PDA

View Full Version : So what is the general opinion of the stadium refusal rule...4 faults instead of 10



Xctrygirl
Jul. 13, 2003, 08:37 PM
I am starting to find myself not very happy about this new rule. I am trying to be more fair however and want to know what you all think as well.

It seems to me that a disobediance such as a refusal to jump would be worse than a rail.

And yes I am miffed because I was clean in my event this weekend and 3 people with stops in stadium beat me. My dressage score was ugly but still I am not of the mindset that a better dressage horse who quits in stadium deserves to beat my poor dressage but great jumping horse.

Ok well thats why I am curious... now what do you all think?

~Emily

"The brave may not live forever, but the cautious never truly live at all"

Xctrygirl
Jul. 13, 2003, 08:37 PM
I am starting to find myself not very happy about this new rule. I am trying to be more fair however and want to know what you all think as well.

It seems to me that a disobediance such as a refusal to jump would be worse than a rail.

And yes I am miffed because I was clean in my event this weekend and 3 people with stops in stadium beat me. My dressage score was ugly but still I am not of the mindset that a better dressage horse who quits in stadium deserves to beat my poor dressage but great jumping horse.

Ok well thats why I am curious... now what do you all think?

~Emily

"The brave may not live forever, but the cautious never truly live at all"

WhatzUp
Jul. 13, 2003, 09:21 PM
Hi !

Is this a US rule then ?

Or does it apply to FEI levels also ...

It is not so in the non-FEI levels in Canada ... as far as I know ...

Yours in sport,

Lynn

Janet
Jul. 14, 2003, 12:18 AM
It is an FEI rule. The US has decided to make the "National" rules match the FEI rules.

The expectation is that if you have a refusal, you will also have time faults.

If people are having refusals and not getting time faults, then the stadium time is probably being measured too generously. (This would certainly apply at the higher levels, not sure if it applies to BN and N where the speed is pretty generouus.)

Janet
chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle, and Brain

hookedoneventing
Jul. 14, 2003, 04:14 AM
I agree with you. I have a hard time seeing a refusal in the same penalty as a rail. I think that if the horse stops there should be much more weight especially if he is stopping in the stadium round.

RAyers
Jul. 14, 2003, 05:35 AM
I agree with Janet. Since time is now penalized at 1 penalty per second over, a refusal should always result in more penaties than just the 4. In a sense this is going to put the onus on the stadium course designers to make more challenging stdium courses. Of course not much can be done at the lower levels, however, it makes great sense to me at upper levels.

Reed

They sicken of the calm who know the storm - Dorothy Parker

tle
Jul. 14, 2003, 06:18 AM
While a refusal "should" always result in time faults, it doesn't always, especially at BN-N and sometimes T. The problem is that this rule is designed for upper levels... and it works beautifully there. However, upper levels and lower levels aren't the same thing and due to lower speeds, all we're teaching people is that if you have a stop, you need to run hell bent for leather over the rest of the course to make time -- and they do!! So we institute speed faults on XC to keep that from happening and then essentially ENCOURAGE it in SJ??? Makes NO sense to me. Why the hell do we HAVE to match the FEI anyway???

************
If Dressage is a Symphony... Eventing is Rock & Roll!!!

"All's well that ends with cute E.R. doctors, I always say." -- Buffy

Synrgystyk
Jul. 14, 2003, 07:56 AM
Possibly I'm a bit biased on this subject since I seem to have a stadium "machine" but, to me, a refusal should incur more penalties than a rail, regardless of time issues. Especially at the lower levels where the time is either very generous or non-existent, it's even more important to emphasize jumping vs. non-jumping.

At the lower levels (not that I'd know anything about upper levels; I'm sweating bullets thinking about running Novice in August) the stadium jumps simply aren't big enough to worry much about bad spots or perfect lines. IMO, most horses can get over anything up through Novice with very little piloting from riders. Given that, why not penalize a stop more than a rail, especially if time faults are not as likely to be a factor?

I'm not sure it would make sense to have a different set of rules for BN, N, and T as far as stadium penalties go, but if, as reported elsewhere, most of our riders are riding at that level, wouldn't it make sense that if there's going to be a "discrepancy" or similar in the rules shouldn't the idea be to have the greatest fairness for the greatest number of riders? (Was that a long enough run-on sentence?!) I guess I'd have to agree with TLE and ask why we need to match the FEI when most US eventers don't ride (and may never ride) at that level.

I'm not sure if that made sense, but I guess what I'm trying to say is that if the idea is that a refusal will also incur time penalties and that isn't happening at the lower levels (and for the majority of riders) then maybe we need to rethink the rule. Yes, we should all be attempting to put in good dressage tests (after all, good dressage is the basis for good jumping), but it doesn't seem quite right that even an excellent dressage test when combined with jumping penalties should beat a mediocre dressage test and flawless stadium and XC rounds.

Ok, I'm pretty sure I'm no longer making sense so I think I'll stop here.

Lorree

Reality is the only word in the language that should always be used in quotes.

Lisamarie8
Jul. 14, 2003, 08:08 AM
very simply...

It is my unbiased and very fancy opinion that the rule change sucks it. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

--- Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will teach you to keep your mouth shut.

tle
Jul. 14, 2003, 08:16 AM
Ok, after thinking about this my opinion hasn't changed (still think it sucks but like loree, I have an SJ machine), but modified. My earlier question on why the hell do we need to mimick FEI rules... well, now I'd say why that has to be done at BN-T. Because of the strict qualification standards on penalties for FEI events (ie: no more than 16 penalties in SJ) I can understand for Prelim + (don't like it but can understand it). However, I still don't see the need to change below that because, as already stated, it doesn't "work" the way the rule is intended.

************
If Dressage is a Symphony... Eventing is Rock & Roll!!!

"All's well that ends with cute E.R. doctors, I always say." -- Buffy

JER
Jul. 14, 2003, 08:51 AM
While I prefer the old rule, I see a downside in asking the horse to jump no matter what. It's not fair to repeatedly ask a horse to jump from a bad distance -- and I've seen more of this at all levels than makes me comfortable.

I've noticed that course design in showjumping has improved this year, at least in California. A few recent courses have really tested accuracy and adjustability -- one course this year was quite simply the best-designed SJ course I've ever seen in eventing (credit goes to Mark Watring, who rode in the Olympics in eventing and then became a showjumping pro). There were very few decent rides at Prelim and Training, even the pros were popping fences badly, but I think a lot of riders learned where they could make some improvements.

JER
Jul. 14, 2003, 11:21 AM
caballo, you make some good points but I don't agree with what you're saying about dressage as the "core of eventing". Going by what I see out here on the west coast, this sort of thinking keeps lower level riders from progressing.

You have to learn to ride the horse up into your hand for both dressage and jumping. This means a horse who's not behind the bit or 'faking it' in a dressage frame. True connection has power and energy whether you're trotting a 20m circle or cantering a big oxer. I see people in the dressage ring cantering without enough impulsion to get over a pole on the ground, and unfortunately, many judges seem to think this is ok.

My 19 year-old draft cross does not do well in dressage. He moves well and forward, he's obedient, but he's got unusual conformation -- he's also part Saddlebred -- and he doesn't score well. When jumping, he is adjustable, careful and he listens to the rider. In other words, the sort of connection and communication you achieve through proper training. A horse like this can take a beginner from Novice to Prelim in a few years, as he did with the 15 year-old who rides him now.

IMO, most event riders are weakest in the SJ ring. There's a lot of finesse and accuracy involved in SJ, and working with a good SJ specialist can do wonders for your skills and your horse's suppleness and adjustablility -- and you'll also notice that it improves your dressage.

Robby Johnson
Jul. 14, 2003, 11:39 AM
working on good s/j will also improve your XC. But I think asking a horse to run around a technical XC at a three-day and then come back for a tougher s/j is pushing it a bit. The original test was designed just to show that a horse could come back soundly and jump a course in hand. As it's progressing, it's "come back and jump a tough course in hand!" I think the horses keep improving, as do the riders, but at some point it must be pointed out that eventing is not a show-jumping competition.

With this in mind, I think that a refusal to jump often reflects a smart horse! Particularly when the riders get them there badly, as JER points out!

Robby

http://community.webshots.com/user/rbjohnsonii

subk
Jul. 14, 2003, 12:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
...it is my understanding that dressage is the core of eventing - ability to communicate with the horse is learned on the flat, not over fences, and is what will save your a$$ in tight situations on XC when you are faced with related distances, tight turns, and the need for precision.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can't disagree more. If there is any single thing that eventing is about it is about a horse moving confidently forward. Always forward. The risks to horse and rider are much more elevated when the horse stops going forward. And while I always hear so much about god-awful rounds with people racing around, those rounds that scare me much, much more are the ones that the horse lopes around and doesn't punch of the ground or sucks back in front of the fences. THOSE are the peole that end up hurt.

One of the biggest things I learned as I moved up the levels was that when you get in trouble if you can keep the horse moving forward you give him a good chance to recover. FORWARD is what saves your a$$ in a tight situation!

As far as dressage being the end all be all--aren't we awfully short sighted here? Dressage is NOT the only way we learn to communicate with horses. There are many horse sports/disiplines that NEVER bring "proper dressage" into their training and those horse and riders have wonderful communication.

I'm not saying that dressage isn't useful or that its benefits should be discounted. But to assume that a horse that is less than proficient in dressage has a lack of communication in other disiplines is just bogus. In my own situation my TB has always been more relaxed and "available" at the gallop--imagine that a horse that is bred to gallop is the most comfortable galloping. Yet I'm still waiting for the "gallop" to be incorporated in those FEI dressage tests. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

So after that long winded justification--a refusal at stadium should knock you out of the ribbons at any level. Why put so much emphasis on going forward in XC (so much so that your out of the ribbons) then change the tune for stadium?

Janet
Jul. 14, 2003, 12:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> If there is any single thing that eventing is about it is about a horse
moving confidently forward. Always forward. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But that IS what dressage is all about. If it isn't "forward", it isn't good dressage.

Janet
chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle, and Brain

subk
Jul. 14, 2003, 12:42 PM
I agree going forward is vital to good dressage, however it is not, as you say, what it is "ALL" about. It is not necessary to do dressage to teach a horse to go forward.

Gry2Yng
Jul. 14, 2003, 02:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Hmm ... is it a coincidence that in this day and age most four stars are won on the dressage?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you can finish on your dressage at a four star, you are an amazing rider and deserve a top ribbon. But you need to look at your stats again. The winning dressage horse at the WEG did not win. Also, stats will show that riders that can go double clear on xc day will move WAY up in the placings at a four star.

At horse trials I would not be surprised if someone told me that more often than not, the horse leading after dressage does not win the competition.

Gry2Yng
Jul. 14, 2003, 03:07 PM
I didn't say that the horses that win dressage don't win. I said horses that go double clear move WAY up the standings.

The winners at four stars are AMAZING riders with fantastic horses that are ALL AROUND athletes. These are fit, well trained horses competing against fit, well trained horses. I believe we are talking about horse trials at the lower levels in this post.

You cannot compare a four star horse to a novice horse trial horse. I'd rather see riders jumping around safely with terrible dressage tests than the other way around. So many riders focus on dressage because they think that is the way to win, then they scare the heck out of all spectators in the xc and stadium and still manage to win.

PLENTY of riders who do a very nice job over fences would never WIN a dressage test. A schooled horse does not necessarily involve a horse that goes around on the vertical with lofty gaits. And believe me, the average hunter/jumper knows ALOT more about rhythm and balance than your average eventer, so dressage is not the exclusive avenue to find those qualities.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Most horses in the U.S. today have horses with Thoroughbred blood that contradicts the old fashioned need to generate impulsion." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't understand what you mean here.

Xctrygirl
Jul. 14, 2003, 03:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by caballo_saltando:
As far as the original poster's whining about her horse's bad dressage but good stadium and that he should have beat the horse's with the reverse:

I am in no way qualified to lecture to anyone about this sport, but it is my understanding that dressage is the core of eventing - ability to communicate with the horse is learned on the flat, not over fences, and is what will save your a$$ in tight situations on XC when you are faced with related distances, tight turns, and the need for precision. So if you can't win on your dressage than that just tells you you need to go back to your basics and get that down.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let me TRY to re-explain my point.

Despite my horse being tense, and my anxiety that came up because of this, his score was not sooo terrible. Nor is he a bad dressage horse. His last event he finished second with a 35.5. This test however we earned a 46.5.

I accept my part in this, being tense and trying to do a better test than was possible at the moment. But let me re-iterate the point was not to "Whine."

But really does it make sense that a horse, not just mine anyone's, that performs all three phases without grevious errors, should be beaten by another that has disobediance problems in any of the three phases?? Stops are bad. They show a lack of obediance and or training. And yes sometimes the spots just suck.

I mean this event was an exception because it lacked any time penalities in either xc or st. So thus the idea behind the stop and time combining for more faults was not apparent.

I think overall the rule may indeed have value at Prelim and above, but again I think we are finding ourselves with a bad rule before a better rule. (Remember the 1 point per second time rule for xc... wow did that blow!)

So lets try to move forward and see if we can get a better stadium rule for the lower levels.

And meanwhile Nick and I will be working on our dressage since, god forbid I ignore the "Core of Eventing" http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

~Emily

"The brave may not live forever, but the cautious never truly live at all"

theponylady
Jul. 14, 2003, 03:49 PM
If you want to win consistently though, you MUST do well in the dressage. And to go clean consistantly in the more technical stadium courses we are seeing these days, a horse must be forward and listening well-two of the main things that dressage is all about. If a horse can not do a lower level dressage test reasonably well, in my opinion, it shouldn't be doing that much jumping! Just because it can get over the fence doesn't mean it is jumping safely or well. And many people are confusing "forward" with "fast", something that can be fixed with good dressage basics.

I see so many wrecks that were so preventable, but people think by making their horse go fast that they are going "forward", but instead they end up running their horse off his feet, getting him off balance, and then some horses get scared and stop. Going at that pace the rider often gets catapulted off, or the horse hits the fence and goes end over end. If the riders would ride their horses jumping the way they should be riding in the dressage, many of these accidents would not happen.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gry2Yng:
I didn't say that the horses that win dressage don't win. I said horses that go double clear move WAY up the standings.

The winners at four stars are AMAZING riders with fantastic horses that are ALL AROUND athletes. These are fit, well trained horses competing against fit, well trained horses. I believe we are talking about horse trials at the lower levels in this post.

You cannot compare a four star horse to a novice horse trial horse. I'd rather see riders jumping around safely with terrible dressage tests than the other way around. So many riders focus on dressage because they think that is the way to win, then they scare the heck out of all spectators in the xc and stadium and still manage to win.

PLENTY of riders who do a very nice job over fences would never WIN a dressage test. A schooled horse does not necessarily involve a horse that goes around on the vertical with lofty gaits. And believe me, the average hunter/jumper knows ALOT more about rhythm and balance than your average eventer, so dressage is not the exclusive avenue to find those qualities.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Most horses in the U.S. today have horses with Thoroughbred blood that contradicts the old fashioned need to generate impulsion." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't understand what you mean here.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Karen Vicencio

Gry2Yng
Jul. 14, 2003, 04:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> If a horse can not do a lower level dressage test reasonably well, in my opinion, it shouldn't be doing that much jumping! Just because it can get over the fence doesn't mean it is jumping safely or well. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Post that statement over on the hunter jumper board and see what kind of response you get.

GatoGordo
Jul. 14, 2003, 04:27 PM
"If a horse can not do a lower level dressage test reasonably well, in my opinion, it shouldn't be doing that much jumping!"

I don't think we are talking about doing reasonably well. We are talking about horses who can do credible dressage horses but are not brilliant. I'd much rather ride or place a safe jumper who is a little fidgety in the dressage ring than a warmblood who sweeps up in dressage only to have a refusal or hissy fit in stadium -- I knew two horses who fit this description, and I'd take the former any day over the latter.

Life is short; make fun of it.
Founding Member, Bird Nerd Clique; Eventing Yahoo In Training

GotSpots
Jul. 14, 2003, 05:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> PLENTY of riders who do a very nice job over fences would never WIN a dressage test. A schooled horse does not necessarily involve a horse that goes around on the vertical with lofty gaits. And believe me, the average hunter/jumper knows ALOT more about rhythm and balance than your average eventer, so dressage is not the exclusive avenue to find those qualities. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"If a horse can not do a lower level dressage test reasonably well, in my opinion, it shouldn't be doing that much jumping!"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The crux of this problem seems to me to be "What are we testing in lower level dressage and how are we judging it?" When I see horses rewarded in a Novice test because their heads are vertical even though they are behind the leg, then we are testing the wrong thing. When brilliant movers who are not on the aids are rewarded at Preliminary when so-so movers who are obedient are penalized, than our judges need educating.

I think it's very possible to have a horse who is obedient, educated, and respectful, but who will not win the dressage because he's not a great mover or doesn't have a flashy lengthening, and that's the horse I'd choose to ride cross-country over the gorgeous flamboyant dressage horse who will quit at the first square table.

*Trinity*
Jul. 14, 2003, 05:23 PM
I agree that a refusal should be more than a knockdown!

Although I am little miffed as well about one thing. My dad mentioned to me that it seems in eventing (who is newer than I am to eventing, yes, scarey I know!) that the whole scoring system seems to be based around dressage. I mean, it's like what happened to Xctrygirl - you can do well in dressage and not-so-hot in the other two phases and still place well... or do great in the jumping phases and not so great in dressage and lose? Is this making no sense to anybody else or is it just me? How do they co-ordinate the times and points for the jumping phases? Do you get no points at all if you are under time and clear? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

*Trinity* & *Spartacus*

AM
Jul. 14, 2003, 07:52 PM
As a scorer, I would not like to see two different ways of scoring the stadium competition. I think it would also be confusing for families and for folks just starting out in eventing who might be watching multiple divisions. And we would have numerous people telling us we posted the wrong numbers when the stadium penalties didn't match across the scoreboards.

I don't know how many times this weekend we had to explain that the lower score is the better score, and yes if you stop in front of the fence, you will receive penalty points

subk
Jul. 14, 2003, 08:49 PM
I think as a sport we've become very self-involved and have missed the forest for the trees. Yes, I would like to be the first in line to spout the benefits of dressage. Yes, we can improve just about any jumping issue with well thought out dressage schooling. BUT just because those things are true does not mean that a horse must be well schooled in dressage to be a more than competent jumper.

There are PLENTY of hunter and jumpers who are fabulous, adjustable, safe rides who would absolutely stink up the dressage arena. Yes, those horses are quite likely well schooled "on the flat." As much as I understand the concept that "flat work" and "dressage" are the same thing, they simply are not. They are certainly are not the same for any dressage judge I know.

On the same line of thinking there are PLENTY of event horses that are wonderfully adjustable, safe rides over any kind of course who also on a regular basis stink up the dressage ring.

And while a good dressage score IS important for a top placing at a 3-day, I can find a hundred horses TOMORROW who could win any CCI**** dressage day. (They might be a problem on the next day, but hey.) Many horses who win CCI**** do well on dressage day. ALL horses who place in a CCI**** do well on XC day.

Ideally a horse that places well at any horse trials should have shown basic competence in all 3 phases. To me, that's kind of simple logic. A refusal in stadium is a MAJOR disobedient and displays a lack a competence that day, the score should reflect that.

Janet
Jul. 15, 2003, 12:22 AM
As a scorer, the MOST COMMON general comment I see on BN and N dressage tests is:
"NEEDS TO BE MORE FORWARD".

Janet
chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle, and Brain

tle
Jul. 15, 2003, 08:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by caballo_saltando:
A refusal in stadium at lower levels doesn't always constitute a "major disobedience" but is quite often the result of rider misjudgement (jumping ahead, not forward, clashing aids).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

However, for SCORING purposes and the fundamental purposes of eventing, YES ... a refusal/runout, etc IS a major disobedience regardless of why it happened. If you have a rider on XC have a stop because the rider is a dork, it still counts the same as the horse being a butthead. Stopping is BAD, period.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The dressage test is designed to demonstrate competence to ride the XC course at the particular level - we all know this. Why SUBK is so adamant that it shouldn't play a strong role in placing is a mystery to me. It's pretty basic. I've quoted Wofford's feelings on the matter and if that doesn't help shed light on the issue, then I guess nothing will.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, we all know this. And I can GUARANTEE subk know this, so please stop being confrontational and derogatory towards her!! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

IMHO, the problem here is symantics and a fundamental difference in opinion on what should COUNT more in eventing, and fwiw, I'm with subk. A good jumper is essential, a good dressage SCORE is not (when it comes to being a good and safe eventer... not necessarily when it comes to winning a lower level event). I have a wonderful mare who will jump the moon, but gets tense (as do I) when it comes to dressage... performing in front of a judge. As subk has said, I'd take 1000 of her in a heartbeat over a horse that gets 9's on gaits and scores in teh 20's who hangs legs, can't gallop and needs his hand held over Novice fences.

Yes, flatwork... dressage... whatever you want to call it is important. NO ONE is arguing that fact. The problem is what people view as being essential. REad the rulebook... the *HEART* of eventing is XC. Yes, you must have a good partnership with the horse to do well on XC and primarily in eventing that comes from dressage work. But there is more to putting in a good test on that day of the event than being good at dressage. I've been told time and time again by a USET selector that there is no reason (when in lessons) that my mare can't WIN the dressage -- yet we only recently broke the 40 point mark in a test. So what you're seeing on the day of the event in that ring may be totally different than what the pair is capable of and what they may end up showing you on course... but it's when they're on course that is of primary importance.

************
If Dressage is a Symphony... Eventing is Rock & Roll!!!

"All's well that ends with cute E.R. doctors, I always say." -- Buffy

Gry2Yng
Jul. 15, 2003, 09:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I jump judged all day on Saturday, Elementary -Training. The horses that stopped were inevitably being ridden off their mouths (little seat contact) and not forward and in front of the leg. This can be fixed in the dressage arena - at least an understanding of the feeling of riding off the seat can be taught there.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

For your average rider, if you spend most of your time practicing dressage and little practicing jumping you will get better at dressage and stagnate/get worse at jumping. The essentials of dressage are the essentials of jumping, but you cannot get good at jumping by practicing 20 meter circles.

Learning to ride forward on the flat is one skill, learning to ride forward to a fence is another. I think this is why you will so often find the winner of dressage at a horse trial having stops or getting eliminated on xc. They practice dressage to excess and end up riding backward to their fences.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Bringing in the hunter jumpers is off-topic in this discussion - however, most work in those disciplines is "on the flat" and yes that's what they call it and yes the basic ideology is a bit different but not too different from dressage - balance, rhythm, forward, listening, obedient. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bringing in the h/j's is not at all off topic. There are posts that suggest you must do good dressage to jump in balance and with rhythm. Any h/j worth their salt is ALWAYS in rhythm and balance. They do "flat work" but none of it is on the vertical or with their butts in the tack. They would not SCORE very well in a prelim dressage test, but they can jump around a 3'6" stadium course better than most eventers. I think h/j's are EXACTLY on topic.

caballo - subk used the word "we", you pointed your comments at her directly. Her accomplishments in the event world speak for themselves. I agree with tle, no need to attack her. Consider opening your mind to the idea that her experience might provide valuable insight into what makes a rider successful. Unless you define success as winning the dressage and scaring the spectators at xc and stadium.

subk
Jul. 15, 2003, 11:13 AM
As far as a refusal being a "major disobiedience." (And if it is the rider is at fault it is a "major riding error") If I work with a horse, rider or combination who go to three events and have one stop in stadium at each event. I recognize I have a very serious problem. All progress stops. This must be analized and corrected before in any good mindset I can continue on--something major must change. If instead it's one rail at each of three events nothing stops, I have no great concern. If I'm smart I try to see if there is a connection and attempt to make some subtle improvements (probably with the use of gymnastics and even *gasp* dressage.) BIG difference in the two issues.

This comment keeps bothering me: "

Most TBs are happy at the gallop - rider doesn't have to do a whole lot in the gallop and so why wouldn't they be? There is not a lot of work involved for a TB at the gallop!"

In the vast majority of XC rides I've done at Prelim and up I've rarely taken a step that wasn't galloping. So nice to know there wasn't alot of work involved. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

When I spoke of being "short-sighted" (and that WAS the proverbial "we") I was thinking of the reining and cutting competitions I've seen recently (gotta love OLN.) These horses really got the "forward, ryhthm, balanced, supple, straight" thing--the mantra of classical dressage. Yet, none of them would "do well in dressage" as we use it in our sport. Isn't there something there that's interesting? Wouldn't we be better horsemen to be open minded to other disiplines?

I am NOT discounting the importance of dressage. I just realize that there is not a perfect relationship between jumping and dressage because there are too many good dressage horses that can't jump and too many wonderful jumpers that stuggle in dressage. And while I certainly think there are many answers found in the dressage arena I am just as certain there may be other places to find some of those answers. Dressage does not have the monopoly on forward, ryhthm, balance, supple and straight.

AWIP
Jul. 15, 2003, 11:43 AM
Subk, you've raised some good points.

Maybe we're seeing this?
- dressage is very inward focused, related to reaction of outside stimuli
- jumping is very outward focused, related to reaction of outside stimuli.

Maybe Eventing dressage CAN'T be Dressage dressage? Our horses need to be able focus on other things than us, to think and judge for themselves too often.
Maybe the horses that are really good at dressage are or have become too dependant on the rider's guidance and doesn't know how to cope with XC in many cases?
Maybe a good number of the horses that are really good at XC can't concentrate on only the rider becuase they are SO aware of their surroundings, esp. in competition when the adrenaline is up?

So, perhaps it is a matter of rider preference which strengths and weaknesses we'd prefer to liveand cope with in a mount?

Hilary
Jul. 15, 2003, 12:17 PM
this is in answer to AWIP question about whether eventing dressage can ever be straight dressage - I just rode in a 2 day clinic with Michael Poulin. At one point he said to me something to the effect of "well all that jumping makes him tighter in his back so it's harder for him to be as supple" He was talking laterally and longitudinally.

He understands eventers, and it wasn't meant as a criticism particularly, but more of a fact. So a horse who spends at least 1 if not more days a week jumping and/or galloping will have different muscles than one who ONLY works on dressage.

theponylady
Jul. 15, 2003, 12:51 PM
I'm going to reiterate what I said.

If a horse can not do a credible dressage test(note, I did not say WIN, just that he should be obedient and well trained enough to do it), then he probably should not be doing much jumping.

The majority of ponies that we show at novice and training level are NOT fancy movers. Adequate, but not like many of the warmbloods you see. Yet we are always in the ribbons. And they are SO much easier to ride in the cc and stadium because they are well trained.

And for those who say dressage and flat work are NOT the same, I disagree. Our ponies who are eventing and "doing dressage" are also winning in hunters and jumpers, and the kids are winning equitation and medals.

If you are just going to "do dressage", and want to move to upper levels, yes, things are going to be a bit different, as you will be specializing. But for those staying at lower levels and doing multiple events, it is NOT different.

Our ponies do well in under saddle classes, because they know how to stretch out and reach for the bit, and are therefore capable of doing the "long and low" that is popular in the hunters. They can also come up and into the bridle, which is useful for the equitation, jumpers, and of course dressage itself.

Do horses "need" to do dressage to jump? Nope. Some are talented enough to get themselves around without it. But they can be darn hard to ride too. I feel a lot safer, and for a fact my students ARE much safer, because the horses and ponies are schooled to be obedient. They are less likely to get run off with, get to bad distances, etc, because the horses listen. They got that way with good dressage basics.

If a horse puts in a fabulous dressage test, then goes clean cc, and clean or low faults in stadium, well, don't you think that horse should win over the horse that did a so so dressage round, and jumped okay?

I agree, if a horse is fabulous in the dressage, but then stinks over fences, he should be penalized. Which he is, with faults due to time, stops, and knockdowns.

Just for the record, I am NOT a "dressage" trainer. I've done hunter jumpers pretty successfully for many years, and just moved to eventing about 4 years ago. We've been pretty sucessful at the lower levels there too, yet I haven't changed my training style at all. It is simply basic dressage. The only thing we might do is modify the frame of the horse and position of rider a little depending on the event we are in. We can do that, because the good dressage basics allow us to be able to do that.

If a horse gets better and better at the dressage, it is going to make him easier to ride over fences. Of course, if you never practice jumping, you are going to have a problem. But riding over fences, with the exception of the rider's position tending to be more forward with a shorter stirrup to be able to get off the horse's back, should NOT be much different than riding on the flat. If it IS, then there are some serious basics that are going to be missed. Some horses and riders can advance without them, but many can not.

One thing I see in eventing is that so many people take falling off for granted. Sure, you do things long enough and it WILL happen. But it shouldn't be a normal occurance like so many think it is. It is normal for many people though because they are missing the basics. Which start with "dressage".

Karen Vicencio

Gry2Yng
Jul. 15, 2003, 01:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I agree, if a horse is fabulous in the dressage, but then stinks over fences, he should be penalized. Which he is, with faults due to time, stops, and knockdowns.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is exactly the original posters point. She did a credible dressage test and STILL lost to a horse that stopped in the stadium.

mcmIV
Jul. 15, 2003, 08:11 PM
This thread is about worn out, but I'll add my vote...

I've seen this opinion given a few times:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> So if you can't win on your dressage than that just tells you you need to go back to your basics and get that down. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the goal is to win on dressage merit alone, why not just go to a dressage show and ride cross country and jump a course on the weekends between shows? This isn't called "Dressage riders who like to jump on the side", this is called Horse Trials, or Three Day Eventing. Three phases.

I think this rule sucks too.

A dirty stopper can easily be a phenomenal dressage horse, and in fact I see a trend at the lower levels, the great dressage tests usually have a problem in the jump phases and those with medicore scores move up.

A horse who runs out or stops is disobedient, and while improved flat work will certainly aid in all phases, great dressage does *not* magically create an honest and talented jumper. Good dressage does not erase disobedience over obstacles necessarily.

This is an unsafe and an extremely disobedient fault and should be penalized the same as cross country. It should be the cardinal sin of any jump phase whether the jumps fall down or not.

I think it sucks that a horse who pulls a dirty stop or a rude run-out on his rider might place because the penalty is so insignifigant, and his great dressage score keeps him in the ribbons. What difference did his stellar dressage test make, if he isn't obedient enough to follow through in stadium? Hrmph.

And I don't mean to make it sound like all runouts or stops are horse-error, I know they are 90% rider error, but that same rider may have put in the outstanding dressage test, and still did not accurately ride a stadium round without a refusal.

Dishonest horses or insecure/weak jump riders can still make a great dressage ride - but yet, a very unsafe jump round.

martha

Proud member of the * Hoof Fetish Clique *

My Album - in full swing - some Area IV H.T. pics, and plenty of my friend Java.
http://community.webshots.com/user/mcmiv

subk
Jul. 15, 2003, 08:28 PM
Here's a different twist on the problem with the new rule that's not been mentioned here.

Have the powers that be again made broad based decisions for the good of the upper levels of the sport without enough thought of the real effects on the lower level riders--who are after all the foundation of the sport?

Granted it IS a new rule and I don't expect the rules committee to have crystal balls, but it will be interesting to see if there is any future action on the subject.

DizzyMagic
Jul. 15, 2003, 09:13 PM
subk -
question: why would lowering the faults from 10 to 4 be good at the upper levels? This rule change has me a bit baffled...I'm with you guys who think that a stop is a major disobedience and ought to be penalized more than a rail. You see very few stops at the upper levels in stadium though, so I don't see what prompted the change. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Emily

"It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare, it is because we do not dare that they are difficult" - Seneca

Boss Hoss
Jul. 15, 2003, 11:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>So if you can't win on your dressage than that just tells you you need to go back to your basics and get that down.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the goal is to win on dressage merit alone, why not just go to a dressage show and ride cross country and jump a course on the weekends between shows? This isn't called "Dressage riders who like to jump on the side", this is called Horse Trials, or Three Day Eventing. Three phases. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think this is quite right..my stallion is a competent dressage horse through 2nd level with me as the pilot..so we almost always win a N or T dressage test.

Now while it's nice to be leading after dressage, that does not really say the weight of the scoring is on dressage. Your horse still has to run & jump much better than the flat works. A well rounded equine athlete will be able to finish on the dressage score which won't be too bad.

So I would change this to say "if you can't FINISH on your dressage score, then you need to go back and work on more basics". Dressage only determines the COLOR of the ribbon you will get going clean in XC, while XC determines if you will even get a RIBBON when the day is over.

As for the "rule"..I too don't believe a refusal and a rail down are errors of the same nature to get the same penalty scores...suppose the rider also falls in the refusal but doesn't hit the fence..should that be the same as a rail down?

We've all seen that voodoo jump cup that seems to drop a rail on you even though you cleared the rails by 16 inches. We've also seen the jump cup that must have double sided tape in it too, cause no matter how hard it gets hit it seems never too fall.

A rail down is a QUALITY factor not a QUANTITY factor in the phase..yes you cleared the fence, but how well did you clear it? It's like getting a 4 on a poor dressage movement versus not performing the movement at all..should both instances get a 4?

Would the rule be more of a benefit for the LOWER levels on a safety basis so that riders aren't throwing their horse over a fence for fear of the big refusal point factor? This way there are less wrecks and hopefully a little more willingness of the horses to jump?

AWS Elite Stallion - Manahawk
2002 AWS Gold Medal Novice Award
Cool Breeze Farm, LLC (http://www.coolbreezefarm.com)
For Sale: Well used rain cloud that follows me around..will trade for a lemonade stand!

theponylady
Jul. 15, 2003, 11:38 PM
If her score was so low that she was that far behind the lead horse, then it was NOT a good enough performance. If she didn't move up after that horse stopped and got faults for it, then she was WAY behind in points. A horse does NOT have to be a fabulous mover to do well in the dressage. It does have to be athletic and well trained. I would assume if it jumps well(meaning in good form and safely-not as in just not crashing the fences), then it should be athletic enough for the dressage. If it is well trained, it ought to be getting decent scores in the dressage. If it is not, that tells you there are some problems that need to be worked on. A well done test, even on a horse who moves poorly, should still get a score not too much behind the leader. Even a bad mover, if he is athletic enough to jump around, should also be athletic enough to show a decent lengthening, round circles, steady pace, etc. The only score that should be low is the score for gaits. If a great mover gets a 9, the poor mover gets a 5, but everything else is equal trainingwise, then a rail or stop would be enough to tie them. And a stop usually adds enough time to cause time penalties on top of the stop.

If a horse is well trained enough to do very well in the dressage, jumps the cc clean, and does the stadium well except for one stop or one rail or one whatever, and still has a low enough score to win, then in my opinion, he should win!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gry2Yng:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I agree, if a horse is fabulous in the dressage, but then stinks over fences, he should be penalized. Which he is, with faults due to time, stops, and knockdowns.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is exactly the original posters point. She did a credible dressage test and STILL lost to a horse that stopped in the stadium.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Karen Vicencio

Janet
Jul. 16, 2003, 02:06 AM
Given the direction this thread is gooing, I would just like to remind everyone of a recent thread (I will see if I can find it to include a link) about the problems of riders getting to the Advanced level, and THEN finding that they are missing the dressage basics that are needed to do will in the Advanced level dressage tests.

Part of the problem, as described there, was that good jumping riders had been able to "coast" on their jumping ability in spite of their weaknesses in dressage.

I see value in a discussion of the relative scoring of a rail vs a stop in stadium.

But the desire to make stadium more imortant in relation to dressage seems short sighted. If the horse has "jumping obedience" problems, they will almost certainly show up in cross country.

Here is the link
Super Elite and the "Brits" (http://chronicleforums.com/groupee/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=6656094911&f=2096094911&m=94360392&p=1)

Janet
chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle, and Brai

EvntRydr
Jul. 16, 2003, 05:27 AM
Well I have always been taught from the moment I wanted to event "If the dressage isn't there, you won't win".

My gelding and I worked for a year on dressage before we ever took a fence (he was an OTTB). I brought my dressage coach on from jump street (no pun intended). 3 years later we are really starting to put it together and get moments of clarity, impulsion, true balance, and obedience. In fact in the last lesson we worked mostly on collection (wow that felt SO advanced). I could NOT BELIEVE the power Wishes had when I rode him properly at the canter. With his back rounded, his hocks coming up under him and his obedient response... Well I was blown away. I mean this horse has always been powerful but HOLY CRAP I have never felt such power. It was a 'light bulb' moment as they say.

Now this horse took to jumping like a fish in water and was able to do 3' courses easily and quietly. I will say though that I think my jump coach (who is so kick butt) really has helped me in all 3 phases. Her thoughtful, thorough, correct training has given a real headstart. That is the kind of jump coach that we need desperately out there!

Needless to say we continue to really focus on the dressage (my h/j background has been a real hold back) because that is where we are always weak.

I guess my point is that the dressage has come after a long hard haul (many of you have probably read about my trials/tribulations w/Wishes and dressage). Today (http://tb-trainer.com/dress_lesson/trot_nice.jpg) I am blown away with what we are able to produce! However that is what we have had to work so hard for.

Jumping my boy (I'm quite lucky here) took to easily and happily. He is an o/f machine, when there are problems you can just look to me for the reasons!

With all that rambling said, I do feel like the faults for a refusal should be more then a rail. A refusal is disobedience. While there are some cases where a horse doesn't jump because it knows it's not safe, etc, this then makes the rider responsible and they should also be penalized heavily. A horse that tries should at least get credit for it. At least through N if you ask me. Hey that’s JMHO. I don't know much though. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Proud owner of Wishes
And an unnamed ponee (thoughts/ideas?)
Both direct decendant of Man O' War - "the mostest hoss"!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Membership Fees - $200(+/-)
Entry Fee for first HT (recognized) - $100
Completing all phases safe/sound and happy – Priceless

tle
Jul. 16, 2003, 06:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If her score was so low that she was that far behind the lead horse, then it was NOT a good enough performance. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

4 points is not "far behind" for heaven's sake! All it takes is 1 point difference here and there. A friend of mine regularly gets 7's and 8's... I get 6's and 7's. Would that be "far behind" to where her stopper should win where my jumping machine doesn't?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And a stop usually adds enough time to cause time penalties on top of the stop. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

THAT IS THE PROBLEM AND THE WHOLE CRUX OF THIS THREAD! (sorry to yell but you hit the nail without even realizing i think) The problem is that NO, at the lower levels time/speed is so generous that it does NOT always result in time faults added to the stop faults, and therein lies the problem that so many people (myself included) have issue with.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> If a horse is well trained enough to do very well in the dressage, jumps the cc clean, and does the stadium well except for one stop or one rail or one whatever, and still has a low enough score to win, then in my opinion, he should win! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If it were a couple time faults or a rail, I'd agree with you... but not a stop.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>why would lowering the faults from 10 to 4 be good at the upper levels? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dizzy... not saying it is a good thing, but the FEI changed it after changing timing in SJ to 1 point per second (instead of .25 points). At the upper levels, it does work out that a stop will add significant amount of time to get you time faults on top of the 4 for a stop... thus it all ends up evening out in the end more or less (from the old rule -- 10 points for the stop and 2 points for 8 seconds over is close to and gives a similar score-impression as the 4 points for the stop and 8 points time).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Have the powers that be again made broad based decisions for the good of the upper levels of the sport without enough thought of the real effects on the lower level riders--who are after all the foundation of the sport? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

YES! There is no reason that the lower levels should automatically follow FEI rule changes. I understand wanting to keep scoring simple and relatively easy to follow for newbies, scorers, volunteers, spectators, etc. but as you and I (and anyone else who has done and FEI event) know, there is a world of difference in the sport at Novice horse trials and an FEI event... and there is no VALID reason I can see (other than that already explained) for making the 2 the same in rule changes. If you're good enough to ride at an FEI event, then you're good enough to research, read and follow different rules.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If a horse can not do a credible dressage test(note, I did not say WIN, just that he should be obedient and well trained enough to do it), then he probably should not be doing much jumping.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that is valid, but everyone's idea of "credible" IS/could be a tad different. And there were thoughts on this thread that one must "WIN"... thus the varying opinions. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If a horse puts in a fabulous dressage test, then goes clean cc, and clean or low faults in stadium, well, don't you think that horse should win over the horse that did a so so dressage round, and jumped okay? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, however, what is "so so" vs "fabulous"? What constitutes "jumped ok"? If the so so horse jumped beautifully, then I would hope they wouldn't be too far behind the other because that stop in SJ should count for something... and right now, IMHO it doesn't count for much.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I agree, if a horse is fabulous in the dressage, but then stinks over fences, he should be penalized. Which he is, with faults due to time, stops, and knockdowns.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, not necessarily as this rule combined with generous time/speed at the lower levels does not penalized ENOUGH for the major faults (stopping/running out) in SJ (regardless of whether it is the horse or rider at fault).

************
If Dressage is a Symphony... Eventing is Rock & Roll!!!

"All's well that ends with cute E.R. doctors, I always say." -- Buffy

RAyers
Jul. 16, 2003, 07:09 AM
This may be a bit disjointed at this point in the conversation but I think the best thing to help fix this problem is to finally give the novce horses and riders some credit. I spent the last 2 weeks watching 1200 horses at the High Prairie horse show jump around in the hunter and jumper rings. Well, even at the lowest levels (2'6") the courses still contained triple combinations in the jumpers and in-and-outs in the hunters. To me, the courses at novice level eventing are SO simple that they are the equivalent of schooling shows. I know, I know, the rules limit what can be done in stadium, but damnit, having 1 combination and a bunch of single fences is just not going to even really teach a horse much about the show ring (said like a guy that started in H/J). Even the baby green hunters have related distances into in 1-stride in-and-outs (e.g. a 2 or 3 to a 1 stride). Whay can we not do that with eventing? Perhaps the stadium course designers need to step up and give the riders and horses credit?

As for stops at upper levels, you are now only allowed 1 stop (or is it 2) and you are then eliminated, not 3 stops as before so there is SIGNIFICANT penalties for a refusal.

Reed

[This message was edited by RAyers on Jul. 16, 2003 at 10:18 AM.]

GotSpots
Jul. 16, 2003, 07:18 AM
Reed, I think we're seeing course designers doing exactly that. I worked the in-gate at Wayne this weekend and watched as ride after ride had serious issues with the course, because, as Darren pointed out from where he was coaching his student, there were almost no related fences outside of the combinations, and every fence had to be jumped off of a turn or a rollback. I've noticed even over the past five years (let alone over the past ten years), how much more difficult the stadium courses have gotten. I'm now seeing stadium courses at Prelim and Training which are easily the equivalent of classics or low jumper classes. And at Int to Adv., courses, some really hairy things, which have caused the standings to shake up. For example, liverpools are now popping up fairly regularly, and rollbacks and jumps one stride off the rail are now common.

But it is still three stops and you're out at stadium (unless I really missed something this weekend -- I believe the announcer was saying "three stops and she's eliminated").

RAyers
Jul. 16, 2003, 07:30 AM
I just checked the FEI rules. It is 2 stops and you are out (section 570.something). I'll look at the USAEq rules. But if you are only allowed 2 stops then 4 penalties is quite sufficient becuase generally, once a horse stops on course, the liklihood of another stop increases.

I think by making these courses more difficult, we give the horses and riders more credit and as well as make each one of us step up the level of our game which can only be good for the sport.

Reed

AWIP
Jul. 16, 2003, 07:40 AM
Good point about stadium courses perhaps not giving the riders & horses enough credit AND challenge.

Maybe we should use stadium in the lower levels to introduce challenges in the next level up of XC? (Using Canadian levels as an example)
- single combination in Entry Stadium to correspond with Pre-Training XC combinations?
- triple combinations and/or single bounces (PT) to correspond with Training XC options?

This would ensure more developed control over fences and maybe provide a smoother progression through the levels too.
There would be an major issue though with ponies and related distances, esp. the smalls/meds. Does anyone have thoughts on how this item could be resolved?

RAyers
Jul. 16, 2003, 07:52 AM
O.K. now I see the problem. The USAEq rules state 3 refusals are allowed (4 points, 8 points, elimination) in stadium. Now that I think is wrong. It does diminish the signficance of a refusal and makes a novice/training stadium round into a schooling round, if one is so inclined. It removes any sort of incentive to be a careful rider and to make decisions based upon the risks of making the time versus pulling a rail.

If the USAEq is going to match the FEI, then they should only allow 2 refusals total.

Right now, stadium course designers are NOT required to be licensed or certified, unlike the dressage judges of XC designers. I think a minimum qualifiaction for stadium designers is that they "apprentice" for a given period of time (yes, I know this is time consuming and can be expensive) with licensed course designers in the h/j world. There they can learn the ideas behind designing effective stadium courses and then modify those ideas to match the ideal of eventing.

They do not adjust the courses for pony jumpers so I would say that the onus for related distances when it comes to small and medium sized ponies will be on the riders to be able to rate their horses to add a step when needed, again rasing the level of riding capability of eventers. Just think how prepared that rider will be when they move up to a horse?!

Reed

mcmIV
Jul. 16, 2003, 08:06 AM
So many are bringing up the idea of "if you improve in dressage your jumping will be better and therefore you won't have to worry about stops".

In other words; good dressage = equals good jumping, so focus on better dressage and stop complaining about how they score stadium.

I don't think dressage has anythign to do with this. Not realistically. It is *not* a perfect cause-effect relationship. *Definately* improved flat work will improve jumping. But good dressage does not universally equal good jumping.

I think the dressage arguement has nothing to do with the fact that a stop at a fence is a major disobedience and should be appropriately penalized above and beyond a mere knocked poll.

The goal isn't "get a great dressage score and don't get eliminated in stadium".

The goal is "get a solid dressage score and have a safe and clean round in both jumping phases".

You *must* have a good dressage score to win at this sport consistently, anyone who has evented more than twice has figured that out, whether they choose to improve their dressage or not.

But improved dressage is no excuse for blatent disobedience and poor riding in a stadium round. It should be penalized appropriately.

martha

Proud member of the * Hoof Fetish Clique *

My Album - in full swing - some Area IV H.T. pics, and plenty of my friend Java.
http://community.webshots.com/user/mcmiv

subk
Jul. 16, 2003, 08:15 AM
janet-I'm not sure the wieghting the dressage portion stronger is the answer to the upper level rider discovering the need to rework those basics they should have mastered in the lower levels.

In my own experience part of the problem has been the quality of judging. Our lower level judges CONSISTENTLY will score a compressed horse whose face is on the vertical and who is inverted--at first glance a good picture--higher than a round horse who is not yet achieved that shorter looking frame. As our horses become tense it becomes much more difficult to maintain a correct frame. So we are left to pick which of the above we go in the ring with: incorrect that will score higher (which without thinking of scoring is our natural inclination anyway) or a more correct but less developed frame that the judge will slam you for.

In the end if an incorrect frame scores well it will only encourage more incorrect riding.

subk
Jul. 16, 2003, 08:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mcmIV:
So many are bringing up the idea of "if you improve in dressage your jumping will be better and therefore you won't have to worry about stops".

In other words; good dressage = equals good jumping, so focus on better dressage and stop complaining about how they score stadium.

I don't think dressage has anythign to do with this. Not realistically. It is *not* a perfect cause-effect relationship. *Definately* improved flat work will improve jumping. But good dressage does not universally equal good jumping.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which is EXACTLY why Jimmy Wofford's book is not titled "Dressage exercises to Improve Your Jumping!" http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

tle
Jul. 16, 2003, 08:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I think a minimum qualifiaction for stadium designers is that they "apprentice" for a given period of time <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ummm...no. There is no requirement at all. A good friend of mine has designed the SJ courses at a local event (following on the heels of a lady who designed HORRIBLE courses) and does an OUTSTANDING job -- things like having a fan to fan related distance on the prelim course because they had a corner to corner on XC. It might be because she's ridden a lot (through CCI*) and thinks about these things, but I'd have her design a course for me any day.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Which is EXACTLY why Jimmy Wofford's book is not titled "Dressage exercises to Improve Your Jumping!" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

************
If Dressage is a Symphony... Eventing is Rock & Roll!!!

"All's well that ends with cute E.R. doctors, I always say." -- Buffy

gahawkeye
Jul. 16, 2003, 09:40 AM
You all might want to consider the different type of horse necessary to win at the different levels.

At lower levels you need the dressage horse to win... it doesn't have to run fast or jump high but it helps when you want to move up. If you don't want to move up and still win, better get the BIG D horse. As state earlier, most event SJ courses are pretty easy.

At the upper levels, yes, you still need the dressage horse but it must also run fast and be a willing/talented/capable jumper.

We all like to win ribbons, but know your market (sport) and prepare for it, whatever your competition level. If you don't like the rules participate in changing them.

RAyers
Jul. 16, 2003, 10:02 AM
Hang on tle, I love you dearly (even though we hardly know each other) and if I ever move to the midwest your are the first person I'm calling, http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

What I am alluding to is the same program/idea that exists that is trying to get the dressage judging at events to be consistent with judging in dressage shows, that there are clinics where dressage officials work with event judges to create a consistant nature (e.g. more objective) of judging. Note what I also said about apprenticeships, "There they can learn the ideas behind designing effective stadium courses and then modify those ideas to match the ideal of eventing." I am not saying we have to have to hire someone like Chris Coleman to design SJ at horse trials, but a person that does only event SJ can sure as heck learn a lot about effective course design by spending a week or two with certified course designers at a horse show. Think about it, at the bigger shows these guys design upwards of 10 courses a day over 10 days of competition and each course is intended to test a specific capability.

It is like me spending weeks in surgery with surgeons to totally understand the nature of what it takes to repair damaged bone tissue. I actually could do the surgery but these guys have so much knowledge I'd be a fool to not take advantage of it. A more relevant example is that of one of the regional event SJ course designers out this way, Candy Gray. I saw her several times at High Prairie, meeting and talking with the jumper course designers, picking their brains. Over the years I have seen how her courses have evolved and gotten better each time to appropriately test the horses and riders at their level of competition.

I must admit, I am not a fan of stadium courses mimicking XC courses. I believe that to truely test these horses and riders the stadium must be more akin to a jumper round in order to show their true versatility. Otherwise, why have stadium if it is just going to be XC in an arena? I feel we need to work with the other disciplines and utilize their strengths to make eventing a stronger sport!


Reed

JER
Jul. 16, 2003, 10:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Our lower level judges CONSISTENTLY will score a compressed horse whose face is on the vertical and who is inverted--at first glance a good picture--higher than a round horse who is not yet achieved that shorter looking frame. As our horses become tense it becomes much more difficult to maintain a correct frame. So we are left to pick which of the above we go in the ring with: incorrect that will score higher (which without thinking of scoring is our natural inclination anyway) or a more correct but less developed frame that the judge will slam you for.

In the end if an incorrect frame scores well it will only encourage more incorrect riding. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is so true. Well said, subk.

In our most recent HT, a few of the top finishers at Prelim had the shakiest jumping rounds, both on XC and SJ. Two horses in particular were severely behind the leg on XC and less drastically so in SJ, but neither horse was on or anywhere near the aids, which probably didn't matter as the riders didn't have much to offer in the aids department. They went home with nice ribbons, so I'm not sure they're getting the kind of feedback that will keep them safe on a horse.

Both horses got very good dressage scores but it was a feat worthy of the BBC TV show "Faking It". These horses were never in front of the leg although their noses stayed perfectly on the vertical the whole time. They never tracked up or gave any indication of working from behind.

I loathe this sort of judging and I think it's detrimental --and very dangerous -- to our sport.

tle
Jul. 16, 2003, 10:10 AM
Reed, I think I just grasped on to one thought in your previous post and ran with it. By all means, it would be great to have eventing sj designers work with SJ designers... absolutely! I don't think anyone would disagree.

As for SJ mimicking...I think asking similar "questions" during the SJ round is a good thing. No, not everything is XC in an SJ format, but elements here and there aren't bad. Like the fan to fan to ask a similar question of the corner to corner (especially when it was the very first time that question had appeared on that XC course)... or an oxer to oxer combination when there's a table to table combination on course. SMALL elements here and there that CAN be incorporated into an SJ round... but by all means keep the aspect of SJ!

PS. Luv ya too and if I ever end up in your area, you can bet you'll get a call from me too!!

************
If Dressage is a Symphony... Eventing is Rock & Roll!!!

"All's well that ends with cute E.R. doctors, I always say." -- Buffy

RAyers
Jul. 16, 2003, 11:02 AM
tle,

True about asking similar questions in a SJ round, however I remember back in the 80's jumping fan to fan and offset to offset combinations as tests of accuracy in the A/O jumpers or even having a offset (angled fence) on an off-radius turn so that you had to choose to be safe but jump the high portion of the fence or turn tight, risk the rail, and jump the low portion of the fence. This sorts of things that has been around for decades in the jumpers are what I am saying needs to incorporated more into eventing SJ. They can easily be applied to low levels as well as high levels, and at the same time, makes the penalty of a refusal have even greater consequence without the need of having it be a larger number of penalty points than a rail.

Reed

poltroon
Jul. 16, 2003, 11:40 AM
Well, I am an example of the other side.

My mare was an experienced prelim event horse when I bought her, and we had a couple of good seasons eventing at Novice and Training with plenty of double clears.

At some point, she started stopping in Training level stadium. To my deep frustration, this happened at about the same time as we mastered the dressage - so we would be first or second after dressage, then have a stop. Argh! (Even with 10 points, sometimes we were still in the top 5.)

To this day, I don't really know why she stopped. I realized later that a trainer I had worked with had put us through a lot of tricky gymnastics, and hardly any set on an easy stride. This is a careful horse and I think she lost confidence in her ability to figure out where to put her feet to stay out of the rails. Maybe a vision thing, though the vet couldn't find anything, and there's some suggestion that she may have had a sore muscle behind that contributed to it all. We also had a few outings in the mud that didn't go well. And once she started stopping (ooh, and a devilish last-minute quick one it is), having me go over her head occasionally didn't add to her confidence.

I stopped jumping this mare because stopping is dangerous. In schooling, a stop can be better than not stopping, but for scoring purposes, I absolutely believe that a stop is a major fault and that a rail is a minor fault. At lower levels, a stop should be penalized - and you should not be able to make up for it by going like a bat out of hell.

No matter how good your dressage was. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

AM
Jul. 16, 2003, 11:46 AM
RAyers - we are usually a year behind the FEI in changing our national rules. The FEI went to 4 penalty points in SJ last year and 2 disobediances and you are out this year. I look to us to adopt the 2 and out rule next year.

Since the current hunter and jumper courses are almost exclusively built on flat, artificial surfaces, we need to be careful mimicing those courses on the rolling to hilly surfaces where eventing show jumping courses are often placed. I think we are moving to the flat, artifial surfaces and then the hunter/jumper guidance may be more useful. I'm just remembering that Sally Ike had to rethink her stadium jumping course at Radnor last year when stadium jumping was moved from the usual grass steeplechase area to the dressage arena.

RAyers
Jul. 16, 2003, 01:16 PM
AM, I am not so sure what you are saying. Consider Spruce Meadows, Hickstead (where they have the eventing grand prix {where eventers go head-to-head with GP riders over a course that combines XC fences and stadium}), the old Trojan Horse HT in AZ, even the derby field at my home facility of High Prairie. These stadium courses incorporate banks, true liverpools (e.g. real water), grobs, etc. as well as having multiple levels of terrain over the entire course. (I have to admit I did snicker the other day when I saw a horse jump a 4'6" vertical beautifully only to come to a screeching halt at a 18" drop bank.) Of course a course designer must rethink their course, especially when having to go from a large area such as the steeplechase area to a dressage arena (can't have fences shadowing each other).

The point here is that eventing SJ course designers can make very challenging courses at all levels such that a refusal will mean more than 4 penalty points by going out and using the strengths and expertise shown by the other disciplines.

Reed steps on his soapbox so what follows is a personal rant not intending to offend anybody personally. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Why I am being so adamant here? A few of you may know I am trying to put together a proposal to examine why horses are collapsing and dying on XC (supposedly due to "aortic rupture"). Well, after speaking with an FEI vet and a reviewer on the funding agency committee, he made a VERY pointed comment to me, that WE, as eventers, had better get our house in order because the rest of the world does not consider us too favorably right now because of things such as the horses collapsing. I see our sport on the verge of destruction (regardless of who is doing what and how much "power" they have) and we need to start cleaning house instead of saying "this is the way it has always been." That means we at the grass roots level need to work collaboratively with the h/j and dressage disciplines and incorporate the things that will make our sport stronger. If we are always saying that eventing stadium is not like the jumpers (due to terrain, footing, etc.) so we should leave rules, well we are just cutting our noses off to spite our faces. Whew. I guess the stress in the rest of my life just came out. Sorry.

Reed

subk
Jul. 16, 2003, 01:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AM:
we are usually a year behind the FEI in changing our national rules. The FEI went to 4 penalty points in SJ last year and 2 disobediances and you are out this year. I look to us to adopt the 2 and out rule next year.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But why do we automatically assume that the rules for 3-Day Eventing (which deals only at Prelim and above) are appropriate for lower level Horse Trials. While one leads up to the other they are in many ways different sports.

tle
Jul. 16, 2003, 01:23 PM
Ok, now it's my turn.

Reed... ya know I love ya ( http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ), but I'm not sure what you're trying to say. What do you see as the strengths that we could bring in from Dressage and H/J that would help the sport? Course design I understand, but are you talking for the sport or strengths that individual riders need to gain from those sports to make themselves better? In the case of the former, I need for you to elaborate. In the case of the latter, while many will and do, there are just as many who won't... who don't feel it is necessary... who (to bring in a PT that I'm having at the moment with 2 former eventers) feel it necessary to event based on that good ole American Instant Gratification and will, until they get hurt or someone whacks them with a 2x4 hard enough to make the point, continue to NOT do their homework for whatever reason.

PS. subk... you're my hero!! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

************
If Dressage is a Symphony... Eventing is Rock & Roll!!!

"All's well that ends with cute E.R. doctors, I always say." -- Buffy

RAyers
Jul. 16, 2003, 01:36 PM
tle, yeah, my diatribe is a bit off the wall. It actually is intended in both directions you mention, at both riders and officials. I hate to say, I have to depart at the moment so I can not elaborate, but I agree with what you say and I promise to be more clear, including 2x4s as appropriate subsequently (and it will include an idea subk just gave me). http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Reed

Boss Hoss
Jul. 16, 2003, 01:41 PM
Whoever ends the day with the least amount of faults in dressage, XC & SJ should win the competition. You need a good all around athlete to win this triathalon. Each phase seems properly weighted as it has always been. Within each phase minor & major faults need to be penalized accordingly. A rail down=a refusal in SJ? Well does a refusal in XC = rider fall in XC? That seems to be what this rule change suggets..

It takes a good dressage horse to win the dressage phase, but it doesn't necessarily take a good dressage horse to win all 3 phases. I know first hand how fast a good dressage horse can stop on XC & SJ. I don't believe there is a direct cause/effect between good dressage and double clears...the horse who dances may not be the best jumper.

However a XC horse that is well balanced, maintains a consistent rythymn, is very attentive to his rider & surroundings and is supple in the bridle..will of course do well in dressage. So a good XC horse will do pretty well in dressage, but that doesn't make him a dressage horse per say.

Seems we're losing the "combined training" thinking now that we call this sport "eventing"?

JER
Jul. 16, 2003, 02:14 PM
Maybe the A h/j shows are different out here on the west coast, but it's been a while since I've seen a well-designed SJ course for the lower level jumpers (schooling, training, hopeful, AA's etc.). The courses are mostly adequate; the most important design principle is how many times you can use the fence without having to move it.

I have noticed that the jumps come up faster -- perhaps because of all the extra/unused fences in the ring, you don't have real long stretches without a fence like I've seen in eventing SJ. At the lowest levels, there's usually two in and outs, one on the diagonal and the other on an outside line, with another fence several strides in front of the first element. This might be what Reed means by triple combination -- I know I haven't seen a proper triple until a higher level.

Personally, I'd like to see more combinations at the lower levels in eventing. While it might be a good test for a rider/horse at Training or above, a long gallop to a single fence is just about the worst thing for green horses and/or green riders. If you use a lot of gymnastics/gridwork at home to train your greenies, combinations and related distances are so much better in the show ring.

But while I'm a fan of more technical SJ courses, I'd like to know what I'm getting into before I spend my upwards-of-$300. If I sign up my green horse for his first Training at Whatever Horse Trials, I go there with an idea of what to expect and why this venue is suitable for his Training debut. If I've competed there for the past 7 years at various levels, I think I know what to expect, the XC course is not going to be significantly different, but what if, when I get there, the SJ course is really at the technical max for that level and my horse is there for a good first-time experience? And SJ is run before XC? Is it really worth tossing out months of careful training for the sake of 60 seconds in the show ring? Do I need to wait until my horse could master ANY Training level course in the world before running him at Training?

AWIP
Jul. 16, 2003, 02:23 PM
I hear ya Boss Hoss...

The thing that always attracted me to eventing was the "jack of all trades" aspect.

GotSpots
Jul. 16, 2003, 02:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> If I've competed there for the past 7 years at various levels, I think I know what to expect, the XC course is not going to be significantly different, but what if, when I get there, the SJ course is really at the technical max for that level and my horse is there for a good first-time experience? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
OK, pet peeve here: the level is the level. If anything, we need to work to make the levels standard. The show jumping test is intended to be designed to prove that a horse which has just completed the speed and endurance phase is still fit, sane, and focused enough to come back and jump a course without knocking down the jumps.

I'm not sure if you are referring to the size of the jumps or the track of the course. If you are doing your first Training course, you should expect that the jumps will be 3'3" and the appropriate width. That's what the division specifies. If you can go and jump around the cross-country course at a given level, you may have a few rails at stadium, but I would expect you to be competent to ride around the stadium course at that level. I just can't see it ruining a year of training to have a couple good questions on the course.

AWIP
Jul. 16, 2003, 02:56 PM
GotSpots ... I don't quite agree with you there.

The stadium difficulty could be greatly increased or lengthened by the questions of the course other than just height. I say a training course once that eliminated 75% of the field from the tightness of the turns and approaches. Thankfully (I think) this was after XC, but to spend the $$$ for an HT and to be elimininated by an unusually difficult stadium course before running XC is frustrating in the extreme. This one of the reasons I don't like the tinkering with the traditional order of phases...

GotSpots
Jul. 16, 2003, 03:16 PM
And that's why I think we need to make the questions and the courses built to a standard, and why I said I wasn't sure whether the objection was to the size of the jumps or the track of the course. If a course is eliminating 75% of the field, than it's either (a) not a fair question for the level, or (b) the field was as a group not ready for the level. I tend to guess (a), but that's just giving people the benefit of the doubt.

For example, at Wayne this weekend there was a panel oxer in the first Prelim section that was likely a fair question had the sun been higher, but with the low sun, it caused a bunch of strange shadows and horses not knowing where to take off. The officials recognized the problem, and changed the question for the next division.

Sure, it's frustrating to get eliminated in stadium. It's frustrating to get eliminated in x-c. Or in dressage. But the sport has three phases, and the goal is do all of them fairly well. I think the lack of consistency of difficulty between courses is one of the most frustrating things: it's one of the reasons I'm a huge fan of the review program for upper level courses. If we had time/money, I think it should be extended to Novice and Training. In the absence of that type of review, it is the job of the TD, perhaps with input from the rider representative, to help ensure that the course is up to, but does not exceed the level of the test. Just as there shouldn't really be bounces on a Novice x-c course, a Prelim course shouldn't just be logs on the ground. Similarly, a Novice stadium test should be rewarding to a less experienced horse but a Prelim stadium test should have some real questions on, including turning questions and combinations.

JER
Jul. 16, 2003, 03:44 PM
I think what the course designer has to be aware of is there is such a thing as asking too many questions. It's just not fair to the horse.

On XC, there's usually enough distance between fences to allow for a mental let up, as in a long gallop to an inviting fence. You don't really have this in SJ -- the whole course needs to be ridden with a different flow and accuracy, and the flow and accuracy required should be appropriate for that level.

subk
Jul. 16, 2003, 06:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Boss Hoss:
However a XC horse that is well balanced, maintains a consistent rythymn, is very attentive to his rider & surroundings and is supple in the bridle..will of course do well in dressage. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh darling if only!!! If that were so you'd already know my name 'cause it would have been up in lights by now! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

A couple other things...

For the most part the officials generally have a MUCH better idea how the XC is going to run and how it will stack up. Many of the fences will have already been jumped before and the course was designed and built by someone who has been qualified by the USEA. SJ on the other hand is a dozen or so fences that have probably never been jumped in the exact circumstances they get set up. As previously noted there are no requirements for SJ designer (hell, they'd probably let me do one!) so it is more likely a person with less foresight is designing it.

When JER discussed the "course designer...asking too many questions" That is a very difficult thing to standardize. An interesting point though is that the "standards" for XC are no different for a CCI*** and CCI**** the major difference in difficulty is how many and how quickly the more challenging questions present themselves on the course.

a_w_i_progress--I have always hated that "jack of all trades" discription because the next line in the saying is "...and master of none." Event horses are masters of running cross country. I think we forget that. As we delute the endurance phase we're moving back to the "all trades" description.

tle--and what kind of pressure are you trying to put on me! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Gry2Yng
Jul. 16, 2003, 08:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Event horses are masters of running cross country. I think we forget that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe a little off topic, but it reminds me of a question I am frequently asked by non-eventers...

"Which phase do you like best?" Seems like the most ridiculous question I can think of. There are specific sports for Dressage and Show Jumping, isn't it obvious that I like xc the best.

I am a good dressage rider and a good stadium rider, but cross country is what gets my blood pumping and it is what my horses EXCEL at. I like the other stuff and even go to a few h/j shows for fun. I go to dressage shows to school, can't say I have ever had fun at one.

Anyway, what subk said!!!!

Janet
Jul. 17, 2003, 04:51 AM
Ideally, the stadium course will be such that people who "haven't done their homework" will get faults in such a way that they know they need to work on it, but without scaring (or worse, injuring) either horse or rider. That is a difficult objective.

For instance, I happen to think the Gegi Winslett does a good job of this. If I have done my homework, I go clear. If I have a fault, it ALWAYS identifies something I need to work on. The courses at Waredaca usually do that too. You can usually tell before they have gone over 2 fences if they are going to make it clear.

But I know people who think Gegi's courses are "too hard" and chose not to enter events where she is the course designer.

I don't know what the solution is.

By the way, the rules say the difficulty of the Stadium should match the difficulty of the Cross Country. The problem is that the organizers are now discouraged from having, or identifying "move up" courses.

But if it is a CC course that is appropriate for your first "Training", it SHOULD be a Stadium appropriate for your first Trraining.

The difference is that you really can't "do" a cross country course without entering an event. But you can enter plenty of 3'3" jumper clases at local shows. So your first Training event will be your first actual Training cross country course. But it need not be (and probably shouldn't be) your first 3'3" "jumpin in the ring" course

Janet
chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle, and Brain

Boss Hoss
Jul. 18, 2003, 07:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>But if it is a CC course that is appropriate for your first "Training", it SHOULD be a Stadium appropriate for your first Trraining.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know..DVPC's unrec. spring horse trial had a pretty tough indoor SJ and a novish xc .. but then DVCTA's rec. spring horse trial had a prelimish xc and a novish SJ. Maybe the same person who built the XC should build the SJ..there still seems to be a disconnect.

tle
Jul. 18, 2003, 07:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I don't know..DVPC's unrec. spring horse trial had a pretty tough indoor SJ and a novish xc .. but then DVCTA's rec. spring horse trial had a prelimish xc and a novish SJ. Maybe the same person who built the XC should build the SJ..there still seems to be a disconnect.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Janet's right... there should be some kind of "trend" over the XC and SJ courses when it comes to difficulty. However, it's not realistic in many cases (especially at the upper levels) to have the same person design both as many time SJ conditions change and need to be done that week or the day before and the XC course designer may not be available (or affordable!!) to design SJ... but a good SJ designer will take the XC course difficulty into account when designing SJ.

************
If Dressage is a Symphony... Eventing is Rock & Roll!!!

"All's well that ends with cute E.R. doctors, I always say." -- Buffy

theponylady
Jul. 18, 2003, 08:49 AM
I think one of the reasons you do not see many combinations at the lower levels is due to the fact that there are a large number of ponies, small horses, and short strided older horses at the lowest levels who simply can not make the strides. You'd be setting up a lot of wrecks and discouraging a lot of beginners by using combinations at the lower levels. As the fences get bigger, you see fewer horses that will have trouble with the combinations, and of course, you expect that the horses and riders should be able to make them.

Considering the horses and riders in stadium have already gotten around the cc course with lots of long gallops to single fences, you can only assume that they can make the long gallop to a single fence in the stadium.

To get past the lower levels horses and riders must of course learn to do combinations, and horses who can't are not going to move up. But the lower levels give these horses and green riders a place to safely compete and get miles on them and learn the rules before they need to move up.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JER:
Maybe the A h/j shows are different out here on the west coast, but it's been a while since I've seen a well-designed SJ course for the lower level jumpers (schooling, training, hopeful, AA's etc.). The courses are mostly adequate; the most important design principle is how many times you can use the fence without having to move it.

I have noticed that the jumps come up faster -- perhaps because of all the extra/unused fences in the ring, you don't have real long stretches without a fence like I've seen in eventing SJ. At the lowest levels, there's usually two in and outs, one on the diagonal and the other on an outside line, with another fence several strides in front of the first element. This might be what Reed means by triple combination -- I know I haven't seen a proper triple until a higher level.

Personally, I'd like to see more combinations at the lower levels in eventing. While it might be a good test for a rider/horse at Training or above, a long gallop to a single fence is just about the worst thing for green horses and/or green riders. If you use a lot of gymnastics/gridwork at home to train your greenies, combinations and related distances are so much better in the show ring.

But while I'm a fan of more technical SJ courses, I'd like to know what I'm getting into before I spend my upwards-of-$300. If I sign up my green horse for his first Training at Whatever Horse Trials, I go there with an idea of what to expect and why this venue is suitable for his Training debut. If I've competed there for the past 7 years at various levels, I think I know what to expect, the XC course is not going to be significantly different, but what if, when I get there, the SJ course is really at the technical max for that level and my horse is there for a good first-time experience? And SJ is run before XC? Is it really worth tossing out months of careful training for the sake of 60 seconds in the show ring? Do I need to wait until my horse could master ANY Training level course in the world before running him at Training?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Karen Vicencio

tle
Jul. 18, 2003, 09:26 AM
Karen,

I see your point, I really do... so please don't take this the wrong way (as being snobby, b*tchy or elitis). I think that for the most part, the reason of crashes due to short strided horses, ponies, etc. is an excuse.

I'd love to be making the big bucks in the NBA. Flying all over the country, performing for millions of fans. Would be great!! The problem is that I'm 5'6". Think they could lower the basket for me and other shorter people like me who wnat to play but can't because the basket is too tall?

Silly analogy, but pretty on target with what I'm trying to say. Eventing is a sport. A tough, challenging sport. Watering it down helps no one. Either play with the "big dogs" or stay on the porch. People doing this sport wrong get hurt, or worse, hurt their horses. It's not elitist, it's safety conscious. People and horses need to do their homework BEFORE they compete. Of course anyone who has known me for a while knows that I say this remembering full well that for several years I was that scarey "omg she's going to kill herself" ride. But if someone had told me in the beginning that I needed to be able to do X Y and Z, I would have done it.

************
If Dressage is a Symphony... Eventing is Rock & Roll!!!

"All's well that ends with cute E.R. doctors, I always say." -- Buffy

Hilary
Jul. 18, 2003, 09:46 AM
I also disagree that distances in stadium need to be adjusted for the smaller horses. My prelim event mare was 15.1 on a tall day and she never had a striding problem. Neither did her mother, or her siblings, most of whom were her size and made it to prelim or above.

I've seen several flawless stadium rounds by ponies in my area at Prelim. My 17h horse sometimes has a problem at Novice when he's feeling uncoordinated -do I ask for them to make the double longer?

The smaller animals certainly do it differently, but the athletic ones don't have trouble.

Boss Hoss
Jul. 18, 2003, 12:30 PM
I don't think striding is a function of horse height either..Manny is a 12ft strider at 16.3H, while my trainer's horses are 14 ft striders. So I have the advantage on short strided combos while disadvantaged for longer strided combos. I don't think you can make every course optimum for every horse. Set it based on the average stride for the level and everyone else just ADJUST.

poltroon
Jul. 18, 2003, 12:49 PM
Guys, Karen isn't talking about 15 hh horses, but small and medium ponies with little kids on them. I think it's reasonable to send a kid on a 12.2 pony around a novice course, but a combination would potentially be a problem unless it's mega-pony and/or with a very tough little kid.

Large ponies do generally have courses set on the ordinary 12' stride.

If we don't have a separate pony division, we have to consider this.

JER
Jul. 18, 2003, 12:58 PM
I agree with poltroon and Karen. A 13.2hh pony with an average stride is going to have a shorter stride than an average-strided 16hh horse. When the fences are 3'7" with appropriate spreads, there's a difference in how that pony would handle the course. There are ponies that could do it but others would simply be at a disadvantage.

tle
Jul. 18, 2003, 01:27 PM
No, I totally understood what kinds of horses/riders she was talking about and I stand by my previously stated opinion. So a small pony puts in 3 short strides in that novice 2 stride. That can be done -- even my 16.2 TB mare has been known to send me a message to quit acting like an abcess on her back by putting 3 strides in a 2 stride distance... and that was a Prelim!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JER:
I agree with poltroon and Karen. A 13.2hh pony with an average stride is going to have a shorter stride than an average-strided 16hh horse. When the fences are 3'7" with appropriate spreads, there's a difference in how that pony would handle the course. There are ponies that could do it but others would simply be at a disadvantage.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but she's also NOT talking about 3'7" jumps/courses... at least not the way I read it ("lower levels"). Please correct me if I read this incorrectly. Won't necessarily change my opinion, but would help to make things clearer.

************
If Dressage is a Symphony... Eventing is Rock & Roll!!!

"All's well that ends with cute E.R. doctors, I always say." -- Buffy

mcmIV
Jul. 18, 2003, 06:56 PM
I think we got a little off topic - but I'm with TLE on the pony/short stride thing. I think the basketball analogy is a decent one.

If you want to be successful at a discipline, be it sport, or art or career or whatever, you need all the ingredients. If you aren't physically suited to something you either better figure out a way to complete the requirements within your means, or you need a new discipline. Period.

martha

Proud member of the * Hoof Fetish Clique *

My Album - in full swing - some Area IV H.T. pics, and plenty of my friend Java.
http://community.webshots.com/user/mcmiv

theponylady
Jul. 19, 2003, 10:11 AM
AH, but here's the thing. Novice and training level are NOT upper levels. They are NOT the NBA. Novice and training are supposed to be more like a high school leaguehttp://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Eventing is a sport, but it has been made with many different levels, so that pretty much everyone who wants to can compete. By making the lower levels too tough, you will discourage too many people from trying them, and that will affect the upper levels. Fewer people will give the sport a try, and fewer will move up. Make the lower levesl too hard, and you are effectively dooming the entire sport.

You say you yourself scared a lot of peoplehttp://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Now you know better. That's because you had the lower levels to start at, to learn at, and they were easy enough for you to survive your mistakes. Now, you can or already have moved up. That is as it should be. The lower levels teach people what they don't know. They get the opportunity to do the events, and as they go along, they start seeing how much they need to learn, how important dressage is, how important forward over the fences is.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tle:
Karen,

I see your point, I really do... so please don't take this the wrong way (as being snobby, b*tchy or elitis). I think that for the most part, the reason of crashes due to short strided horses, ponies, etc. is an excuse.

I'd love to be making the big bucks in the NBA. Flying all over the country, performing for millions of fans. Would be great!! The problem is that I'm 5'6". Think they could lower the basket for me and other shorter people like me who wnat to play but can't because the basket is too tall?

Silly analogy, but pretty on target with what I'm trying to say. Eventing is a sport. A tough, challenging sport. Watering it down helps no one. Either play with the "big dogs" or stay on the porch. People doing this sport wrong get hurt, or worse, hurt their horses. It's not elitist, it's safety conscious. People and horses need to do their homework BEFORE they compete. Of course anyone who has known me for a while knows that I say this remembering full well that for several years I was that scarey "omg she's going to kill herself" ride. But if someone had told me in the beginning that I needed to be able to do X Y and Z, I would have done it.

************
If Dressage is a Symphony... Eventing is Rock & Roll!!!

"All's well that ends with cute E.R. doctors, I always say." -- Buffy
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Karen Vicencio

JER
Jul. 19, 2003, 10:36 AM
British Eventing has a rule about hte horse/pony thing. According to their rules, "horses must exceed 148cm (14.2hh) in height without shoes" to compete in recognized horse trials.

They do have separate pony eventing, right up to the international level for the under 16 riders. The courses can be quite challenging, much the same way the JA showjumping (large ponies) challenges the younger competitors -- 4' fences and sizable spreads.

In case anyone is wondering, Marion Mould's Olympic medalist showjumper Stroller had 'pony' status -- 148cm/14.2hh -- until Marion reached senior competition age. Quite remarkably, Stroller 'grew' an inch right about that time, so that he 'measured' 14.3hh and could compete in affiliated horse competitions, including the 1968 Olympics where they brought home the silver medal.

Gry2Yng
Jul. 19, 2003, 03:32 PM
Ponies are amazing in their ability to grow and shrink based on the need of the moment. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

tle
Jul. 20, 2003, 07:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>AH, but here's the thing. Novice and training level are NOT upper levels. They are NOT the NBA. Novice and training are supposed to be more like a high school league Eventing is a sport, but it has been made with many different levels, so that pretty much everyone who wants to can compete. By making the lower levels too tough, you will discourage too many people from trying them, and that will affect the upper levels. Fewer people will give the sport a try, and fewer will move up. Make the lower levesl too hard, and you are effectively dooming the entire sport.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

make the lower levels too easy and you'll doom the sport too! We've seen the inklings of this already... by lowering the requirements and lower and lowering, we make larger gaps that horses and riders have to overcome, and then we lower standards again.

Lowering standards NEVER helped anyone. "You can't strengthen the weak by weakening the strong." Look at some of our public school systems where kids don't have to do much yet they get passed to the next grade anyway... and that's at the "high school level". http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You say you yourself scared a lot of people Now you know better. That's because you had the lower levels to start at, to learn at, and they were easy enough for you to survive your mistakes. Now, you can or already have moved up. That is as it should be. The lower levels teach people what they don't know. They get the opportunity to do the events, and as they go along, they start seeing how much they need to learn, how important dressage is, how important forward over the fences is.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, actually you don't know me at all so how can you presume what prompted me to learn more? It actually was taking clinics NOT the courses... having riders who have been there/done that explain (over and over) what I needed to do... NOT the courses themselves.

I see what you're trying to say, I really do. But as mcmIV put it... if you don't have the physical capabilities (or mental or whatever) to compete, why does the entire sport have to change? I'd be lost competing in HIGH SCHOOL gymnastics, much less the national level... but I can guarantee that sport isn't gonig to change so that cartwheels with bent knees is going to score a 10 (like that analogy better?)

No one is saying that we dont' need the lower levels, but at some point the standards need to simply say "you must be able to do X"... plain and simple.

************
If Dressage is a Symphony... Eventing is Rock & Roll!!!

"All's well that ends with cute E.R. doctors, I always say." -- Buffy

theponylady
Jul. 20, 2003, 10:31 AM
The way the standards are, they DO say "you must be able to do x". You must be able to walk trot, canter, and jump a course of 2'11" fences. If you can't do that, you don't make it through the event. And if you can't do more, then you don't go on.

How many people here started off at beginner novice level on a horse that maybe wasn't appropriate? Most survived, because beginner novice is made to be pretty basic and easy. They need to learn a little to move up to novice, and more to move up to training. It's a good process where each level builds on the one before it.

I sure don't think the lowest level needs to be "dumbed down", it's easy enough as is, I really don't think it needs to be harder either.

I disagree that keeping the lower levels easy is going to hurt the sport. The sport has grown by leaps and bounds the past 10 years, and I believe it is because there are now lower levels. Many people who wouldn't event at all if the lower levels were harder decide to give it a try. And then some of them move up after a while.

No one is saying that a poorly done movement should score a 10. Or that a badly jumped course with stops or rails down should not have penalties.

What I am trying to say is that I really think the way it is set up right now is fair. If anyone does a really poor job in any of the three events, it's going to cost them. If anyone does a reasonable job in all three events, they are going to be middle of the pack. And if anyone does really well in all three events, they are going to be up there. I don't think that any of the three phases should be weighted any more heavily than another, and I really think it works and is fair the way it is set up.

Something made you want to take clinics, and what I have been reading is that you were eventing BEFORE you took the clinics. Somewhere along the line, you decided you needed to learn more. But you were out there before you learned more. You did the same thing many people do. They DON'T know more, but they decide eventing is something they want to try. So they do, and they learn that they need to learn a lot more, and often they learn that the horse they thought was so wonderful doesn't have what it takes to be an event horse. Hopefully they learn that without any bad wrecks, just some bad dressage scores and some stops or knockdowns. Make the courses too tough at the lower levels, and you have big wrecks where people and horses get hurt.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tle:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>AH, but here's the thing. Novice and training level are NOT upper levels. They are NOT the NBA. Novice and training are supposed to be more like a high school league Eventing is a sport, but it has been made with many different levels, so that pretty much everyone who wants to can compete. By making the lower levels too tough, you will discourage too many people from trying them, and that will affect the upper levels. Fewer people will give the sport a try, and fewer will move up. Make the lower levesl too hard, and you are effectively dooming the entire sport.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

make the lower levels too easy and you'll doom the sport too! We've seen the inklings of this already... by lowering the requirements and lower and lowering, we make larger gaps that horses and riders have to overcome, and then we lower standards again.

Lowering standards NEVER helped anyone. "You can't strengthen the weak by weakening the strong." Look at some of our public school systems where kids don't have to do much yet they get passed to the next grade anyway... and that's at the "high school level". http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You say you yourself scared a lot of people Now you know better. That's because you had the lower levels to start at, to learn at, and they were easy enough for you to survive your mistakes. Now, you can or already have moved up. That is as it should be. The lower levels teach people what they don't know. They get the opportunity to do the events, and as they go along, they start seeing how much they need to learn, how important dressage is, how important forward over the fences is.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, actually you don't know me at all so how can you presume what prompted me to learn more? It actually was taking clinics NOT the courses... having riders who have been there/done that explain (over and over) what I needed to do... NOT the courses themselves.

I see what you're trying to say, I really do. But as mcmIV put it... if you don't have the physical capabilities (or mental or whatever) to compete, why does the entire sport have to change? I'd be lost competing in HIGH SCHOOL gymnastics, much less the national level... but I can guarantee that sport isn't gonig to change so that cartwheels with bent knees is going to score a 10 (like that analogy better?)

No one is saying that we dont' need the lower levels, but at some point the standards need to simply say "you must be able to do X"... plain and simple.

************
If Dressage is a Symphony... Eventing is Rock & Roll!!!

"All's well that ends with cute E.R. doctors, I always say." -- Buffy
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Karen Vicencio

Gry2Yng
Jul. 20, 2003, 02:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I don't think that any of the three phases should be weighted any more heavily than another, and I really think it works and is fair the way it is set up.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Each of the phases is weighted, with the most weight being put on xc.

subk
Jul. 20, 2003, 03:04 PM
For years and years eventing in Britian STARTED at the equivilant to our Preliminary. Someone more familiar with British Eventing could tell me if I'm wrong but it has only been more recently that Pre-training (our training) has been a regular thing. Doesn't seem to have been a big crisis over there that there isn't easy levels.

The point is that eventing as much as we all love it is NOT a sport appropriate for beginners. It was never design to be. Nor is it a sport appropriate for everyone. We need to be carefull trying to take something that by definition is selective (i.e. multi-disiplined) and trying to make it appropriate for the masses.

As far as adjusting distances for ponies. That's a major problem. As discussed earier XC and Stadium should have some relationship in terms of difficulty. If you're going to adjust distances in stadium what do you propose for XC. I need a rules guru here--while you might not have true ombinations at novice you can have related distances of multiple strides. Combinations on XC are certainly appropriate at training so the requirement to "do the strides" does happen quite early.

Boss Hoss
Jul. 20, 2003, 03:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gry2Yng:
Each of the phases is weighted, with the most weight being put on xc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I said that, that's what I meant..that the weighting is already pretty much proven out and shouldn't be changed. Winning dressage doesn't make you the best triathlete, but winning cross country, should put you in the ribbons...winning dressage, winning cross country and then dropping a rail in SJ should change the color of your ribbon at least. This is how it seemd to be in reality.

But wasn't "eventing" established to test the Cavalry Soldier first, not the horse? I don't think we want to look backwards on our evolution..the cross country is the hardest part it should have the heaviest weight and it does by the amount of penalty points awarded.

Also on this note..I'd rather see horse trials done specifically on one day formats to test the phases together since we don't have the full endurance phase of a 3day. However I know some orgainzers have a hard enough time fielding volunteers on one day versus two (eg cross country).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>For years and years eventing in Britian STARTED at the equivilant to our Preliminary. Someone more familiar with British Eventing could tell me if I'm wrong but it has only been more recently that Pre-training (our training) has been a regular thing. Doesn't seem to have been a big crisis over there that there isn't easy levels.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well in Virgina Leng's book she comments that "we do have a growing number of prenovice events in this country (Britain), which give young horses an excellent introduction to the sport" .. however her perspective is that she is bringing along a 5 year old who will be doing his first "Novice" (US Prelim) in the spring...and only 5-6 outings in the spring.

She discusses preparing for the first "one day"..by doing a lot of jumping contests and jumping derbies (courses set as combos of stadium & xc obstacles). And lots of XC "schooling". Also the jumping grids she's using are not over 3'3".

Now how many adult amateurs have the confidence of a pro to be able to build the confidence in a green horse and go into a prelim course? I think this is why we have the lower levels..not for the pros but for everyone else including the green horse. They should be viewed upon as BUILDING BLOCKS for the upper levels..so don't make the gap between pre-novice & novice (err I mean training & prelim) too wide or few will cross it.

And I'm glad the USEA recognizes the lowere levels because the standards of unrec. events are dangerous..due to the variations in people's opinions of what constitutes the level.

Janet
Jul. 20, 2003, 05:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I think one of the reasons you do not see many combinations at the lower levels is due to
the fact that there are a large number of ponies, small horses, and short strided older
horses at the lowest levels who simply can not make the strides. You'd be setting up a lot
of wrecks and discouraging a lot of begin <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But nobody is "counting strides" in eventing. It doesn't matter if you take how many strides you take.

If you can't make 2 strides (12 foor stride) in a 36 foot combination, do it in 3 strides (9 foot stride). No one is going to hold it against you

Janet
chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle, and Brain

tle
Jul. 20, 2003, 06:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>How many people here started off at beginner novice level on a horse that maybe wasn't appropriate? Most survived, because beginner novice is made to be pretty basic and easy. They need to learn a little to move up to novice, and more to move up to training. It's a good process where each level builds on the one before it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No one is saying that this statement is wrong. I don't think you'd find anyone to argue that the progression of the levels is exactly what horse and rider need to move up successfully. However, in one breath you're saying that the levels are appropriate and in another you're saying that things should be different because certain types of horses can't do what is required (ie: ponies making the strides). Please make up my mind which point you're arguing for! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I disagree that keeping the lower levels easy is going to hurt the sport. The sport has grown by leaps and bounds the past 10 years, and I believe it is because there are now lower levels. Many people who wouldn't event at all if the lower levels were harder decide to give it a try. And then some of them move up after a while.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem is when people (as per your earlier statements about ponies) want to make them even easier that we start into a complete downward spiral that is going to irrevicably (sp?) damage the sport so many of us love. Of course there are more people in the sport now... there didn't used to be BN-T, which now accounts for 75% of starters... which means that if those levels weren't there, of course so many people wouldn't be eventing. Not sure what point you were trying to make there.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I don't think that any of the three phases should be weighted any more heavily than another, and I really think it works and is fair the way it is set up.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here is where I completely disagree. XC is the heart of the sport... always has been. What need would the calvary have for a horse who was obedient on the parade grounds, but wasn't brave, fast and fit in battle?? Answer - NONE! XC is the heart of the sport and thus should be given appropriate weighting. Let's face it... this sport, a triathlon, DOES favor one aspect over all others -- that a horse is a good jumper. The problem we're having in this discussion is that by lowering the penalties for a refusal in stadium, with the reasoning being that the time faults will add up when that is NOT the case at the lower levels, it then completely throws away part of the aspects upon which this sport is built -- that a horse jumps.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Something made you want to take clinics, and what I have been reading is that you were eventing BEFORE you took the clinics. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes I was eventing a year before I started taking clinics, but wanna know something? The reason I started was MONEY! I thought by organizing clinics I could cover some of my expenses. Learning, while a very welcome byproduct, wasn't the main motivation.

And there are many people who event, who don't know much, that continue eventing without seeking the knowledge to get better simply because they are at the lower levels which, as you've already said, are easy (relatively). These are the people that making this sport, as subk says, accessible to the masses is putting in harms way. What is the answer? The USEA is trying to help with the instructor certification program... but some people won't have access to instructors that give a rat's butt about the program (especially at the prices that are being charged for the clinics) -- I know... when I started I had one of those instructors! I don't know... but the one thing I do know is that making things "too easy" so Joe American with their penchant for instant gratification can climb on a horse once in a blue moon and try an event isn't it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I need a rules guru here--while you might not have true ombinations at novice you can have related distances of multiple strides.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

33' is the minimum distance on XC for Novice.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>But wasn't "eventing" established to test the Cavalry Soldier first, not the horse? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not to my understanding. The whole test was of the partnership, but individually:

Dressage -- obedience on teh parade grounds
XC - bravery, fitness, and speed in battle
SJ - a test of fitness and soundness the day after a battle

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Now how many adult amateurs have the confidence of a pro to be able to build the confidence in a green horse and go into a prelim course? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All those SJ derbies, dressage shows and the countless XC schoolings that you mentioned that Ginny Leng talks about in her book hardly equal what we all think of when we hear "green horse".

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I think this is why we have the lower levels..not for the pros but for everyone else including the green horse. They should be viewed upon as BUILDING BLOCKS for the upper levels..so don't make the gap between pre-novice & novice (err I mean training & prelim) too wide or few will cross it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This may sound overly cynical, but the lower levels were developed to get more people in teh sport (aka money). Don't get me wrong... I'm glad they are there and I'm glad they were there when I started eventing. I agree with you about the building block idea though. however, the gap shouldn't be closed by making the upper levels come down to meet the lower levels... it should go the other way. And unfortunately it hasn't been in recent years.

************
If Dressage is a Symphony... Eventing is Rock & Roll!!!

"All's well that ends with cute E.R. doctors, I always say." -- Buffy

Boss Hoss
Jul. 20, 2003, 06:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>But nobody is "counting strides" in eventing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

don't be so sure of that..at one event I watched 3 different people WALK OFF a combination and come up with 3 different stride measurements.. 4.5, 5, 5.5 who was correct?

what I've been taught is that you need to know how YOUR pony will jump it and how to adjust YOUR pony..my pony has a 12 ft stride and can collect much easier than he can lengthen. So if I walk an in-n-out that should work for a 14 ft strided pony I have to be prepared to THINK over the fence and decide whether I've got a long landing and nice 12 ft stride to take off or did he chip in giving me a short landing and thus have to make a 14ft stride which is not his strength.

So only when I have a one or 2 stride combination do I actually walk it off..I'm looking to see how I will need to adjust my horse based on his strengths. While others will make it in 2, we'll make it in 3...so to say its a 2 stride combination is a relative term.

Any longer distance and I don't bother walking it off..the horse & I will figure it out after we've taken our takeoff spot..then we'll make decisions from there wether to increase/decrease the stride or go wider/shorter in the approach...but at competition speed, this can all fall apart too, and it becomes an Oh Crap! jump.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>the gap shouldn't be closed by making the upper levels come down to meet the lower levels... it should go the other way. And unfortunately it hasn't been in recent years.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I agree..however I have yet to participate in a Training level competition (3 rec. 2 unrec.) that was at 475 mpm either...are they saving that for a championship of should we be actually obtaining that mid season? I think it is an injustice to hold events all year at 425 and then bump it up to 475 at the championships. With that said I've been riding for 475 each time out getting more & more used to it and knowing what it feels like to be able to do it...but 520 still seems another gear away.

Now you will have the other half say that they don't have expectations of running prelim so why should they have to go 475? We have to ride the level we're at. I'd rather see the building blocks set than constantly lowering them and getting a divide.

N=350, T=425 P=520 vs. N=350 T=475 P=520 ?

someone has to make a bigger jump, either N-T or T-P ..we already heard what happens when we make N=400

[This message was edited by Boss Hoss on Jul. 20, 2003 at 09:36 PM.]

subk
Jul. 20, 2003, 07:29 PM
I think what Janet means (if I can take the liberty) about "counting strides" is that the judging doesn't care. Manner of negotiation is riders choice, effectivness counts.

Many of us DO know the striding and have walked it off. Personally I generally don't ride the strides but the rhythm. When things don't go perfect it is awfully useful to know just what kind of adjustment will be effective.

DizzyMagic
Jul. 20, 2003, 10:49 PM
on striding, ponies, and the British:

A friend of mine moved here (VA) from England and grew up pony-clubbing over there. She competed ponies over preliminary courses and said it was not uncommon there, so it seems that a good pony jumper can actually do the courses, whatever the striding.

And as for myself, I rode a short-strided 14.3 horse at BN and found that combinations were routinely long for average horses. I think the combo started at Prelim and was lowered throughout the day until it got to BN, but the take-off spots are so much closer on a fence that is a foot shorter that they seemed to ride pretty long for an average horse. We could just comfortably add a stride and I never had a problem.

Emily

"It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare, it is because we do not dare that they are difficult" - Seneca

theponylady
Jul. 21, 2003, 08:36 AM
I NEVER EVER said that the levels should be any easier! No where at any time have I said that. I did say that I really don't think combinations should be used in novice after several people said they wanted to see harder more technical courses used in the stadium at lower levels. I think for the level, they are hard enough. I believe that the levels are appropriate as is. Adding a stride in a two stride as many have suggested is actually a difficult thing to do, and is actually an advanced concept, needing quite a bit of collection to accomplish.

&lt;&lt;&lt;No one is saying that this statement is wrong. I don't think you'd find anyone to argue that the progression of the levels is exactly what horse and rider need to move up successfully. However, in one breath you're saying that the levels are appropriate and in another you're saying that things should be different because certain types of horses can't do what is required (ie: ponies making the strides). Please make up my mind which point you're arguing for! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


&lt;&lt;&lt;The problem is when people (as per your earlier statements about ponies) want to make them even easier that we start into a complete downward spiral that is going to irrevicably (sp?) damage the sport so many of us love. Of course there are more people in the sport now... there didn't used to be BN-T, which now accounts for 75% of starters... which means that if those levels weren't there, of course so many people wouldn't be eventing. Not sure what point you were trying to make there.&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

Yes, and without the BN the sport appeared to be dying. People were afraid. Now it's a very popular sport, nearly as popular as hunters and jumpers. Events tend to be full and turn people away. Didn't used to be that way.



&lt;&lt;&lt;I don't know... but the one thing I do know is that making things "too easy" so Joe American with their penchant for instant gratification can climb on a horse once in a blue moon and try an event isn't it.&gt;&gt;

Again, I never said the levels need to be easier-they don't. They are fine as is.


&lt;&lt;&lt;33' is the minimum distance on XC for Novice.

Fortunately most course designers do not use this short distance at BN or N level


Not to my understanding. The whole test was of the partnership, but individually:



&lt;&lt;&lt;This may sound overly cynical, but the lower levels were developed to get more people in teh sport (aka money). Don't get me wrong... I'm glad they are there and I'm glad they were there when I started eventing. I agree with you about the building block idea though. however, the gap shouldn't be closed by making the upper levels come down to meet the lower levels... it should go the other way. And unfortunately it hasn't been in recent years.&gt;&gt;&gt;


Yes, they were developed to bring more people into the sport. The sport was dying, there were too few people involved, and it was getting nearly impossible for managers to break even with the heavy costs involved with putting on an event.

Someone else here stated that eventing in Europe starts with prelim level. Not quite. There are hunter trials with smaller fences that you can ride in to get experience cross country, you don't see many of them here. Access to foxhunting and cubbing where horses can get experience over smaller fences(stay to the back of the hunt, the fences get a lot smaller LOL) also allows green horses and riders to get experience over cross country fences at lower heights. And there are schooling events also, just as there are here in the US.

Karen Vicencio

Janet
Jul. 21, 2003, 09:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Boss Hoss:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>But nobody is "counting strides" in eventing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

don't be so sure of that..at one event I watched 3 different people WALK OFF a combination and come up with 3 different stride measurements.. 4.5, 5, 5.5 who was correct?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I wasn't clear. I meant that no one is going to take point off for getting the "wrong" number of strides. There is no such thing a s "wrong" number of strides.

Absolutely- I walk of most distances on stadium. But I am more concerned about whether it comes up short or long compared to the "standard" 12 foot striding, than the actual NUMBER of standard strides. That way I know how I need to ride it, depending on how we take the first jump.

Janet
chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle, and Brain

Janet
Jul. 21, 2003, 09:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Yes, they were developed to bring more people into the sport. The sport was dying, there were too few people involved, and it was getting nearly impossible for managers to break even with the heavy costs involved with putting on an event. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I am not sure where you got this from. Where I am , the events certainly weren't "dying". And the events I am directly involved in have seen no need to add BN to break even.

From MY recolletion,
-more and more unrecognized events were offering levels below novice.
-The events affiliated with Pony Clubs wanted a division for the lowere level pony clubbers
- Competitors wanted a standardized definition, or at least "guidelines" for what constituted "Below Novice". Before the guidelines, you would see everything from 10 log fences at 18" to 24 fences at 2'10", with ditches and water, called some version of "Below Novice".

Janet
chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle, and Brain

Janet
Jul. 22, 2003, 11:24 AM
I am bumping this thread to rimind everyone who has less than perfect stadium that CDCTA is having a show jumping clinic wit British jumper trainer Ernest Dillon in Nokesville on August 30 and 31.

Email me for more info, or check out the calendar on www.cdcta.com (http://www.cdcta.com).
Janet
chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle, and Brain

poltroon
Jul. 22, 2003, 12:56 PM
Karen never asked for things to be easier; she merely pointed out that there is a valid reason to have the BN/Novice divisions without combinations - that is, the status quo.

For a little kid on a small or medium pony, do we want them to have a chance to experience cross-country and eventing? We don't really have separate pony club rallies any more...

I agree, BTW, that it's perfectly reasonable to ask a novice rider to jump an in-and-out. But, I also realize that organizers for the most part aren't going to run separate divisions for small/med ponies, where they change the distances.

A 36' in three strides on a small/med isn't so bad. I'd have my rider trot in. I'd be really worried about a 24' though.

Janet
Jul. 22, 2003, 01:30 PM
Can't have 24' at Novice. Min is 33'

Janet
chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle, and Brain

tle
Jul. 22, 2003, 06:39 PM
for Novice XC, the minimum is 33', but for SJ a 1-stride is completely acceptable.

************
If Dressage is a Symphony... Eventing is Rock & Roll!!!

"All's well that ends with cute E.R. doctors, I always say." -- Buffy

Janet
Jul. 23, 2003, 06:33 AM
TLE. You are right. I was misremembering.

The minimun for a combination in stadium (at all levels) is 7m, or 23'.

In fact, I can no longer find the reference to 33', even for cross country.

But I don't think I have ever seen a "1 stride" in stadium at novice.

Janet
chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle, and Brain

Hilary
Jul. 23, 2003, 06:38 AM
I have seen a 21 foot 1-stride at a novice event (stadium), and I was mighty surprised by it. So was my horse when he leaped in too big! Fortunately the fences are small and he got out ok. Mostly I thought it should have been 24 feet. I know I've jumped several one-strides at Novice in stadium.

tle
Jul. 23, 2003, 07:17 AM
I've seen plenty of them. And honestly, because of the size of the fence, I'm inclined to say that 24' is typically a bit of a long distance at Novice and like it when it is shortened up a bit (of course I have a 16.2 hand mare who is easier to compress for the short stride - and likes it that way - than push for the long one, although she has tons of scope).

************
If Dressage is a Symphony... Eventing is Rock & Roll!!!

"All's well that ends with cute E.R. doctors, I always say." -- Buffy

RAyers
Jul. 23, 2003, 12:33 PM
Wow, go away for a couple of days and boy this has taken off!

I must say I now see how my thoughts are very different from some others concerning this sport. I am an amateur. I have never been, nor ever will be a trainer. That said I have also never started any of my eventers at lower than training. I am a firm believer that competition is not a place for training a horse. It is the test of how well you did at home. Thus I start my horses out in the hunters and jumpers to get them used to technically accurate courses as well as getting them miles and miles and miles of arena time over fence after fence after fence. Same goes with dressage. I fill in with XC schooling on a very regular basis at any and every course I can get them to. Then I go compete.

When I said this sport is in big trouble I meant it. What happened at Groton House is an indicator. It is like watching a couple argue whether to paint and replace the windows in a house where the foundation is failing. I have seen this too many times at universities and in industry right before a department or company imploded.

One thing I see is those that still want the XC to be the highlight (such as myself) but there is also a new move (due to the development of the CICs) to make eventing into an overall test of horse and rider, where XC no longer carries the weight some wish it would. Thus, eventing is facing an evolution/revolution like the hunter/jumpers did in the 80s and early 90s. We had better learn to adapt and work together to make this all work. Eventing is no longer a place where just Pony Club training works. (e.g. I can point out several errors in the PC manuals in on vet care that are based on OLD wives tales). This is not an attack on PC, but a call for people to realize that school is over and this sport, along with us, must evolve to a new ideal.

What I see is what subk and others have mentioned before. Eventing is going to have to split into upper and lower levels (e.g. local shows versus the "A" show circuit in hunter jumpers). At the same time we need to standardize officiating such as dressage judging and stadium course design. Why? Because at a CCI XC will be king but at a CIC, dressage and stadium gain prominence. Thus those tests will need to be adjusted accordingly. This will need to be carried through the lower levels (training and novice) in order to ensure a continued progression of horse and riders that are ready to compete at upper levels, if they so wish.

Why is it that we have to have separate dressage tests than the USDF? It seems event tests are always "in between" levels. Why not have Advanced be true 4th level dressage, Intermediate be 3rd level, Prelim be 2nd level, etc. Numerous event and dressage judges I have spoken with have yet been able to give me a uniform answer. They all seem to wonder why as well. What advantage would this give us as eventers? We can use certified dressage judges at upper levels, expanding the available pool of officials as well as we can standardize our SPORT with another discipline (and also show some of those DQs that we can beat them on their own turf) http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

This is long so I will make another post about stadium. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Reed

subk
Jul. 23, 2003, 03:41 PM
Reed I believe there are two main reasons eventing does not use the USDF tests. First, all (o.k overwelmingly all) H.T.s use the small arena. A test in a standard arena takes a good amount more time and significantly reduces the number of horses that can be scheduled on a given day. I don't believe the more advanced USDF tests ride as well in the small arena (if some of them even can be.)

Secondly, by using our own tests we can modify the tests to better prepare for the FEI tests as we need to. (and then have a resonable build up to it in the lower levels.) Example the inclusion of walk piouettes in the CCI** test and the resulting inclusion of a turn on the haunches in the Intermediate tests.

I do think it is reasonable for all levels of eventing to take its dressage cues from the FEI as opposed to the USDF.

Janet
Jul. 24, 2003, 06:33 AM
The only USDF tests are Intro A and Intro B.

Do you mean the USAE tests?

The OBJECTIVES of the "straight" dressage tests and the "eventing" dressage tests are different. That is why they don't match.

At the FEI levels the "straight" dressage and the "eventing" dressage tests are different.

Janet
chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle, and Brain

subk
Jul. 24, 2003, 07:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Janet:
The only USDF tests are Intro A and Intro B.

Do you mean the USAE tests?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Excuse me. I have my abrivations and organization confused (Imagine that considering we haven't had a name change of a major organization this month. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif ) My point is still rather obvious. The U.S. organization who writes the dressage tests for the "straight dressage" competitions is completely unresponsive to the needs of U.S. eventers in their quest to ride dressage test written by the FEI for international eventing. (And yes, the FEI writes different test for CDI, CCI and CIC competitions.)


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The OBJECTIVES of the "straight" dressage tests and the "eventing" dressage tests are different. That is why they don't match.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Janet I'd be interested to know how you would define those different "OBJECTIVES."

Janet
Jul. 24, 2003, 07:23 AM
The FEI also writes the (upper level) straight dressage tests.

Janet
chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle, and Brain

tle
Jul. 24, 2003, 07:24 AM
I don't know what exactly the "objectives" are that are different, but that is the reason that has been quoted to me several times by various people. I agree that we should follow the FEI's lead in eventing dressage tests.

FWIW, am I the only one who hated the idea of different dressage tests for CCIs and CICs? I loved using a CIC to "practice" for my CCI 7 weeks later.

PS. Reed, that will teach you to leave us for a few days!! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

************
If Dressage is a Symphony... Eventing is Rock & Roll!!!

"All's well that ends with cute E.R. doctors, I always say." -- Buffy

Janet
Jul. 24, 2003, 07:31 AM
Objectives for eventing dressage:
"Article 1733. Dressage Test
1. The object of Dressage is the harmonious development of the physique and ability of the
horse. As a result it makes the horse calm, supple, loose and flexible, but also confident,
attentive and keen, thus achieving perfect understanding with his rider.
2. These qualities are revealed by:
* The freedom and regularity of the paces;
* The harmony, lightness and ease of movements;
* The lightness of the forehand and the engagement of the hind quarters, originating in a
lively impulsion;
* The acceptance of the bridle, with submissiveness throughout and without any tenseness
or resistance."

Objectives for straight dressage:
"2. Objectives and standards of USA Equestrian levels of competition.
TRAINING LEVEL. To confirm that the horse’s muscles are supple and loose, and that it
moves freely forward in clear and steady rhythm, accepting contact with the bit.
FIRST LEVEL. To confirm that the horse, in addition to the requirements of Training Level,
has developed thrust (pushing power) and achieved a degree of balance and throughness.
SECOND LEVEL. To confirm that the horse, having demonstrated that it has achieved the
thrust (pushing power) required in First Level, now shows that through additional training it
accepts more weight on the hind quarters (collection), shows the thrust required at medium
paces and is reliably on the bit. A greater degree of straightness, bending, suppleness,
throughness, and self-carriage is required than at First Level.
THIRD LEVEL. To confirm that the horse has achieved the requirements of Second Level.
It now demonstrates in each movement, especially in medium and extended paces and in the transitions to and from collected movements, rhythm, suppleness, acceptance of the bit,
throughness, impulsion, straightness and collection. There must be a clear distinction
between the paces.
FOURTH LEVEL. To confirm that the horse has achieved the requirements of Third
Level. These are tests of medium difficulty designed to confirm that the horse has acquired
a high degree of suppleness, impulsion, throughness, balance and lightness while always
remaining reliably on the bit, and that its movements are straight, energetic and cadenced
with the transitions precise and smooth."

Not inconsistent. Just different.

Janet
chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle, and Brain

subk
Jul. 24, 2003, 07:39 AM
When did the FEI take over the writing duties for the former AHSA of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd and 4th level tests?

subk
Jul. 24, 2003, 07:43 AM
The Objectives aren't different at all. The "straight" dressage is just more specific/defined per level.

Janet
Jul. 24, 2003, 07:44 AM
By upper level, I meant PSG, I1, I2 and GP.

In both straight and eventing dressage, the national organization writes the lower level tests and the FEI writes the upper level tests. That is all I was trying to say.

Janet
chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle, and Brain

Janet
Jul. 24, 2003, 07:47 AM
We will just have to agree to differ then. I see lots of differences in the objectives.

Janet
chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle, and Brain

subk
Jul. 24, 2003, 07:58 AM
My point is that the real objectives (as opposed to the titled "Objectives") are the same. But because the "straight" dressage folks break out thier Objectives into levels it does not allow eventing dressage the ability to adjust the tests so that there is the most logical and orderly progression toward the FEI CCI/CIC test which themselves change in difficulty. It is not the Objectives themselves just the fact that they are catogorized.

RAyers
Jul. 24, 2003, 11:18 AM
subk,

I agree with what you are saying in principle but, to me it still reinforces the idea the Eventing is at a crossroads in that we need to start having "separate" competitions for those that will go to an "international" level versus a more local/national level. In so doing I still see no reason why FEI requirements would be used to dictate how Novice/Training dressage should be tested. I'm sure we could use USAE training and 1st level tests to see/judge the same things. Sure at Prelim and up, FEI considerations must be included, but at the same time are you going to tell me that since the "objectives" are similar that we could not find a standard test in the USAE repertoire that would match the desired "eventing objectives?"

This same idea goes towards stadium jumping. Again, this week I was at an "A" show watching the level 1-2 jumpers(3'-3'3"). There were triple combinations, related lines/distances, option turns and more. These are "beginner" jumper horses and even first time show riders doing this. Are training and even novice eventers that unbroke/untrained they can not do the same thing? This is the second thing I wanted to bring up and started to do so, so long ago. Stadium jumping, ESPECIALLY at HT and CICs is going to carry a significant impact on the score, no matter how XC is done and it is time to bring the courses up to par with the horses and riders that are out there.

Eventing at the national level can no longer be everything to every horse and rider. It has gotten to the point that we can no longer afford to design a SJ course for the novice or training division and use FEI rules. We need to up the difficulty of these courses if they are going to be run under FEI rules and the riders are going to have to buck it up, or we need to begin to separate out those horse and riders that are on different competition tracks (e.g. international vs. HT). Yes, this means more divisions, but just look at what has happened in h/j and dressage over the years. There are SO many divisions now it is amazing but we still see shows with huge numbers of competitors.

That is why I have no problem with the fact that a refusal is only 4 points now. It points out another HUGE crack in the foundation of eventing, that is it is time for us to grow up and begin to stop trying to be a generalist type sport available and accessible to everyone when we really are SPECIALISTS doing something that is so unique, to compete at the international level takes absolute commitment. We can make this sport still VERY accessible by standardizing dressage and stadium with the other disciplines but at the same time have another level where those that want to go international are prepared.

Reed "the pot stirrer"

subk
Jul. 24, 2003, 12:22 PM
I have to think about this for a compelte response, Reed, but my initial reaction is that your suggestion would put us on the same unfortunate track as the show hunters. They started off as a way to show off your nice hunt horse but have traveled so far away from that they have become a stlyist performance only unto itself. This is precisley because the sport itself has no ultimate or international goal.

My second thought is it would significantly weaken our international performances because you detroy the base. (Refering here to the well accepted "pyramid theroy") Too many people like me get into this sport with no intension to compete internationally only to find themselves "doing the next thing" right onto the long list.

Surely there is a resonable compromise that fairly tests the lower levels yet continues to give them the honor of being a part a something much bigger.

Like I said these are first impressions to your post--I retain all rights to change my mind.: D

(Sorry, I'm having a bad grammer/spelling day--sometimes I just wake up this way...maybe tomorrow will be better..)

RAyers
Jul. 24, 2003, 02:37 PM
subk,

I agree, I am taking a bit of an extreme view because, as you say as well, the truth lies somewhere between what you and I are thinking. Yes, things may end up like the h/j world, but they also can no longer stay as they were or otherwise this sport will be seriously weakened or die if we try to appease everyone (e.g. the Pony Clubber to the FEI).

Think about what I am saying not as what is happening to show hunters but what has happened to h/j in general. There are "A," "B," "C," rated shows (yes, based on prize money) but the same concept can be applied to to eventing based upon the intended competition track of a given horse or rider. Thus you may have "A" riders (e.g. ones that ride internationally, having horses that go in the say "B" levels (e.g. national HTs) because they know the horse does not have the potential to go "higher." Or, a rider that has no international aspirations who can still get great satisfaction from competing at a high national level (e.g. "B") where they may have to do 2nd level dressage with training XC and a level 3 stadium course (a VERY good accomplishment in my consideration). You have not eliminated or denied anyone the chance to move up or get better. You have actually raised the bar at the "lower" levels to make the horses and riders more prepared for international competition.

Reed

Gnep
Jul. 27, 2003, 07:50 AM
I have to agree with Reed The Pot Stirrer.
For Horse Trail er who go their first CIC or CCI the sudden change in the demands come kinde as a shok. Dressage Stadium and especialy X-C are basicly a level up.
Standard HT do not realy prepare for this.
Having A and B level HTs would allow to prepare for the more difficult FEI competitions.
Take dressage no Prelim Test in a standard size Arena, same with Intermediat C.
What a huge differance it is to have to ride in a 20 x 60, same in X-C a One Star is basicly a Intermediat course, Two Star pretty darn close to advanced etc.

One more question should be asked, why do so many succesful Training rider and horses fail at prelim

I think the point system ist totaly wrong, because it favors the dressage rider, not the jumper and the X-C rider, and Galloping and Jumping is what we do most in competition.
The point system should favor the X-C team and not the dressage or stadium team.
I tell my students, that you win an event in dressage and loose it in stadium only on very rare ocasions does one win a event in X-C.
And that is wrong

Irrsin hat keine Grenzen

Janet
Jul. 27, 2003, 09:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I think the point system ist totaly wrong, because it favors the dressage rider, not the
jumper and the X-C rider, and Galloping and Jumping is what we do most in competition.
The point system should favor the X-C team and not the dressage or stadium team.
I tell my students, that you win an event in dressage and loose it in stadium only on very
rare ocasions does one win a event in X-C.
And that is wrong <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree, from two perspecives.

As a lower level (N and T) competitor, I have never got a ribbon when I had cross country penalties (except maybe a few time faults). Yes, good dressage and stadium will determine WHERE in the ribbons you are, but if you aren't clear cross country you will very rarely get a ribbon. So I don't think you can win without cross country.

From an upper level perspective, I have watched my sister go from "I'll never compete above training" to regularly placing at Intermediate and advanced. The script, which is repeated with minor variations at each level, runs like this.

Somewhere in the bottom half of the pack after dressage.

Move up into the ribbons, or within striking distance of the ribbons, after cross country.

Move up or down one or two places after stadium.

That script seems to be being repeatred at Stuart this weekend.

Yes, the WINNER has a better dressage score. but she regularly beats pairs whose dressage (and to a lesser extent stadium) is better than hers. Because she is almost always clear cross country.

The name of the game still is, at ALL levels, "Can you go clear cross country?

Janet
chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle, and Brain

ponygrl
Jul. 27, 2003, 09:55 AM
I haven't followed this thread very closely in the late parts of it. But I evented a 13.1hh pony Novice, and we never had any issues with striding. He is VERY short strided and I learned to walk my distances adn think for myself how to ride him in there. He was very sticky to his fences (why go over when you can go around?) and that had to factor in. In 3 or 4 years I never showed that pony in a designated "pony" class, he jumped horse distances and that is what we schooled except for one clinic, with Dale Erwin, where we were paired with another pony and he shortened the strides. Other than that one lesson, we dealt with it.

I don't care if its a kid on a pony, if you're sending them XC at all, they should know how to walk distances and figure out if they need to trot in and compress for 2 or 3, or ride in strong and push for 1 or 2. Not rocket science.

Laura

Gnep
Jul. 27, 2003, 04:49 PM
Janet Basicly you confirm what I say. By what you tell us about your sister, she seems to be an exelent X-C rider, but always gets just so close because dressage is not her thing. if a clean round with out time would be rewarded things would look very different in the upper level.
I remember taht there was a similar system till the mid 70 in Germany and I think in the UK, you got extra points for a clean round with no time and the X-C were nearly twice as long as today. 4k for training, 5k for prelim, over 6k for intermediat and so on. X-C was the core and you won and lost an event in it.
Even today a training in germany is at least 2500m and max 2800m and prelim goes over 3k.
We just got our distances lowered again. A prelim is now as long as a training in Europe.
Rode several weeks ago a prelim 2540m !!!!
Time to buy dressage horses at least for HorseTrails. Maybe even for FEI Events here CICs seem to be the big thing of the future HTs on steroids.

Irrsin hat keine Grenzen

AM
Jul. 28, 2003, 05:04 AM
For Reed a bit of history - up until about 6 years ago, eventing did use the regular USAEquestrian dressage tests. Then eventing decided it wanted it's own for a couple of reasons. They wanted to only use the small arena so the tests would take less time and more riders could be accommodated. They also wanted to only test the dressage skills they thought were important to eventing. Also the change in scoring to provide a percent dressage score before subtracting from 100 to convert to a penalty score and the 4 points in stadium were designed to be the same as straight dressage and jumping to make it easier to understand for riders and spectators familiar with those disciplines.

I've read two articles recently by Darren C... in Practical Horseman and Eventing where he describes an event grading system that a committee he heads is developing. It would replace the current omnibus course description but also take into consideration footing, stabling, amenities, etc. Organizers would rate their own events using a checklist and TD's would report any deviations. These event ratings would also be considered when assigning dates. Anyone else know anything more about this plan?

[This message was edited by AM on Jul. 28, 2003 at 01:30 PM.]

RAyers
Jul. 28, 2003, 07:00 AM
AM,

I have been eventing longer than 6 years and have never ridden a USDF test as part of an event. I have ridden USDF tests at USDF shows. USDF tests can be ridden in small rings (otherwise the two area sizes at a friend's dressage barn are wrong). As for testing skill levels, for example, 1st level 3 and 4 along with 2nd level 1 and 2 all have movements that are in the preliminary eventing test. Thus 2 level 3 and 4 will also test all the skills important for preliminary level eventing.

I think the idea of a grading system is a good idea. however, to keep this on topic, will it also take into account stadium phase jumping tests?

Reed

ponygrl
Jul. 30, 2003, 12:55 PM
My first HT in 1996 I rode Training Level Test 1 in BN. I remember when training level eventing used Training Level Test 3. Aboutthe same time...

Laura

Janet
Jul. 30, 2003, 08:00 PM
Well, BN wasn't an official leel then...

But I went back and checked my file of dressage tests. Found one that was from a Training Level Horse Trial in 93, and it was AHSA First level Test 1, with the annnotaion "(For Training level Horse Trials and Combined Tests)".

SO yes, they used to use the "straight dressage tests. And they changed to their own tests.

Janet
chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle, and Brain

tle
Jul. 31, 2003, 06:52 AM
Janet... BN isn't an official level at this point in time either.

FWIW, my first event was in 1996 as well, and up until about 5 years ago (give or take a year or so), I remember using AHSA (not USDF) training level dressage tests at horse trials.

************
If Dressage is a Symphony... Eventing is Rock & Roll!!!

"All's well that ends with cute E.R. doctors, I always say." -- Buffy

Gnep
Jul. 31, 2003, 08:56 PM
I don't see any problem wit a grading system, its done every were else.A simple A and B system would be good enough. A maxes the level and B is in between Max and the next lower level.
Are the knew jumping penaltie rules right know. They are ok for stadium jumpers, a refusal and the resulting time problems are the end to any hopes of a good placing for a Stadium Jumper.
In Eventing a refusal and than a very fast ride could still produce a good final result.
A refusal is the ultimat mistake and should be penalized accordingly, it does not matter if the reason was the horse or the rider.
Three refusals and your are out, So why should there be only 3 points for one and a nother for two. If there were any consistency in the penalty points than there should be the same multiplikater as in X-C.

Considering the dressage test. Upper level eventig horses have a very differant muscle struktur than Dressage horses. The Eventing Horses is built for Galloping, the Dressage Horse is built for Colection. To ask a upper level dressage horse to go X-C would be probably called very stupid, equaly to ask a upper level Eventing Horse to go upper level Dressage test would be .......
I think eventing should stik to its own guns and not try to be Stadium Jumpers or Dressage Riders

Irrsin hat keine Grenzen

Janet
Jul. 31, 2003, 09:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Three refusals and your are out, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, two.

Janet
chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle, and Brain

3dazey
Aug. 1, 2003, 05:02 AM
Just for historical interest...USEA dressage tests are a relatively recent addition to the eventing world. Began eventing in mid-70's and we always used the "straight" dressage tests. I believe I remember that novice used T 1 & 2, training used upper T's and lower 1's, and so on. When I did my last Prelim 3-days in the very late 80's, I remember riding 1st 3 or 4, and definitely rode 2nd 1 at one of them. You kids are just too young to remember. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif

Gry2Yng
Aug. 1, 2003, 05:48 AM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three refusals and your are out,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, two.

Janet


FEI and AHSA are still different on this point I believe.

tle
Aug. 1, 2003, 05:56 AM
Yes, they are still different. FEI = 2 and out. USEA = 3 and out.

************
If Dressage is a Symphony... Eventing is Rock & Roll!!!

"All's well that ends with cute E.R. doctors, I always say." -- Buffy

Boss Hoss
Aug. 1, 2003, 06:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>A refusal is the ultimate mistake and should be penalized accordingly, it does not matter if the reason was the horse or the rider.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BINGO! .. and a rail down is a minor mistake. To have them equal in penalties is STUPID! Now you might also want to consider adding points for pulling the back standards down too while pulling a rail..cause in that case the horse probably should have refused for safety reasons.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>For Reed a bit of history - up until about 6 years ago, eventing did use the regular USAEquestrian dressage tests. Then eventing decided it wanted it's own for a couple of reasons. They wanted to only use the small arena so the tests would take less time and more riders could be accommodated. They also wanted to only test the dressage skills they thought were important to eventing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can understand the reasoning, although it makes it tough going to straight dressage shows and having to memorize 2-3 new tests..but I digress.

Has such a training scale EVER been put forth? The USDF has this huge dressage manual that explains the training pyramid which indicates there is a path to the top of the mountain.

Does Eventing provide a clear path for getting to the top (ie the treeline on the straight dressage mountian)?

Why is it important for a prelim horse to be able to do simple changes through the walk? etc.

[This message was edited by Boss Hoss on Aug. 01, 2003 at 09:19 AM.]

Gry2Yng
Aug. 1, 2003, 01:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Why is it important for a prelim horse to be able to do simple changes through the walk? etc.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cause the ring is too small to show your flying change at 550mpm. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Boss Hoss
Aug. 1, 2003, 01:19 PM
Even when you score in the mid20s in dressage you do LOSE an event in XC or SJ with one stop or a rail or two in SJ. Now if the scoring favored dressage, I could have a stop on XC, a rail down in SJ and still win on dressage! ..it just doesn't happen that way, and what fun would that be! When eveyrone goes clean, it seems like the system favors dressage..but its just not that way.

Gnep
Aug. 5, 2003, 10:20 AM
Boss Hoss
A rail down is a minor thing, compared to a refusal. Thats why you dont get DQed after 3 rails.
A refusal in stadium is as bad as a refusal in X-C and why should it be differently penalized?

Irrsin hat keine Grenzen

MRrider
Aug. 6, 2003, 11:26 AM
Someone might have written this already but i didnt want to read 8 pages to see....... Although they lowered it to 4 penalty points, now they do not stop the clock when you have a refusal, as before they stopped it while they put up the rails or you did a circle.

Each handicap is like a hurdle in a steeplechase, and when you ride up to it, if you throw your heart over, the horse will go along, too.
-Lawrence Bixby

Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people.
W. C. Fields (1880 - 1946)

tle
Aug. 6, 2003, 11:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MRrider:
Someone might have written this already but i didnt want to read 8 pages to see....... Although they lowered it to 4 penalty points, now they do not stop the clock when you have a refusal, as before they stopped it while they put up the rails or you did a circle.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is not correct. If a fence must be rebuilt due to a refusal, the time it takes to rebuild it IS taken off the time for the competitor's round. Otherwise you could pretty much count on everyone who is put in that position as being eliminated in SJ for exceeding the maximum time (OT = 1:15, Time Limit would only be 2:30 and if they're already halfway through the jump crew would have to run out, rebuild and get out of the way in less than a minute! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif ).

************
If Dressage is a Symphony... Eventing is Rock & Roll!!!

"All's well that ends with cute E.R. doctors, I always say." -- Buffy

3dayeventing
Jun. 19, 2006, 10:19 PM
Emily, I have to agree with you! I am one that has to play catch up after dressage. Refusals need to be add more points to ones overall score. A rail versus a refusal, TOTALLY different in my opinion! What can we do? Anyone>

I am starting to find myself not very happy about this new rule. I am trying to be more fair however and want to know what you all think as well.

It seems to me that a disobediance such as a refusal to jump would be worse than a rail.

And yes I am miffed because I was clean in my event this weekend and 3 people with stops in stadium beat me. My dressage score was ugly but still I am not of the mindset that a better dressage horse who quits in stadium deserves to beat my poor dressage but great jumping horse.

Ok well thats why I am curious... now what do you all think?

~Emily

"The brave may not live forever, but the cautious never truly live at all"

eventer012990
Jun. 19, 2006, 11:51 PM
I didn't say that the horses that win dressage don't win. I said horses that go double clear move WAY up the standings.

The winners at four stars are AMAZING riders with fantastic horses that are ALL AROUND athletes. These are fit, well trained horses competing against fit, well trained horses. I believe we are talking about horse trials at the lower levels in this post.

You cannot compare a four star horse to a novice horse trial horse. I'd rather see riders jumping around safely with terrible dressage tests than the other way around. So many riders focus on dressage because they think that is the way to win, then they scare the heck out of all spectators in the xc and stadium and still manage to win.

PLENTY of riders who do a very nice job over fences would never WIN a dressage test. A schooled horse does not necessarily involve a horse that goes around on the vertical with lofty gaits. And believe me, the average hunter/jumper knows ALOT more about rhythm and balance than your average eventer, so dressage is not the exclusive avenue to find those qualities.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Most horses in the U.S. today have horses with Thoroughbred blood that contradicts the old fashioned need to generate impulsion." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't understand what you mean here.


I know exactly what you mean. I'll be frank, I am not a very good Dressage rider. my best score to date was a 38 and I thought it was very generous. However I have done 7 HT now and I have always been double clear. my trainer started me out making me into a good XC and good SJ rider, so that I could become hooked on eventing, and then I can go back and work on my dressage more. At least I know I am safe around the jumping parts where many riders are not, even if I dont get the best scores in dressage.

CarrieK
Jun. 20, 2006, 01:04 AM
Nothing of substance to add, naturally, but thanks to all for an interesting discussion.

Xctrygirl
Jun. 20, 2006, 12:46 PM
Thanks for the double take!!!

I saw this thread back on page one, and was like, "Didn't I post that like forever ago?"

Sure enough you guys resurrected one of my fav. threads.

Enjoy the discussion.

~Emily

Xctrygirl
May. 30, 2008, 06:20 PM
So its been awhile, any new thoughts???


~Emily

Ajierene
May. 30, 2008, 06:52 PM
If I remember correctly....My instructor and I had a discussion about this when the rule went into effect. A lot of people thought a refusal should be more. She and I disagreed. A horse refusing a jump may be just being ornery, but is may also just be saying 'whoa, I can't jump that', and a horse that goes over but knocks a rail is either being 'beaten over the fence and jumping it wrong' or so eager to please that even though the placement is wrong, it still tries to make the jump, instead of the 'safer' route of refusing.

So, while most horses refuse and are being ornery, they are potentially being safer than horses that knock rails because horses that knock rails in stadium may end up hitting jumps in cross country.

Make sense? Clear as mud? When written out or spoken, my logic and seem a bit circular....

IFG
May. 30, 2008, 07:31 PM
I hate the rule. I think that a disobedience should count for more than carelessness.

Sightunseen
Jun. 3, 2008, 06:12 PM
To my knowledge, which could be COMPLETELY wrong. The reason that the rules were changed was becasue riders knew tha as long as they got their horse through the flags it was only 4 penalty points, but the stop was worth more so riders were riding irrisponsibly, especially at lower levels where it is easier to push a horse through a fence and having some pretty scarry moments, so they changed the rule so people would stop putting the ribbon above their horses. As far as dressage goes, you cannot have dressage without forward, period. The poblem, I think, most eventers have is that "dressage" that judges want to see is not necessisarily what is really proper or effective dressage. A horse that is going obediently forward should win over a horse who sets his head but is constantly behind the leg, and this is not the case.

asterix
Jun. 3, 2008, 06:23 PM
Um, no. They changed the rule to make it inline with FEI events.
Brings up a problem with the chasm between BN or N at your typical event (where, I think, a disobedience is both common and should be penalized more than a rail) and, you know, Rolex, where stops on SJ hardly ever happen (the famous one by the leader at fence 1 being the exception that proves the rule).

Those are almost two different sports and I think this rule is ridiculous. The concomitant change in time faults has mitigated its effect a bit at Training and Prelim -- you usually do wrack up time faults with a stop now -- but not so much at N and BN.

melodiousaphony
Jun. 3, 2008, 06:26 PM
I incurred penalty points at BN last weekend because I circled instead of jumping something as my horse had just spooked at an unrelated jump. I *think* it was four points but our dressage was so bad that I didn't really look closely at the leader board to see how many stadium faults a circle incurred.
Why the embaressing antedote? Well, I'm not sure if there is a difference between a refusal and a circle, technically. I'm not a rules guru, though I do know most of them with some degree of certainty with respect to interpertation.
IMHO, an outright refusal, slam on the breaks, I'm not going to do it should be scored with more penalty than a rail. However, an "abort mission" decision like the one I made does not seem to me to be as much of a bad thing as a flat out refusal since I was attempt to NOT set my horse up for failure (I had a feeling it would be ugly and it wasn't worth the risk).
In my case, time was eaten up, and I sucked it up for the sake of a more positive jump experience. Just another pov with respect to what IS a refusal. I wish I had heard the announcer say my penalty points, but I was too peeved with myself for such an untidy round.

Gry2Yng
Jun. 3, 2008, 09:33 PM
Five years later, my POV has not changed. I don't think you need to ride dressage well in order to jump well. FWIW, my dressage is quite good and my show jumping sucks. You need to practice jumping to improve your jumping.

Dr. Doolittle
Jun. 3, 2008, 09:37 PM
I hate the rule. I think that a disobedience should count for more than carelessness.


I agree...and whatever else is said about it, isn't that the bottom line??

Xctrygirl
Jun. 3, 2008, 09:55 PM
Good lord it has been 5 years!!!


Sorry guys, I really thought it had only been 18 months.

~Emily

Dr. Doolittle
Jun. 3, 2008, 10:11 PM
WHOA! :eek:

Is that possible?!?

Damn, I'm getting old...:p

lstevenson
Jun. 3, 2008, 11:20 PM
The reason that the rules were changed was becasue riders knew tha as long as they got their horse through the flags it was only 4 penalty points, but the stop was worth more so riders were riding irrisponsibly, especially at lower levels where it is easier to push a horse through a fence and having some pretty scarry moments, so they changed the rule so people would stop putting the ribbon above their horses.



If it were true that they changed it because they wanted people to ride their SJ in a more balanced and controled way, then it would be very funny that they also made the time penalties more significant. To me, that is even more stupid. Riders are encouraged to gallop wildly around their stadium courses to make time, especially at upper levels. IMO the threat of time penalties causes some of the scary moments seen in SJ nowadays. I just don't understand what they were thinking when they decided to make it 1 penalty per second over time. IMO when someone who rides a smooth, controled, and balanced clean round ends up with 10 time faults, and moves down because the next rider galloped around like crazy crashing through 2 jumps to only have 8 faults something is wrong.......

Dr. Doolittle
Jun. 4, 2008, 10:18 AM
If it were true that they changed it because they wanted people to ride their SJ in a more balanced and controled way, then it would be very funny that they also made the time penalties more significant. To me, that is even more stupid. Riders are encouraged to gallop wildly around their stadium courses to make time, especially at upper levels. IMO the threat of time penalties causes some of the scary moments seen in SJ nowadays. I just don't understand what they were thinking when they decided to make it 1 penalty per second over time. IMO when someone who rides a smooth, controled, and balanced clean round ends up with 10 time faults, and moves down because the next rider galloped around like crazy crashing through 2 jumps to only have 8 faults something is wrong.......

I agree completely :yes:

Hannahsmom
Jun. 4, 2008, 02:18 PM
IMO when someone who rides a smooth, controled, and balanced clean round ends up with 10 time faults, and moves down because the next rider galloped around like crazy crashing through 2 jumps to only have 8 faults something is wrong.......

Agreed