The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 35 of 35
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Apr. 30, 2002
    Location
    Looking up
    Posts
    6,043

    Default

    Tad Coffin - Bally Cor. Gold Medalist.
    Gina Miles - Silver Medalist.
    Those are two one-off "wonders" right off the top of my head. Good grief, it's practically the American way.
    The Gray Goose is being inducted in the Hall of Fame - the epitome of a "one-hit wonder" and we were damn lucky to have him in the era of the long format. Please, add to this list. I'm working and can't look any more up.
    Same old, same old, eh? Just couched in better bull$hit.
    "Passion, though a bad regulator, is a powerful spring." -- Emerson
    www.eventhorse.wordpress.com



  2. #22
    Join Date
    May. 23, 2006
    Posts
    5,392

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRider View Post
    Once you're actually at the point of naming a team, it's too late. The attention to the single horse pairs needed to happen in the lead up. All riders with talent, particularly riders who are capable of producing their own horses, need to feel that the dream is possible. If there's a complete glass ceiling, you discourage potentially great people from even trying.

    There's also a big difference between being a reserve and actually making the team. I'd love to know how much support the reserves felt they got in the lead up to the games. When it comes down to actually making the call, it's clear that the selectors feel the need to reward the owners who are willing to spend big dollars to acquire ready made horses.

    And who knows, maybe CMP's advice to riders that they need big $ sponsors and multiple horses is good advice, not because it's necessary for success on the field, but because that's how the political game is invariably carried out here in the US. If you donate enough money to the US, your horses make teams. If they don't, you take your toys and play for another country.

    High Performance needs to focus on both riders who are talented enough to develop their own horses and riders who are funded enough to bring home medals on premade horses. We don't have enough of the second to ignore the first. If we elimate all riders who are not rich, related to really rich people or super charming, we eliminate a lot of past US Team success.


    One of the BEST posts I have ever read here on COTH!


    1 members found this post helpful.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Nov. 13, 2002
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    3,555

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRider View Post
    Once you're actually at the point of naming a team, it's too late. The attention to the single horse pairs needed to happen in the lead up. All riders with talent, particularly riders who are capable of producing their own horses, need to feel that the dream is possible. If there's a complete glass ceiling, you discourage potentially great people from even trying.
    .
    I picked making the team because it was the big goal this year for those riders but these people, as well as others with only 1 team caliber or potential team caliber horse, were on the various training lists as well.
    I am by no means saying that I agreed with CMP and his approach (in fact from what I know about him (almost none first-hand) I think that he is a short-sighted jackass) and based on the info available to me, I disagreed with a lot of his decisions/approaches.
    But I don't see how you can look at the performance lists (which are not determined solely by the chef) and say you had to have a deep string to be considered. It may have improved your chances of getting on a list but it clearly was not determinative.
    There is something about the outside of a horse that is good for the inside of a man.(Churchill)



  4. #24
    Join Date
    May. 3, 2008
    Posts
    996

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bambam View Post
    I picked making the team because it was the big goal this year for those riders but these people, as well as others with only 1 team caliber or potential team caliber horse, were on the various training lists as well.
    I am by no means saying that I agreed with CMP and his approach (in fact from what I know about him (almost none first-hand) I think that he is a short-sighted jackass) and based on the info available to me, I disagreed with a lot of his decisions/approaches.
    But I don't see how you can look at the performance lists (which are not determined solely by the chef) and say you had to have a deep string to be considered. It may have improved your chances of getting on a list but it clearly was not determinative.
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Allison was on the training list this year.

    Somewhat related, add me to the list that thinks that cutting off the developing rider list at 25 is nuts, particularly when you have a senior squad that is next to impossible to break into these days regarless of performance. 30 makes a lot more sense. Other than Tiana Coudray, when was the last time a team rider was under 30?



  5. #25
    Join Date
    Apr. 16, 2002
    Location
    ontario, canada
    Posts
    2,381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SevenDogs View Post


    Our last (and only for a long long time) Olympic Medalist was a one hit wonder (Gina Miles), whom Mark Phillips' regime did everything they could to ignore and not name her to a team.

    The previous regime's model was incredibly unsuccessful and the only bright spots were those that "slipped through the cracks".
    I really don't understand what seems to be a deeply entrenched view that encouraging strings is bad. I am not saying that riders with one 3/4*horse should be ignored. I believe that those riders need support and assistance so that the one horse they have can be developed, but more importantly so the rider can develop tools to use with the next horses she/he brings up the levels.

    All that said. Strings aren't exactly an unknown or unproven notion. Let's look at some of the most successful riders in the WORLD.

    WFP has a pretty extensive string.
    Mary King has numerous 4* horses even though she is often viewed as having a smaller operation than many others.
    Andrew Nicholson? Clayton Fredericks? Chris Burton? Mark Todd? They all have strings.

    Let's get a bit more specific and look at the medal winners from 2012:

    Team medals:
    Germany
    - Peter Thomsen -> 4 horses at the 3/4* level in 2011/2012. 3/4 of those sponsored by Horseware, by the way.
    - Dirk Schrade -> 3 horses at the 3/4* level in 2012
    - Sandra Auffarth -> 2 horses at the 3/4* level in 2012
    - Michael Jung -> 5 horses at the 3/4* level in 2012
    - Ingrid Klimke -> 4 horses at the 3/4* in 2012

    Great Britain
    - William Fox-Pitt -> Trust me...you don't want to know. A lot.
    - Nicola Wilson -> 7 3/4* horses in 2011/2012
    - Zara Phillips -> 4 3/4* horses in 2011/2012
    - Mary King -> 4 3/4* horses in 2011/2012
    - Kristina Cook -> 4 3/4* horses in 2011/2012

    New Zealand
    - Jonelle Richards -> 4 3/4* horses in 2011/2012
    - Caroline Powell -> 6 3/4* horses in 2011/2012
    - Jonathan Paget -> 5 3/4* horses in 2011/2012
    - Andrew Nicholson -> 10+ 3/4* horses in 2011/2012
    - Mark Todd -> 8 3/4* horses in 2011/2012

    Individuals Medals
    - Michael Jung - see above
    - Sara Algotsson Ostholt - 2 3/4* horses in 2011/2012
    - Sandra Auffarth - see above

    There are some very legitimate reasons why having a string is encouraged. You may not like it, but that doesn't mean its a poor strategy.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Nov. 20, 2008
    Posts
    1,754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Backstage View Post
    I really don't understand what seems to be a deeply entrenched view that encouraging strings is bad.
    I don't hear anyone discouraging riders who are able to maintain strings of horses.

    Exactly the opposite: ALL horse/rider pairs capable of riding at that level should be considered, regardless of whether they have one horse at that level or ten.

    Including all qualifed horses/riders in the selection process creates the best pool from which to create a successful team. Excluding riders simply because they only have one or two qualified horses (instead of a string) is shortsighted and stupid.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    May. 23, 2006
    Posts
    5,392

    Default

    I am not saying having a string is bad...not at all. To make it an unwritten requirement is not good for the sport in the USA because the situation/examples you have provided will NEVER ever happen in the USA. Why not be more willing to include the "amateur" with the one good horse on the training lists and teams? I am not saying there are not exceptions to this but it is not exactly encouraged either....or at least is wasn't under Mark and the HP committee.



  8. #28
    Join Date
    May. 23, 2006
    Posts
    5,392

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SevenDogs View Post
    I don't hear anyone discouraging riders who are able to maintain strings of horses.

    Exactly the opposite: ALL horse/rider pairs capable of riding at that level should be considered, regardless of whether they have one horse at that level or ten.

    Inclusion of all qualifed riders in the selection process creates the best pool from which to create a successful team. Excluding riders without a string of horses, is stupid.


    agreed.



  9. #29
    Join Date
    Aug. 5, 2009
    Posts
    1,302

    Default

    From what I have been reading on EN, sounds like some of DOC's ideas are interesting. But then, I haven't evented in a long time.

    What do some of you active participants think of all this?



  10. #30
    Join Date
    Oct. 4, 2008
    Posts
    1,143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRider View Post
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Allison was on the training list this year.

    Somewhat related, add me to the list that thinks that cutting off the developing rider list at 25 is nuts, particularly when you have a senior squad that is next to impossible to break into these days regarless of performance. 30 makes a lot more sense. Other than Tiana Coudray, when was the last time a team rider was under 30?
    I am way not understanding of this. Why have, what basically amounts to two lists of YR's?

    I like a lot of what was said, some good ideas. As far as an age limit....not so much. And am not in total agreement that talent Is the least of the traits needed. This is athletics......
    May the sun shine on you daily, and your worries be gone with the wind.
    www.mmceventing.com



  11. #31
    Join Date
    Mar. 1, 2003
    Location
    Happily in Canada
    Posts
    4,603

    Default

    Does anyone want to take a crack at working out the numerical calculation DOC's put forward, on say, this year's Olympic team vs. the alternates vs. Colleen Rutledge?
    Blugal

    You never know what kind of obsessive compulsive crazy person you are until another person imitates your behaviour at a three-day. --Gry2Yng



  12. #32
    Join Date
    May. 3, 2008
    Posts
    996

    Default

    I noticed that the penalty for each stadium rail is exponentially worse. I'd like to see a similar nuanced approach to xc eliminations/jump penalties.

    I did like that he seems to disfavor taking a risk with the extreme all or nothing pairs. I think that sending a pair that has a 10% chance of a really good result but a 90% chance of failing to finish is both horribly unfair to other riders and creates the wrong incentives for horse selection.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  13. #33
    Join Date
    May. 23, 2006
    Posts
    5,392

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRider View Post
    I noticed that the penalty for each stadium rail is exponentially worse. I'd like to see a similar nuanced approach to xc eliminations/jump penalties.

    I did like that he seems to disfavor taking a risk with the extreme all or nothing pairs. I think that sending a pair that has a 10% chance of a really good result but a 90% chance of failing to finish is both horribly unfair to other riders and creates the wrong incentives for horse selection.

    Yes Ma'am!!!!



  14. #34
    Join Date
    Aug. 14, 2000
    Location
    Clarksdale, MS--the golden buckle on the cotton belt
    Posts
    17,608

    Default

    He's set a benchmark of 70% for dressage. From my calculations at 4*s, that's actually 1 percent too high. If you get 69% or above in dressage, you have a very good chance of being in the top ten, especially with a double clear or close to it in XC.

    To win, a 70% probably isn't good enough these days at top competitions.

    As to strings, neither Becky Holder nor Kim Severson has ever had a string. They each seem to focus on one UL horse at a time; and they are the best dressage riders that we have and do their own training--at least from 2* up.
    "I'm a lumberjack, and I'm okay."
    Thread killer Extraordinaire



  15. #35
    Join Date
    Apr. 30, 2002
    Location
    Looking up
    Posts
    6,043

    Default

    I absolutely LOVE the vacation/big event/group idea, it is time we do provide a group experience for those of us who would LOFF to share our USA enthusiasm with fellow eventers and supporters of the team. (Anybody see the sea of orange with the Dutch fans at equestrian events? Yeah, that!) wouldn't it be fun to go with some of your friends on this board and in your local eventing area and cheer for American riders at like Badminton and Normandy? Oh I can't wait. I'm stuffing the piggy bank now!
    "Passion, though a bad regulator, is a powerful spring." -- Emerson
    www.eventhorse.wordpress.com


    5 members found this post helpful.

Similar Threads

  1. Development of US high performance pairs
    By DownYonder in forum Dressage
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Apr. 15, 2011, 07:20 AM
  2. Anyone coming to the USEA Annual Meeting & Convention?
    By Risk-Averse Rider in forum Hunting
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Oct. 29, 2010, 12:56 PM
  3. High Performance stallion sons of High Performance sires
    By DownYonder in forum Sport Horse Breeding
    Replies: 74
    Last Post: Jan. 16, 2010, 06:46 PM
  4. High Performance Sessions- FYI
    By CookiePony in forum Eventing
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Jan. 5, 2010, 12:40 PM
  5. Replies: 87
    Last Post: Mar. 25, 2008, 01:03 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