[yellowbritches]

Respectfully disagree. If the eventing world decided they are too hard a test for low level eventers, then why are they in every Starter test I've ridden?

Because the starter tests are the USDF Intro test, which are not written by eventing people, but dressage. All of the USEA tests (BN and up) are written SPECIFICALLY for events, while those Intro tests are just what organizers use for the unrecognized levels below BN.

[Jeannette, formerly ponygyrl]

eh, thru halts we develop half halts, and thereby the balance necessary to stay upright out on course. I think Sally O was wrong wrong wrong in this case and in removing stretchy circles from Novice tests because they were done poorly so often. Stretchy circles at N ought to be a coefficient movement so if we're holding our horses in a frame we die of humiliation there instead of discovering our error out on course, if not at N, sometime later...

Even if we never aspire to go above a certain level, our training ought to be putting us on the right path, not standing in our way.

[fooler]

eh, thru halts we develop half halts, and thereby the balance necessary to stay upright out on course. I think Sally O was wrong wrong wrong in this case and in removing stretchy circles from Novice tests because they were done poorly so often. Stretchy circles at N ought to be a coefficient movement so if we're holding our horses in a frame we die of humiliation there instead of discovering our error out on course, if not at N, sometime later...

Even if we never aspire to go above a certain level, our training ought to be putting us on the right path, not standing in our way.

Valid points. Also putting 4-6 or more months in a young horse before the first competition instead of 3 months or less, as "SOME, NOT ALL" do, would help.

[Win1]

Because the starter tests are the USDF Intro test, which are not written by eventing people, but dressage. All of the USEA tests (BN and up) are written SPECIFICALLY for events, while those Intro tests are just what organizers use for the unrecognized levels below BN.

Good answer, thanks

[enjoytheride]

eh, thru halts we develop half halts, and thereby the balance necessary to stay upright out on course. I think Sally O was wrong wrong wrong in this case and in removing stretchy circles from Novice tests because they were done poorly so often. Stretchy circles at N ought to be a coefficient movement so if we're holding our horses in a frame we die of humiliation there instead of discovering our error out on course, if not at N, sometime later...

Even if we never aspire to go above a certain level, our training ought to be putting us on the right path, not standing in our way.

I think getting a horse to do a stretchy trot in the middle of a show environment in a dressage ring at what is supposed to be a very green level has nothing to do with making it around a course.

[subk]

eh, thru halts we develop half halts, and thereby the balance necessary to stay upright out on course.

There are plenty of hunters, jumpers, steeplechasers and fox hunters that do a great job of staying balanced and upright out on a jumping course who have never been clued in to the classical concepts of a half-halt. Don't get me wrong I think they are important especially for a horse aimed at the upper levels (of any discipline) but to safely jump around 3' and below? phhttt. Now "forward" as a concept carries across jumping disciplines at every level that actually is necessary.

I think Sally O was wrong wrong wrong in this case and in removing stretchy circles from Novice tests because they were done poorly so often. Stretchy circles at N ought to be a coefficient movement so if we're holding our horses in a frame we die of humiliation there instead of discovering our error out on course, if not at N, sometime later...

Agree, very much. The "stretchy circle" (a term I hate) is not about relaxation. It is about whether or not you have a fundamentally correct connection and is the horse obedient. It isn't a party trick you do once you've got a horse relaxed. While I agree it my not be related to your ability to jump around it is related to the quality of your dressage at the level you are and the ability to improve or maintain that quality to the next level. At some point you will not be able to continue advancement in dressage if you don't go back and fix this very basic flaw. It's a fundamental concept of correct dressage--not everything about dressage has to translate to jumping. It should relate jumping, but it is ok to want good dressage for the sake of good dressage.

I have about a thousand things I could go on about why it is so significant, why it's indicative of how our horses aren't trained correctly and how the very disregard of this type of fundamental concept is related to why we seemed to be lagging behind internationally. But that will get me way off the reservation today and ya'll probably don't want to hear it...

[Jeannette, formerly ponygyrl]

sure, subk, and lots of those horses can get a round circles perfectly well counterbent, but we still encourage proper bend in low level horses...

I am absolutely A OK with folks eventing at whatever level they want, but I just don't see why years and years of experience at Bn or N or Maiden should have to be unlearned if then a rider gets another horse and wants to have the basis to move up. We penalize counter-bending at all levels. Why is halting so different??

Changing tacks completely, but why not? I also very much see the initial halt like the bow before sparring in martial arts. You may be about to get your butt kicked, but you bow to your opponent and salute the judge. If you're Catholic you genuflect when passing in front of the altar. You slow down slightly, even if you're in a hurry, when you come up to a stop sign. And you salute the judge before starting your test.

Even though jumping another jump after you are eliminated on course would be better training, you leave the ring promptly and quietly - it's courtesy. So is saluting the judge.

And yes, consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, looking at my alternately advocating training first and courtesy first.

[triggerfoot]

Valid points. Also putting 4-6 or more months in a young horse before the first competition instead of 3 months or less, as "SOME, NOT ALL" do, would help.

Getting out and competing is a big part of schooling a youngster. I like to get them out as soon as they can handle it, whether they have a confirmed halt or not. Usually this is after about *gasp* a month or two, and it's for educational purposes, not for ribbons.

[subk]

We penalize counter-bending at all levels. Why is halting so different?

They are different simply because counter-bending (as you refer to it) is the quality of a movement and halting IS a movement. Landing in a heap upon stopping is what is more analagus to a counter-bend. No one is suggesting that the halt should be eliminated, just asked for once instead of twice--as the rest of our movements are only asked for once.

Actually halting is a movement that is often done poorly at the low levels not just because of a lack of obedience (too forward, whatever) but because a good correct halt requires a level of physical development that a novice horse usually just doesn't have. Lifting the back, stepping under with the hind far enough and with strength to stop the forward motion without losing balance, all while on a straight line is physically dang difficult. It may be the most physically difficult element of a low level test. (Might be a close race with the 10m half circle that usually immediately proceeds it.)

While there might be some egg/chicken thing going on I would suggest that instead of the halt developing the half-halt, that it's the half-halt which is physically less demanding that develops the more demanding correct halt. Not asking for a movement because of its difficulty and waiting until the horse is ready doesn't take one off "the right path." It actually might keep us on the path.

Dressage tests are put together progressively through the levels incorporating moves of similar difficulty at each level--all except the halt. The halt has been included traditionally for courtesy without much thought or concern as a movement with it's own level of difficulty that may not be in line with the difficulty of the rest of the test.

I get courtesy and tradition. BN, N and even T are not traditional parts of Eventing. Neither is Intro (and Training?) traditionally part of Dressage. Nor would some old schoolers think taking a green horse off the farm and subjecting a judge to it's lack of polish courtesy. We don't wear our swords or side arms either; it's a slippery slope. I love courtesy and tradition, but I'm willing to change them--as these things happen--when there is some good logic as to why it might be better for the horse to do so. Reducing it from twice to once seems like a nice compromise.

[fooler]

Getting out and competing is a big part of schooling a youngster. I like to get them out as soon as they can handle it, whether they have a confirmed halt or not. Usually this is after about *gasp* a month or two, and it's for educational purposes, not for ribbons.

Would just suggest you sit in the judge's stand, dressage or SJ, and watch these 30-60 day 'wonders'. Having watched multiple obviously green horses in dressage or SJ, I see the value of longer time under saddle before entering competition.
However I understand the value of 'attending' a competiton without entering to aclimatize.

subk - Intro is on the opposite end of GP Dressage, however an initial halt at X is required. You can't have it both ways, either BN, N and T are recognized levels of Eventing or not. IMHO - the rules applied at Advanced eventing should be the same as BN, given obivous differences in qualification requirements, attire, etc.

[olympicdreams04]

Similar but different point of contention: I disagree with the BN A test that requires competitors to Enter Working Trot AXMC. I spend entire days of my horses lives working on straight centerlines. This veering to M really screws with their understanding of straightness on the centerline every single time. While it has not causes any direct issues for me and is easy to score well on, it just seems like an unnecessary deviation.

[subk]

subk - Intro is on the opposite end of GP Dressage, however an initial halt at X is required. You can't have it both ways, either BN, N and T are recognized levels of Eventing or not. IMHO - the rules applied at Advanced eventing should be the same as BN, given obivous differences in qualification requirements, attire, etc.

Not sure I understand you.

My only point on the BN, N, T not being "traditional" in eventing was that it is really a conundrum if you are arguing about what is and isn't traditional when competing at a non-traditional level. As far as rules, a halt isn't a rule its a movement.

I'm just trying to explain some of the thought process that led to dropping the halt per requested by the OP in relation to some of the things mentioned here.

[fooler]

Not sure I understand you.

My only point on the BN, N, T not being "traditional" in eventing was that it is really a conundrum if you are arguing about what is and isn't traditional when competing at a non-traditional level. As far as rules, a halt isn't a rule its a movement.

I'm just trying to explain some of the thought process that led to dropping the halt per requested by the OP in relation to some of the things mentioned here.

The perils of posting on COTH when one is at work.
What I should have stated is:
IMHO - we should look at a BN horse and/or rider with the same respect and 'expectation of perfection' as an Advance horse and/or rider and all levels in between. If an Advance horse is expected to enter at A and halt at X from the canter, then lets begin the expectation at BN from the trot through the walk to the halt. I don't expect a green BN horse or rider to halt perfectly. But lets go for consistency in the tests so we can build on skills learned at the lower levels - as in our SJ and XC fences.
Of course there are differences in skills, expectations and a few rules due to the increased difficulty as you progress through the levels.

While I understand some of the thought process used to drop the initial halt at X for lower levels, I don't 100% agree.

[yellowbritches]

we should look at a BN horse and/or rider with the same respect and 'expectation of perfection' as an Advance horse and/or rider and all levels in between.

Well, no one is actually expecting perfection...we're actually expecting EXCELLENCE (and "10" isn't perfect, it's is excellent).

I agree with subk about the halt being a fairly demanding and difficult move. I know I don't tend to really school a good, square, crisp halt until we're heading toward prelim. Below that, obedient and prompt? Sure? Preferably not strung out with a leg going in each direction, but I don't expect or ask for nearly as much. I have just started riding a green horse again this week (been awhile). I can STOP him, but I cannot properly halt him the way I can halt Toby (sharp, balanced, and square-ish...Toby is still grasping the concept of "square"). It will take lots of time and schooling and strengthening before he can do that.

We show the halt at the end of the test. It is a hard movement for young, green horses, who are probably gawky and backed off as it is. Forward is the most important thing an event horse can have....why mess with it in the first 10 steps of an event?

[fooler]

yellowbritchesQuote:
we should look at a BN horse and/or rider with the same respect and 'expectation of perfection' as an Advance horse and/or rider and all levels in between.
Well, no one is actually expecting perfection...we're actually expecting EXCELLENCE (and "10" isn't perfect, it's is excellent).


Good Grief - is all we have to do is quibble over is words? Whether one is perfect or excellent - one exceeds.

Once again - the trot to immediate square halt should not be expected at BN or even Novice. IIRC - a stride or so of walk before the halt was 'allowed' in the BN and Novice tests, will have to look old tests to confirm.

I have the voice of a departed retired O level dressage judge who was once on the selection committee for two US 3-Day teams running through my head. She taught the halt as a forward movement that required a certain level of submission to be done properly. We spent considerable time on this movement as my mare considered at the halt as a 4-letter word.

[Catie79]

Similar but different point of contention: I disagree with the BN A test that requires competitors to Enter Working Trot AXMC. I spend entire days of my horses lives working on straight centerlines. This veering to M really screws with their understanding of straightness on the centerline every single time. While it has not causes any direct issues for me and is easy to score well on, it just seems like an unnecessary deviation.

I can actually say that this has screwed with my mare. She happened to get BN A as her test for something like six shows in a row. Now that I'm doing Novice and pure dressage shows, my centerline shows a little kink off to the right at X every single time. My ridiculously clever mare thinks that's what she's supposed to do.

I, for one, prefer the initial halt. I stop, salute, take a breath, and then start my test. It really helps. I figure that if we can't stop? We shouldn't be running cross country anyway. Can't go if you can't stop.

[Janet]

With many horses, I LIKE the initial halt, becuase it reminds both the horse and me to be "on" ALL the aids.
"Forward" is rarely a problem for me. "Running through the aids" sometimes is.

Sometimes I just do my own halt just before entering the arena.