The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 131
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Aug. 28, 2004
    Posts
    1,806

    Default

    When will we start holding course designers responsible for things like this? If there's so much controversy and carnage with Sue's courses, why isn't something being done?

    The article also stated that the rider was in the under-25 division. When are we going to realize that most people that age, regardless of scores and previous placings, just don't have the skill and experience for that level?

    Sad.



  2. #42
    Join Date
    Nov. 20, 2008
    Posts
    1,822

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coppers mom View Post
    When will we start holding course designers responsible for things like this? If there's so much controversy and carnage with Sue's courses, why isn't something being done?

    The article also stated that the rider was in the under-25 division. When are we going to realize that most people that age, regardless of scores and previous placings, just don't have the skill and experience for that level?

    Sad.
    So if we agree with your assumption that MOST riders under 25 years old don't have the skill set (which by they way, I don't agree with), we should ban ALL riders under 25? Sorry, this falls under the same heading as the USEF/USEA knee jerk reaction rules for the sake of making rules "so it looks like we are promoting safety". What magical knowledge is imparted on your 25th Birthday? Why not 24 years old or 26 years old? .... By the way, if there was magical knowledge imparted on your 25th birthday... I didn't get the message!

    There is absolutely no evidence that riders under 25 are any less safe than anyone else. .... and if you are wondering I am waaaaay over 25 years old and have no chance of achieving that level and am not associated with anyone under 25 at that level. I just hate arbitrary rules that do nothing but make rules.

    Our qualification system should be able to produce qualified riders. Period. It shouldn't matter what age they are, what color they are, what gender they are, what type of horse they ride, etc. If they are qualified, they are qualified. If we need to make changes to the qualifying system, than so be it but making arbitrary rules is not helpful.



  3. #43
    Join Date
    Jan. 13, 2008
    Posts
    5,627

    Default

    Originally posted by Carol Ames:

    So... last weekend international eventing at *** or above had two rotational falls out of three competitions.However at Badminton, there were NONE, why?
    It must have been a freak non-accident.



  4. #44
    Join Date
    Nov. 20, 2008
    Posts
    1,822

    Default

    Sad when we are asking why we DIDN'T have an accident at an event rather than why we DID?



  5. #45
    Join Date
    Aug. 28, 2004
    Posts
    1,806

    Default

    I don't understand where you got that I though we should ban all riders under 25. Odd.

    The problem with younger people riding at higher levels is that many don't have the experience yet. No matter what, there's only so much you can do and learn by the time you're 20. Just because someone's qualified doesn't mean they're ready or competent enough to move up. People need to experience more courses and a lot of different situations in a competition setting before moving up to the next level.



  6. #46
    Join Date
    Jun. 9, 2003
    Location
    Dolores,CO. Proud to be a Kraut
    Posts
    2,161

    Default

    Copersmom, 25 and under more pron to realy bad accidents?

    So why had Phillip Dutton 2 rotanionals in 6 month and one of those killed a horse.
    That I have no use for them, does not mean, that I don't know them and don't know how to use them.
    Caveman extraordinair



  7. #47
    Join Date
    Nov. 20, 2008
    Posts
    1,822

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coppers mom View Post
    I don't understand where you got that I though we should ban all riders under 25. Odd.
    Um... by this statement:

    When are we going to realize that most people that age, regardless of scores and previous placings, just don't have the skill and experience for that level?
    Sorry if I misunderstood your post but who were you referring to as "we" when you stated "when are we going to realize that most people that age.....". It sounded to me like you were advocating minimum ages above 25.


    The problem with younger people riding at higher levels is that many don't have the experience yet. No matter what, there's only so much you can do and learn by the time you're 20. Just because someone's qualified doesn't mean they're ready or competent enough to move up. People need to experience more courses and a lot of different situations in a competition setting before moving up to the next level
    You are either qualified or you aren't. If you happen to be 20 and unqualified, then you are unqualified. If you happen to be 20 and you are qualified, then you are qualified. I use the term "qualified" in the true sense of the word, not necessarily in relationship to our current qualification system.

    I didn't mean to jump on you, but I thought your statements were a dangerous generalization and we have had a lot of that in recent rule changes. I happen to agree with you that many riders are often moving up too fast but I see it at every age and at every level -- there is no generalization that fits.



  8. #48
    Join Date
    Aug. 28, 2004
    Posts
    1,806

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SevenDogs View Post
    Um... by this statement:
    I didn't mean to jump on you, but I thought your statements were a dangerous generalization and we have had a lot of that in recent rule changes. I happen to agree with you that many riders are often moving up too fast but I see it at every age and at every level -- there is no generalization that fits.
    No, if I thought no one under 25 (btw, that's from the article, not me) should ride at X level, I would have said so. I know I'm not always the clearest, but I'm not exactly good at insinuations either

    The problem with our current qualification system is that it's really not a very good judge of skill or overall experience. I know a ton of people that can tear around, at Pre-lim even, that are only there because of a good dressage test and saintly pony. Dressage will be gorgeous, but they clearly lack the skills to be at that level going over fences. But, because it's not outright "dangerous", just incompetence, no one says anything.

    No system can be perfect, but I think it can be better than what we have. I know people of all ages move up too quickly, but at least we can put a stop to it for a small group through age restrictions (not massive, but a year or two). I know an adult who's been riding for 5 years will make the same mistakes that a junior who's been riding for 5 years will make, but it's easier to regulate age than anything else. If we can make them stay at one level just a little longer, rather than moving up after 2 or 3 events at X level, they can gain a little more experience and, hopefully, apply that knowledge gained at a slower pace and smaller fences later on.

    As a side note, I don't think it's fair to compare Darren's fall and this girls. Both were horrible, but when you compare the numbers, he's statistically doing way better than say, Laine Ashker. If an older rider rides 40 horses before having a fall, and a younger one rides 10, it's not the same. You can't say that age has nothing to do with it if you compare the horses ridden vs. falls. If you go that way, age does have something to do with it. Falls like this ARE happening to younger riders more often in recent years, you can't deny it.



  9. #49
    Join Date
    Nov. 20, 2008
    Posts
    1,822

    Default

    Coppersmom:

    I guess I am not clear on what exactly you are saying. In one sentence you say that you are not advocating age restrictions and then in the next you say you are.

    No system can be perfect, but I think it can be better than what we have. I know people of all ages move up too quickly, but at least we can put a stop to it for a small group through age restrictions (not massive, but a year or two). I know an adult who's been riding for 5 years will make the same mistakes that a junior who's been riding for 5 years will make, but it's easier to regulate age than anything else. If we can make them stay at one level just a little longer, rather than moving up after 2 or 3 events at X level, they can gain a little more experience and, hopefully, apply that knowledge gained at a slower pace and smaller fences later on.
    What you are proposing is NOT a solution. It is grasping at straws, rather than dealing with the real problem. Regulating age because it is "easier to regulate than anything else" is not good reasoning and does not solve anything. We have way too many rules that have no real chance at improving safety because "at least we are doing something" and those areas are "easier to regulate" rather than solving real problems like Course Design, Team Leadership, and Qualifying procedures.

    For the record, I do not believe in any age restrictions and particularly not after age 18. It is a lousy way to qualify a rider at any level. I also don't believe you have any real statistics to back up your claim that falls are happening more to younger riders and yes, I CAN deny it. I think your arguments do not hold water.

    Unless you think that sheer number of years you are on earth imparts eventing knowledge, age restrictions make no sense. If you take a 20 year old rider and a 40 year old rider on the same mount with the exact same experience, I do not believe that the 40 year old is safer by virtue of his or her chronological age. He/She COULD be safer or HE/SHE could be a 40 year old idiot. Once again, this type of thinking suggests that the Eventing Fairy magically appears and imparts knowledge to a rider of a certain age. For the record, I am reiterating that IF there is a magical Eventing Fairy, I was NEVER visited... so please circle back. I could use the help!

    Sorry, but I think you are headed down a very dangerous road with your line of thinking. The only way real problems are going to be solved is by systematically and critically looking at the problem and taking the necessary steps to solve it in it's entirety. Age restrictions don't even come close to achieving this. It seems more like a knee jerk reaction to the very sad story discussed in this thread rather than a logical solution to the problem.

    I am not trying to sound harsh but I think it is important that we step up and say enough is enough with ridiculous rules. We want real results by looking at the real problems!
    Last edited by SevenDogs; Jun. 17, 2009 at 02:42 AM.



  10. #50
    Join Date
    Aug. 28, 2004
    Posts
    1,806

    Default

    You jumped to the conclusion that I thought all riders under 25 should be banned because I stated she was in the under 25 division, and that people in that age group do not always have the life experience to deal with the tracks at such large venues. I wasn't saying I was in favor or against age restrictions, just clarifying that I didn't mean what you assumed. That has nothing to do with how I feel about age restrictions, it was just a correction.

    And did I ever say anything about age being the only qualification, or that the qualification system is just dandy as it is now? No. I know it's easy to get worked up over this kind of thing, but please, take a second look

    And no matter how you put it, an 18 year old isn't, for the most part, going to have the skills, judgement, and experience that would make Lucinda's fast round at Rolex a safe one. Younger people just don't have the time in the saddle, and are much less likely to say "you know, I could really get hurt doing this, I should really wait, even though I'm qualified" than someone who's seen a few scary moments first hand. That's why you can watch a junior division and a pro (or even adult amateur) division go over the same course, and they are drastically different. Car insurance companies recognize that age makes a difference, I don't understand how you could deny it'd be any different putting them on a 1,200 pound animal with a mind of it's own.

    As far as falls happening to younger riders, of course they are! It's simple statistics. How many horses did Karen, Bruce, or Mike flip over before they were 30? How many did they kill? Not nearly as many as young riders today are. This isn't a knee jerk reaction to the article. If an adult rides 30 horses at Advanced before having a rotational fall, and a junior rides 2 horses at Advanced before having a rotational fall, statistically, the older person has a greater success rate of getting around. That's not grasping at straws, that's simple math. Young riders are moving up more and more quickly, and it's showing when they get to the really big stuff and they get hurt. When someone moves a young horse up too quickly, they make mistakes no matter how talented, and sometimes it catches up to them. Same with people. I don't see how that could possibly be denied.
    Last edited by Coppers mom; Jun. 17, 2009 at 02:48 AM.



  11. #51
    Join Date
    Nov. 20, 2008
    Posts
    1,822

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coppers mom View Post
    You jumped to the conclusion that I thought all riders under 25 should be banned because I stated she was in the under 25 division, and that people in that age group do not always have the life experience to deal with the tracks at such large venues. I wasn't saying I was in favor or against age restrictions, just clarifying that I didn't mean what you assumed. That has nothing to do with how I feel about age restrictions, it was just a correction.

    And no matter how you put it, an 18 year old isn't, for the most part, going to have the skills, judgement, and experience that would make Lucinda's fast round at Rolex a safe one. Younger people just don't have the time in the saddle, and are much less likely to say "you know, I could really get hurt doing this, I should really wait, even though I'm qualified" than someone who's seen a few scary moments first hand. That's why you can watch a junior division and a pro (or even adult amateur) division go over the same course, and they are drastically different. Car insurance companies recognize that age makes a difference, I don't understand how you could deny it'd be any different putting them on a 1,200 pound animal with a mind of it's own.
    I am going to reiterate that age is a lousy way to qualify a rider and your line of thinking assumes that EVERYONE starts riding at the same age, has the same talent, has the same training, the same quality of mount, etc. You also assume that emotional maturity ("I might get hurt", etc.) comes with chronological age. There are plenty of examples out there to show that not to be the case.

    Your evidence about older riders not having accidents twenty years ago is not valid either. Courses have changed significantly and we don't even have data on those riders, so how do you KNOW that none of those riders had accidents?

    At this point, it looks as though you favor age limits, even that you keep posting that you aren't advocating them. I couldn't disagree more. Age restrictions are not helpful. I have made my points so I am going to retire from this discussion.



  12. #52
    Join Date
    Oct. 23, 2002
    Location
    Down Under!!!
    Posts
    1,275

    Default

    Copper's Mom,

    You need to re-look at your facts. Do some homework before you spout out that Karen didn't kill any horses before thirty, and look at horse falls with Mike and Bruce. It happened back then too, we just didn't have internet to talk about it. That is a totally invalid agruement.
    I was running at the 3 star level when I was 18 years old, and I am sorry to say that I don't think I was under-qualified in any way. Many of the people you are spouting off as examples of riders who didn't ride any horses that died before they were 30 ALSO were riding at that level at 18-25. Go check some facts please. Age has nothing to do with it, experience and rider ability does, and that is NOT totally age coorelative.



  13. #53
    Join Date
    Aug. 14, 2000
    Location
    Clarksdale, MS--the golden buckle on the cotton belt
    Posts
    18,973

    Default

    Age should have nothing to do with competence. There are people out there, eventers, who have been foxhunting since they were leadline age. Those people, given the specialized eventing instruction that is available today, should be able to ride XC at 18 as competently as over 25s who have never been out of controlled situations. If experience is the focus, how about a person who has been hunting since the age of eight?

    I have a particular young eventer in mind when I type this. No, two.
    "I'm a lumberjack, and I'm okay."
    Thread killer Extraordinaire



  14. #54
    Join Date
    Mar. 19, 2003
    Location
    Palestine, TX
    Posts
    2,566

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SevenDogs View Post
    Once again, this type of thinking suggests that the Eventing Fairy magically appears and imparts knowledge to a rider of a certain age. For the record, I am reiterating that IF there is a magical Eventing Fairy, I was NEVER visited... so please circle back. I could use the help!
    I dunno, Sevendogs, I competed in my first horse trial at age 24, and my second a few months later, after my 25th birthday. I did better my second time out. Clearly, being 25 and having the blessing of the Fairy made all the difference.

    ETA: Coppersmom: Are you, by any chance, a politician? You're doing a beautiful job of talking in circles, dancing around your point, and generally making sure that nobody really knows what you mean while always tying it up at the end with a neat, "I don't see how anybody could disagree with me." Since you clearly think everyone is misunderstanding you, rather than repeating the same things that were apparently misunderstood the first time, let's try a clear statement of what you think. Stop making us guess. The suspense is killing me. Exactly what rule change would you suggest?
    *#~*#~*#~*#~*
    Proud Momma of *Capital Kiss* and Bottle Rocket!



  15. #55
    Join Date
    Aug. 11, 2000
    Location
    Chantilly,va.
    Posts
    10,887

    Default Let's invent one! calling all engineers

    Let's invent a cup/ log or pole holder that could be easily attached to a xc jump , telephone poles/ logs, which could be used to hold a frangible pin; They would need to be inexpensive so, organizers could afford them; engineers, anty ideas? or
    breeder of Mercury!

    remember to enjoy the moment, and take a moment to enjoy and give God the glory for these wonderful horses in our lives.BECAUSE: LIFE is What Happens While Making Other Plans



  16. #56
    Join Date
    Aug. 28, 2004
    Posts
    1,806

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SevenDogs View Post
    I am going to reiterate that age is a lousy way to qualify a rider and your line of thinking assumes that EVERYONE starts riding at the same age, has the same talent, has the same training, the same quality of mount, etc. You also assume that emotional maturity ("I might get hurt", etc.) comes with chronological age. There are plenty of examples out there to show that not to be the case.
    I didn't say that everyone has the same talent, riding experience, etc. But, how likely is it that a 16 year old is going to have the experience of an 18 year old, or an 18 year old of a 20 year old? I've already said that an adult will make the same mistakes that a junior will if they've been riding the same amount of time, I'm not saying that age means everything. However, I think it's pretty safe to say that you can't cram 20 years of riding experience into a 14 year old.

    And it's well known that teens are more likely to push the limit. You can't argue against that. Yes, you get some that are ultra-responsible, but most have an incredible drive, and sometimes only think about getting to the finish line. Sure, there are plenty of examples against it, but I haven't found it to be the norm, no matter if it's with driving, sports, horses, anything.

    So, again I ask, if a car insurance company knows that young drivers are at a greater risk of getting hurt, how can you think that it would be any different if you put a young person on a 1,200 pound animal with a mind of it's own and send them galloping at a solid fence?

    Quote Originally Posted by SevenDogs View Post
    Your evidence about older riders not having accidents twenty years ago is not valid either. Courses have changed significantly and we don't even have data on those riders, so how do you KNOW that none of those riders had accidents?
    Because I've talked to several of them. So, rather than stopping and thinking about all the reasons why you didn't have those older riders having rotational falls (course design, long format, etc), you just dismiss it as completely impossible that they didn't have the kind of catastrophic falls we have today? In the days of the long format, there was a lot more prep, a lot different courses, and riders learned a lot more after running 2 horse trials than they learn today at 2 horse trials. Todays young riders are growing up without that experience, and that's part of the reason they're having trouble. They aren't getting as much experience galloping over solid objects at one speed before moving up. Combine that with more technical courses, and it's obvious why everyone's having more trouble with the short format. This is why, even if their scores qualify, many riders aren't ready to take that next step. If we could make it so that everyone (not just adults, not just kids, not just people at one level) would spend a little more time at one level before moving up to the next, it'd be a lot better, IMO, than the current system of qualifying on scores alone.

    Quote Originally Posted by SevenDogs View Post
    At this point, it looks as though you favor age limits, even that you keep posting that you aren't advocating them. I couldn't disagree more. Age restrictions are not helpful. I have made my points so I am going to retire from this discussion.
    Please stop looking for ways to dismiss me, and read. Sorry to be blunt, but it's obvious that I favor an age limit, just not the one you jumped to conclusions about (banning everyone under the age of 25).



  17. #57
    Join Date
    Aug. 28, 2004
    Posts
    1,806

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vineyridge View Post
    Age should have nothing to do with competence. There are people out there, eventers, who have been foxhunting since they were leadline age. Those people, given the specialized eventing instruction that is available today, should be able to ride XC at 18 as competently as over 25s who have never been out of controlled situations. If experience is the focus, how about a person who has been hunting since the age of eight?

    I have a particular young eventer in mind when I type this. No, two.
    I too, know several young eventers who are far better educated than most. But, the majority of people haven't been fox hunting since 8, or had weekly lessons with excellent trainers since they were 10. These are the exceptions, not the norm. For most people, age has a lot to do with competence. I was going training, and thought I was doing great, until I went to an equitation instructor. Man, was I not ready. But, I was placing well and having fun, so I didn't even think about how awful I looked, and how much I was relying on my saint of a horse. Most kids will be like me, riding a saint, having ok-good instruction once a week (heck, even with outstanding instruction, no one ever told me how bad I was), and parents that think that just getting around is the greatest thing in the world. I realize that there are exceptional young people who would be effected by age limits, but most would not, and they might actually build a better foundation in the long run.



  18. #58
    Join Date
    Nov. 20, 2008
    Posts
    1,822

    Default

    I'm not dismissing you. I'm DISAGREEING with you because I think your theories are flawed, your statistics are not well researched, and your conclusions are wrong.

    I will always fight against rules for rules sake and sweeping generalizations. I don't believe in making rules that (by your own admission) would keep qualified people from competing because it is "easier" than getting to the root of the real problem.



  19. #59
    Join Date
    Feb. 13, 2008
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,655

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jealoushe View Post
    What difference does it make, not being snotty just actually curious. How would the horse have fallen if there was one. I'm still inclined to think the fall would be pretty nasty.
    Maybe he wouldnt have flipped, but since he was alright anyway, that could have been better or worse for him.

    However, the rider is far ahead in the pictures, even with frangible pins she would have gone flying and ended up in bad shape anyway.



  20. #60
    Join Date
    Jan. 12, 2009
    Posts
    237

    Default

    Coppers Mom
    On what basis do you make the statement most have "not been in weekly training" with excellent instruction since age of ten! I would disagree wholeheartedly with that statement.
    To say that the 21 year old riding three stars is less qualified than the 26 yr old or 40 year old simply won't stand up as a valid way to qualify riders.
    If a rider is minimally qualified to ride at the level they are riding at, they are minimally qualified no matter their age.
    There are alot of under 25's who have taken the long road to get there, they just started their journey very young. Age is not the tool to measure qualifications, it is level of competence.



Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: Oct. 4, 2012, 08:00 AM
  2. what causes a rotational fall?
    By DressageOverFences in forum Eventing
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: Feb. 15, 2012, 06:14 PM
  3. Rotational Fall Question
    By TallyHoFarm in forum Eventing
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: May. 13, 2011, 11:16 AM
  4. rotational fall photos from Bramham
    By enjoytheride in forum Eventing
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Sep. 16, 2010, 06:23 PM
  5. rotational fall video?
    By blackwatch86 in forum Eventing
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: Nov. 8, 2009, 09:46 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
randomness