US team members with whom I got into a bar fight (literally). They were coming to my aid on the dance floor. Ah, good times.

Reed

subk
Oct. 20, 2009, 04:54 PM
Reed, is your dancing that bad?

eventer80
Oct. 20, 2009, 05:15 PM
I think we need a shirt! What about, "My horse is a Bar Fly.: :)

yellowbritches
Oct. 20, 2009, 05:18 PM
uhhh, I know of a couple of UL riders who nearly got into a fight with a bunch of Hell's Angels. They decided that they, being skinny event riders, probably wouldn't fair well, so they ran like hell instead. :lol: But the fact they were in the same bar as HA is sayin something!;)

Backstage
Oct. 20, 2009, 05:31 PM
uhhh, I know of a couple of UL riders who nearly got into a fight with a bunch of Hell's Angels. They decided that they, being skinny event riders, probably wouldn't fair well, so they ran like hell instead. :lol: But the fact they were in the same bar as HA is sayin something!;)

Maybe event riders and Hell's Angels just like the same places? Years ago we managed to draw some late ride times one year at an out of town event and so headed off for a diner-style breakfast before starting the day...the little diner had place mats that proudly proclaimed that certain members of the HA had eaten there.

RacetrackReject
Oct. 20, 2009, 06:13 PM
I agree with Dogchusu. Barfly here typically refers to the equivalent of a female prostitute minus the getting paid part.

bornfreenowexpensive
Oct. 20, 2009, 06:17 PM
uhhh, I know of a couple of UL riders who nearly got into a fight with a bunch of Hell's Angels. They decided that they, being skinny event riders, probably wouldn't fair well, so they ran like hell instead. :lol: But the fact they were in the same bar as HA is sayin something!;)



Ahh....tough, brave, strong will...but has some self preservation and isn't totally stupid....sounds like a perfect event horse...or rider!

tuppysmom
Oct. 20, 2009, 07:13 PM
Just walk past our stalls and you'll see that DDs horse is looking for a bar n fight. He is a nasty little guy who handles mud with ease. Had the course been intact, we would likely have run him.

After walking the modified course, watching some of the ** and *** horses go, and knowing that we didn't "need" to run, we untacked and went back to the barn.

The course was a test for sure, but there will be others.

No harm, no foul

subk
Oct. 20, 2009, 10:47 PM
Pshaw....your just upset that your ancestors never told anyone where their treasure is buried - or that they didn't have any. Imagine all the horses you could buy and compete with that treasure! Yep, now we know the truth about you!
Nawww...the privateer treasure is well documented in a US Supreme Court decision that is still studied today. But alas, a couple g great aunts went through the last of it before my mama was born.

Now the other side of the family is Irish and we know about leprechauns and THEIR buried treasure. Now I can see an upper level horse having the personality and cunning of a leprechaun--but a real one not a Disneyfied one...

Oh yeah, I think the average age of a guy that rides a Harley is 40-50 something. Last time I was in a biker bar there were about 30 bikes outside and all the guys in leather inside were old and balding. Some of them looked like accountants playing dress up.

On a serious note this thread got me going back and reading some of Boyd's stuff. Colorful and fun. I sure hope he doesn't stop using descriptive words like "pearler" and "chop" because a handful of folks are whining :D

JumpingBug
Oct. 21, 2009, 12:26 PM
Heh do not think Boyd is much of a brawler but he did in recent months tumble from a moving car (not on a main road) on way home from a very well attended wedding.. Silly rabbit

MAC DEUCE
Oct. 22, 2009, 11:13 AM
I am not sure as to how to interpret this comment. Those who did decide to WD did so for the welfare of their horses...That is also to "man-up". "When it comes down to a gladiator style fight, you get the tough horses and riders, the ones who can man up when things aren't perfect."


So, do you think it's possible that by Jennie "Manning Up" (as Boyd may put it) running Cooper around the XC course under those horrible conditions, having a stop with only a handful of time penalties could have put some undue strain on Cooper which contributed to his demise on Sunday? No one will know for sure. If only they had verbal input on their own welfare for when us humans mis-judge the signs. How unfortunate for a wonderful horse.

subk
Oct. 22, 2009, 11:55 AM
If only they had verbal input on their own welfare for when us humans mis-judge the signs.
MAC if you're going to pubicaly accuse someone of "mis-judging the signs" concerning the horse's welfare you better pony up with some evidence that their were indeed "signs," that those signs were mis-judged, and how it is that you knew there were signs in the first place. If you can't do that?...Well then, that's says more about you and your character than it ever could about Jennie's.

MAC DEUCE
Oct. 22, 2009, 01:45 PM
MAC if you're going to pubicaly accuse someone of "mis-judging the signs" concerning the horse's welfare you better pony up with some evidence that their were indeed "signs," that those signs were mis-judged, and how it is that you knew there were signs in the first place. If you can't do that?...Well then, that's says more about you and your character than it ever could about Jennie's.

Why so defensive SUBK? I think it is a good question to ask and discuss, could running XC have played a role in the injury? Like I said, no one will ever know but it is good to think about and discuss the question for insight on future decisions. Is that what the COTH forum is for so the questions can be discussed? Maybe not.

Regarding your demand that I "better pony up with some evidence that their were indeed "signs,"

The definition of Pony up follows (it's not the same as "manning up" which was the subject of this thread)
Pony up (transitive and intransitive verb)

pay
to pay somebody the money that is owed to him or her.


I don't owe you anything SUBK, but if you are politely aksing me for the basis of my question; 45% of the two star rides withdrew and 35% of the three star rides withdrew, the organizer took many fences off the course, numerous riders were being eliminated or were retiring on course...

We all make our own decisions on whether to "man up" and run or not and when the outcome is good, then we think we've made the right decision. When the outcome is bad, then we should probably "man up" and think about what happened and try to understand whether or not one thing could have lead to another. If we just close our minds and don't try to understand why something could have happened, then we will never grow and mature in our decision making process.

I've made decisions that have probably contributed to injuries over the years. I certainly did not intend for my horses to get hurt from those decisions I've made, but those decisions and outcomes help me when I make new decisions in tough situations. That's called learning and maturing.

lstevenson
Oct. 22, 2009, 01:59 PM
could running XC have played a role in the injury?


If you knew your facts you would know that the answer to that would be highly unlikely. He didn't "break down" in the sj, he had a crash and subsuquent injury. He had passed the vet that morning. Accidents happen, and it's pretty clear that this was an isolated unfortunate accident.

Blugal
Oct. 22, 2009, 02:28 PM
LLDM, are you confusing the winner of the 2-star with Jennie & Cooper, who competed in the 3-star?

MAC DEUCE
Oct. 22, 2009, 03:47 PM
If you knew your facts you would know that the answer to that would be highly unlikely. He didn't "break down" in the sj, he had a crash and subsuquent injury. He had passed the vet that morning. Accidents happen, and it's pretty clear that this was an isolated unfortunate accident.

Do any of us know the facts? Probably not and we probably will never know all the facts but this is what I do know from the 10/21/09 blog:

"His focus was elsewhere. I think he was looking at the cross-country jump. It was weird. I didn't get his focus on the jump he was supposed to be jumping until the take-off stride, and by that point there really wasn't a distance or any real chance of him jumping. He crashed straight into it."

So from that quote the question is, what was he focused on? Maybe he was having pain in his left hind from a strained muscle or tendon...maybe that's where his focus was. I don't know. That's why we ask the questions. From what the blog says, something wasn't right before he crashed through the show jump.

If you know the facts lstevenson, what happened? Did a jump pole that he crashed through slice through his tendon? Was it a jump cup that injured it? What are the facts of how the injury occurred, what was he focused on that the rider felt it was weird before the accident? No one is questioning whether or not it was an accident, we are trying to learn from the accident. Without all the facts, we will never know the reason for this unfortunate injury.

And, if you been involved in many 3*'s and above, "passing the vet that morning" doesn't mean much. It means that you did what you had to do throughout the night and into the morning to get thru the jog, you bought yourself a bit more time to spend more money with the farrier and/or the vet to see if you can get your horse through show jumping....

LLDM
Oct. 22, 2009, 04:17 PM
LLDM, are you confusing the winner of the 2-star with Jennie & Cooper, who competed in the 3-star?

Seems that I am! Sorry.

NCRider
Oct. 22, 2009, 04:35 PM
Mac Deuce,
I don't know you (as you're new), I don't know JB at all, but I do know that I very much enjoy her blog and I've really enjoyed her appearances on the Eventing Radio Show. She's candid and engaging. I also know that the sum total of your posts here on COTH make you seem to be a bit of a sour personality with an obvious agenda. For those of us who miss the early days of rider newsletters and blogging, when the stars of this sport shared their ups and downs with us, their successes and failures, and allowed us to go along with their journeys, I ask you to please take your agenda elsewhere. Gossip with your barnmates if you feel the need to engage in nasty speculation, but please don't silence another one of the more interesting personalities in this sport. There's nothing to be gained by dscussing this particular matter over the internet among people with no particular knowledge of what happened.

Blogs that consist of nothing more than "We went to the following 5 shows and ended up XYZ, THE END" will be all that's left when people like you get finished. Please don't ruin it fo the rest of us. I meant to ignore you because I'd like this thread to die so there's less of a chance that anyone close to JB reads it in this difficult time, but you made me so mad, I couldn't resist. Thank you.

FairWeather
Oct. 22, 2009, 05:22 PM
[edit]


could running XC have played a role in the injury?

could the flap of butterfly wings affect the tea prices in China??

subk
Oct. 22, 2009, 05:31 PM
Why so defensive SUBK? I think it is a good question to ask and discuss, could running XC have played a role in the injury? Like I said, no one will ever know but it is good to think about and discuss the question for insight on future decisions. Is that what the COTH forum is for so the questions can be discussed? Maybe not.
I'm defensive because I find public slander of people by anonymous individuals offensive, and your first post brazenly flirts with it. What I object to--since you obviously did not read my post--was your statement strongly implying that the horse showed "signs" that all was not physically well and the rider "mis-judged" those signs and rode him anyway. That is a very serious charge, and you seem to be making it with no evidence.

I have no issues what so ever with the discussion that XC exertion can have physical effects in show jumping. The theory that a difficult endurance day can lead to problems on SJ day is at the very fundemental core of what the sport of 3-day eventing is all about. Jumping around a 4 foot show jumping course is not that big of a deal, jumping around one the day after running endurance is a whole different thing. I find that those who have never done it tend to underestimate how defining the previous day is to the experience.

I'm sure there is an argument that in some specific instances the physical exertion on Saturday manifests itself negatively in the horse and Sunday's round pushes the limits and lead to injury. For two reasons I find this particular instance a very poor case for that theory. 1) From multiple accounts the horse was jumping like gang busters before the incident, which limits suspicion of fatigue or pain. 2) The injury is NOT the result of an internal breakdown of tissue such as a tendon or ligament, but a puncture wound which was the result of the stop NOT the cause. At this moment the horse is suffering no injury of which the direct cause can be related to exertion, so linking his current state to exertion and then implying that the rider failed to see the "signs" seems unreasonable to me.

JAGold
Oct. 22, 2009, 07:27 PM
Excellent post, subk. Thanks for saying what needed to be said in response to an insensitive, uninformed comment.

MAC DEUCE
Oct. 22, 2009, 08:26 PM
I'm defensive because I find public slander of people by anonymous individuals offensive, and your first post brazenly flirts with it. What I object to--since you obviously did not read my post--was your statement strongly implying that the horse showed "signs" that all was not physically well and the rider "mis-judged" those signs and rode him anyway. That is a very serious charge, and you seem to be making it with no evidence.


Slandering? Please re-read my quote:

"Regarding your demand that I "better pony up with some evidence that their were indeed "signs,"

The definition of Pony up follows (it's not the same as "manning up" which was the subject of this thread)
Pony up (transitive and intransitive verb)

pay
to pay somebody the money that is owed to him or her.


I don't owe you anything SUBK, but if you are politely aksing me for the basis of my question; 45% of the two star rides withdrew and 35% of the three star rides withdrew, the organizer took many fences off the course, numerous riders were being eliminated or were retiring on course..."

The facts listed above are the "signs" that I was referring to that maybe, just maybe it wasn't a good day to run XC. I NEVER said that the horse showed physical signs and that the rider ignored them as you have accused. That was an incorrect assumption on your part. So, I did not slander anyone.

I am glad however, that after all the unnecessary emotional lashings I received from a few on this thread, that there is finally some thought and discussion on the question raised in my first blog; could the "manning up" (as Boyd calls it which is what this thread is about) have caused some undue strain on the horse which could have lead to the injury!

So thanks subk for your input on the subject of the post.

LexInVA
Oct. 22, 2009, 08:58 PM
Oh poo....

Meredith Clark
Oct. 22, 2009, 09:21 PM
Oh poo....

agreed.

can we talk about bar fights and pirates again?

retreadeventer
Oct. 22, 2009, 09:21 PM
Okay, evidence! :)
Mudbowl or CCI? you be the judge!
http://www.staugustineponyclub.com/Fair%20Hill%20CCI.html

(oh and they know about the names, they are just kids, give them a break.)

lstevenson
Oct. 22, 2009, 10:09 PM
. 1) From multiple accounts the horse was jumping like gang busters before the incident, which limits suspicion of fatigue or pain. 2) The injury is NOT the result of an internal breakdown of tissue such as a tendon or ligament, but a puncture wound which was the result of the stop NOT the cause. At this moment the horse is suffering no injury of which the direct cause can be related to exertion, so linking his current state to exertion and then implying that the rider failed to see the "signs" seems unreasonable to me.


Exactly. [edit]

LexInVA
Oct. 22, 2009, 10:40 PM
They just put out a "What-if?" supposition followed by a musing on an all too common problem in equestrian sports. There was not an accusation of any sort but I know some of you are going to take it as someone throwing her under the bus with the likes of she who shall not be named who clings to the suspension of the bus. [edit] Move along. These are not the droids you are looking for.

lizajane09
Oct. 22, 2009, 10:45 PM
MAC, before you go picking on subk's word choice and offering up definitions, you might want to be more careful with your own. You refer to Cooper's "demise" on Sunday - a little overdramatic, given that he didn't actually DIE.

LexInVA
Oct. 22, 2009, 10:47 PM
Downfall would have been a better choice of wording I suppose.

clm08
Oct. 22, 2009, 11:51 PM
Is MacDeuce possibly related to the [person] who a while ago posted about watching JB grind Cooper down on XC phase? I can't remember the specifics, I only remember the [poster] saying she had personally watched JB running her exhausted horse during XC earlier this year, an unfounded accusation, of course.

I personally watched JB and Cooper, at AECs this year, and think they really look like a lovely pair and a great partnership. I am sorry for the accident at FH :and hope [these people] will go away and take their agenda with them.:mad:

RAyers
Oct. 23, 2009, 12:30 AM
... Move along. These are not the droids you are looking for.

Which begs the question: Has Obi Wan Lexobi ever been in a bar fight? Or been a fly in a bar?

Reed

subk
Oct. 23, 2009, 12:52 AM
but if you are politely aksing me for the basis of my question; 45% of the two star rides withdrew and 35% of the three star rides withdrew, the organizer took many fences off the course, numerous riders were being eliminated or were retiring on course...[/B]"

The facts listed above are the "signs" that I was referring to that maybe, just maybe it wasn't a good day to run XC. I NEVER said that the horse showed physical signs and that the rider ignored them as you have accused. That was an incorrect assumption on your part. So, I did not slander anyone.

Alright, if you want to back off and spin it that you never intended those "signs" of yours were missed physical manifestations in the horse, I can play. Let's talk about these other "signs" of yours.
1) 45% CCI** WD--I would expect more WDs from the two star as this group was less experienced as a whole on less experienced horses. This group also had the disadvantage of having to make a decision before seeing very many, if any, horses run.

2) 35% CCI*** WD. And interesting factoid that can only have been calculated after all the horses had finished. JB ran about in the middle of the go. In real time no one really knew how many riders were WDed or what the total would be at the end of the day. In fact it was noted somewhere that because many riders weren't telling the office, they just weren't showing up in warmup it was making it difficult to manage start times. A rider would have certainly known there were a lot of scratches but it is questionable whether riding in the middle of the division if that sense could have been very accurate--because even the officials didn't know!

3) The organizer took fences off--a big overt effort on the part of officials to make the course safer is actually an encouragement to ride--not to WD.

4)Numerous Es and Rs. (This is my favorite!) 45 CCI*** riders left the box.
A total of 7 Rs and Es (15%) and 5 had jumping penalties (11%) for a total of 26% had jumping problems. Now to me that sounds pretty reasonable. In fact if you compare it to Rolex this year (which had beautiful weather) 13% R/E, 11% Jump penalties for a total of 25% with problems. There would have been no sense in the barn that there were "numerous problems" because quite frankly there weren't! That the number of problems were so in line to what's consider normal is an incredible testament to the officials, the riders, and the volunteers--personally I'm gobsmacked (and just a little proud of my sport!)

MAC you're right. It was not a good day to ride XC. It was rainy, windy, cold and miserable--conditions all these horse and riders have competed in before. But just because it was a bad day for XC doesn't/and didn't necessarily make it an unsafe day.

I would also add this. As the diet of Americans have become more unhealthy the volume of flatulence released into the atmosphere has increased. At the same time the earth has warmed. But correlation is not causation, and unless you have some evidence linking the two it's just a bunch of farting and hot air.

LexInVA
Oct. 23, 2009, 12:58 AM
As the diet of Americans have become more unhealthy the volume of flatulence released into the atmosphere has increased. At the same time the earth has warmed. But correlation is not causation, and unless you have some evidence linking the two it's just a bunch of farting and hot air.

Guess I shouldn't have had those dozen or so chicken wings for dinner, eh?

subk
Oct. 23, 2009, 01:04 AM
Guess I shouldn't have had those dozen or so chicken wings for dinner, eh?
I don't know, did you eat them in a bar? With a fly?

dcphoto
Oct. 23, 2009, 01:07 AM
Ok, time to chime in on this one... it has gone on for far too long. The bottom line is, even though 35% of the riders withdrew from the 3 star, 65% of them still chose to compete. They chose to do so based on the intimate knowledge of each of their horses. Going back to what Boyd said, if you've got a tough, bar-fighting mongrel of a horse, it can handle the conditions and continue on. If you horse likes perfectly groomed and dry footing, Fair Hill would not have been your event this year. So unless we want to accuse 65% of the *** competitors of being cruel and insensitive to their horses needs, I think we need to let this one rest.

I personally was at Fair Hill and I watched every rider go around both the ** and the ***. The riders that started the course but then realized it may have been too much, pulled up like the responsible horsepeople they are. Jennie and Coop looked absolutely fantastic in the part that I saw (the final 5-6 efforts) and aside from a tiny blip of a fence that Several other riders had issues with, it appeared as though Cooper wasn't even phased by the conditions. When it comes to speculating on issues like this, I think we need to give our riders the benefit of the doubt and trust that they know their horses just a little bit better than we do.

RAyers
Oct. 23, 2009, 01:57 AM
Ok, time to chime in on this one... it has gone on for far too long. The bottom line is, even though 35% of the riders withdrew from the 3 star, 45% of them still chose to compete...

And the other 20% were in bar fights and unable to make the competition.

dcphoto
Oct. 23, 2009, 08:54 AM
I guess that's what I get when I decide to post something at 1:00 am

Ajierene
Oct. 23, 2009, 09:35 AM
I can see where Mac Deuce is going with this, as a hypothetical.

Take horse A. Horse A starts on a muddy, horrid cross country course, after coming out of his stall that someone else on this board described as a personal water jump. Adrenaline kicks in and he makes it around. He is tired and overtaxed, though. He goes back to his personal water jump of a stall and does not sleep well that night because, well, he's not a fish...

Next day, wakes up, has breakfast, goes for a little jog and seems alright, but the taxing run the day before plus the lack of a real good night's rest makes him tired a lot quicker. Adrenaline kicks in at the start of stadium, but it isn't enough to hold him and his attention wanders to the point where he sees a jump way to late and hits it, injuring himself.

This is an entirely plausible scenario. I have not looked at the results of stadium, but if many horses were performing more poorly than standard, then I would say there is cause to go back and revisit exactly how important it is to run an event in such conditions. I understand all the money, time, etc. involved, but the entire scene was of a muddy mess. Even postponing it one week may have been a better idea. It is definitely something to think about.

This is also where Boyd's comments concern me. When Laine Ashker was saying things like this, she was being held over the fire. Because nothing happened to Boyd's horse - its fine that he says 'only the tough went out', people need to 'man up'. You know what? I'm an amateur rider and if I had a horse I was riding in that event, I likely would have pulled out also. Is it because I or my horse were not as tough as Boyd or is it because I don't have anything to prove to anyone? I infer from Boyd's statements that he did feel that those that did not run the cross country phase were not tough enough for the challenge. This is especially true since I have not seen him mention anything about the other horse he was riding that was pulled - like he's sweeping that under the rug.

His statements may make someone run when they really shouldn't, in the future. Much like people worry about the riders that follow in Laine Ashker's footsteps. This was just one statement from Boyd, so hopefully not a trend.

nomeolvides
Oct. 23, 2009, 11:07 AM
Maybe I read the quote in the first post wrong, but I did not get the impression he was telling people to "man up". It sounded more like he was describing the horses that coped well in difficult conditions as able to "man up". Anywhooo, this thread is a bit crazy. Maybe riders just shouldn't say anything at all ;)

bornfreenowexpensive
Oct. 23, 2009, 12:03 PM
Maybe I read the quote in the first post wrong, but I did not get the impression he was telling people to "man up". It sounded more like he was describing the horses that coped well in difficult conditions as able to "man up". Anywhooo, this thread is a bit crazy. Maybe riders just shouldn't say anything at all ;)


I read it the same way you did...and while this thread is pretty crazy...some of it pretty entertaining too:lol: At least more entertaining than this conference call I'm sitting on:eek:

lcw579
Oct. 23, 2009, 12:15 PM
What a tempest in a teapot this thread is! I can't believe it is still going on and on and on.

For God's sake give it a rest, whether you call the horse a bar fly or a mongrel, call it manning up or making the decision to run all it means is the rider, who knows the horse better than any internet poster, read the conditions and decided that his horse could make the trip. Nowhere did it cast aspersions on those who decided to withdraw.

FWIW Boyd Martin did the course walk at Radnor and made a very favorable impression on a group of teenage girls. They are still talking about how nice he was and what a good job he did explaining the course. It would be a shame if reactions like this caused him to stop interacting with his legions of fans....


As for the term bar fly - I'm in the camp that thinks it means a woman of questionable morals who is just this side of being an alcoholic. It is my mother's biggest fear that any of her daughters appear to be one! ;)

subk
Oct. 23, 2009, 12:33 PM
This is an entirely plausible scenario. I have not looked at the results of stadium, but if many horses were performing more poorly than standard, then I would say there is cause to go back and revisit exactly how important it is to run an event in such conditions.

I've already done the numbers in an earlier post showing the XC performance of the group was by the numbers almost exactly on par with Rolex this year where the weather was great.

Now the numbers for this years stadium in comparison to the Far Hill stadium of last year:
2009 0 faults-37% 4 faults-20% 8 faults-14% 12 faults-17% 16+faults-11% 1 horse E'd
2008 0 faults-13% 4 faults-24% 8 faults-16% 12 faults-26% 16+faults-21% 0 horse E'd

Overall as a group the horses performed BETTER this year in stadium than last.

So yes, there is a plausible scenario out there that bad conditions can manifest itself in poor performance, yet at Fair Hill this year there isn't any evidence that that is what happened!

snoopy
Oct. 23, 2009, 12:39 PM
FWIW Boyd Martin did the course walk at Radnor and made a very favorable impression on a group of teenage girls.



:lol:

LexInVA
Oct. 23, 2009, 01:00 PM
I have to say that Boyd Martin could probably kick a puppy in front of a bunch of googly-eyed teenage girls and they wouldn't bat an eyelash over it.

advmom
Oct. 23, 2009, 01:12 PM
Of course Boyd made a very good lasting impression on a group of young riders, he is a very professional young man.
For some on this board speculating and reading into quotes given by others is a fulltime sport. What ever terms he chose to use is irrelevant, it was a course and conditions that tested the "fight" in both horse and rider. All the Professionals who chose to run or sent their riders would not have done so without regard for their horses.
Fairhill presented major challenges to all riders, those that chose to run did so becuase they know their horses well, the conditions were not suitable to all and if you were late going in the Div it had the potential to be much worse.
The *** turf held up very well, and the riders who rode, for the most part made very good decisions for their horses and themselves.

lcw579
Oct. 23, 2009, 04:10 PM
Well said, advmom.



I have to say that Boyd Martin could probably kick a puppy in front of a bunch of googly-eyed teenage girls and they wouldn't bat an eyelash over it.

Not these teenagers! They would have kicked him into the water and held him under. They were more impressed by the time he took and the explanations he gave than his looks.

Moderator 1
Oct. 24, 2009, 01:28 PM
Daring to bump this thread back up with another post, we remind everyone to avoid personal insults, name-calling, etc. when debating issues in the forum, per forum policy. Everyone's points can be made without it. We've removed a few comments.

Even if a new poster appears with a controversial opinion or on a heated thread, please avoid brandishing the "troll" label. If someone appears to be posting just to illicit a reaction, thus trolling, either ignore that person, attempt to counter their points if you wish, or report it if you think the person is here more to prod than to engage in discussion.

Thanks,
Mod 1

Dingo
Oct. 25, 2009, 08:34 PM
Cross country has been this nations 'week' phase in the last Olympics and WEGs. Without 4 or 5 strong cross country scores, there is NO team result. Maybe as a country, we need to 'man-up' and improve this phase. Learning to ride and compete in tough conditions is part of this.

Mach Two
Oct. 25, 2009, 09:31 PM
Cross country has been this nations 'week' phase in the last Olympics and WEGs. Without 4 or 5 strong cross country scores, there is NO team result. Maybe as a country, we need to 'man-up' and improve this phase. Learning to ride and compete in tough conditions is part of this.

so no riders greasing up their manhides with body butter and eating Tahi food anymore!

I do agree...riding and competing in tough conditions is what real eventing is about. BRING BACK JACK LeGOFF!

LexInVA
Oct. 25, 2009, 10:09 PM
I do agree...riding and competing in tough conditions is what real eventing is about. BRING BACK JACK LeGOFF!

He's dead, Jim.

LAZ
Oct. 25, 2009, 10:15 PM
He's dead, Jim.

Details, details.... :lol:

Snapdragon
Oct. 25, 2009, 11:18 PM
He's dead, Jim.

Lex, you're too funny, although RIP Le Goff. When I get frustrated in my work, I often say, "I'm just a country editor, Jim!"

Having taken a few lessons from Boyd, I have to say, he's completely down to earth, knows his stuff, and is very good at teaching. Hard for me to believe that he meant to insult anyone or make a grand statement on the state of the sport. I think it was just his take on the day, his state of mind, knowing his horse, blah, blah, blah.

RAyers
Oct. 25, 2009, 11:25 PM
He's dead, Jim.

Damnit, Jim! I'm a doctor, not Miracle Max! Of course there are those of us who think Francisco Franco is just still very tired.

JER
Oct. 25, 2009, 11:29 PM
But there's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead.

Dr. Doolittle
Oct. 25, 2009, 11:36 PM
:lol:

bornfreenowexpensive
Oct. 26, 2009, 10:07 AM
But there's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead.



:lol::lol::lol:

(that's a classic....one of my favorite movies:D)