• Welcome to the Chronicle Forums.
    Please complete your profile. The forums and the rest of www.chronofhorse.com has single sign-in, so your log in information for one will automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.

Announcement

Collapse

Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

1. You’re responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it—details of personal disputes are likely better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts that violate these rules. Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting, but administrators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts upon request.

Outright inflammatory, vulgar, harassing, malicious or otherwise inappropriate statements and criminal charges unsubstantiated by a reputable news source or legal documentation will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it’s understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users’ profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Horses – Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it’s related to a horse for sale, regardless of who’s selling it, it doesn’t belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions – Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Services – Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

Products – While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

Event Announcements – Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be “bumped” excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues – Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators’ discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the “alert” button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your “Ignore” list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you’d rather avoid reading.

7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user’s membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 1/26/16)
See more
See less

Convention, high performance meeting.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    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.
    Proud & Permanent Student Of The Long Road
    Read me: EN (http://eventingnation.com/author/annemarch/) and HJU (http://horsejunkiesunited.com/author/holly-covey/)

    Comment


    • #22
      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!

      Comment


      • #23
        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)

        Comment


        • #24
          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?

          Comment


          • #25
            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.

            Comment


            • #26
              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.

              Comment


              • #27
                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.

                Comment


                • #28
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    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?

                    Comment

                    • Original Poster

                      #30
                      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

                      Comment


                      • #31
                        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

                        Comment


                        • #32
                          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.

                          Comment


                          • #33
                            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!!!!

                            Comment


                            • #34
                              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

                              Comment


                              • #35
                                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!
                                Proud & Permanent Student Of The Long Road
                                Read me: EN (http://eventingnation.com/author/annemarch/) and HJU (http://horsejunkiesunited.com/author/holly-covey/)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X