I’m with you. I think it has less to do with the inherent quality of riders or horseflesh, and more to do with the fact these avenues are easily accessible to the average rider.
That is not at all the case in the US.
7 Likes
Absolutely
Also the cost of even recognized competition at grassroots (BE100 and lower) levels is drastically less. BE80-100 start fees are max 76 pounds sterling for the weekend for 2021, whereas even running beginner novice at Galway Downs will run you $270 in start fees alone.
5 Likes
3 Likes
Dang, he didn’t tiptoe around the issues, did he? I like that type of leader. Clear, no BS, no kid gloves.
6 Likes
One thing I agree with and I know it’s unpopular opinion: If you can’t jump double clear majority of the time with good dressage, why are you upgrading?
18 Likes
Yeah, that doesn’t make sense to me either. Why are you at a level, spending all the money to compete, if you aren’t even remotely competitive?
What is the point?
3 Likes
Some of the best XC horses are very tricky in D and S, and super solid XC. That’s the horse I want people to learn P XC on, and in order to get to packer stage, he’s got some miles and limited time/soundness. I don’t care if people are competitive: I care if they’re solid XC. Going well in D doesn’t tell me anything about that. S somewhat more but they’re different skillsets.
(Yes, I had such a horse, and wish everyone the same fortune.)
17 Likes
This is where I land on it. Why not keep it at 4 MERs with a set dressage score minimum, and double jump clear?
2 Likes
I don’t 100% agree but I wont go there as my sentiments have already been said many times by others.
Also check out this article from Danny in 2008 it helps explain his perspective.
Because the courses aren’t what they used to be. A horse who is a XC machine but lacks finesse and training in dressage and SJ isn’t fit for Prelim anymore. It’s too technical.
If you are jumping clean stadium and XC consistently and still can’t make the dressage work than take the time and focus on the dressage.
Having a horse who was like this, hardest horse in dressage I have ever ridden. We used to get like 48/49… always jumped double clear but not competitive. So I took 2 years off to work on our dressage and our first event back we scored a 36. Then she scored a 34 and a 33. And I’m not some dressage master but I took YEARS to improve my skills so I would be competitive and safer. Last year we placed in all of our events in big classes.
If I can do it with Penny ANYONE can do it lol
6 Likes
I’m game with this approach as well. A talented pair would be ok moving up faster. The pairs that struggle would be stuck in the level they belong.
2 Likes
I must admit I don’t really love this quote:
People are getting hurt, and they’re trying to ruin the sport that we love.
Yeah, damn those amateurs killing themselves on course and jeopardizing the ability of professionals to make money being eventers (sarcasm). I’m quite certain getting hurt is no one’s goal - no one is TRYING to ruin this sport.
To more practically discuss his comments, I know it’s not in the actual rule, but I find his wish that four out of ten (40%) had to be double clear to be interesting (it’s not clear whether he means clear jumping and time or just jumping penalties). I’m not sure that’s true for a lot of professionals’ horses, let alone amateurs. Out of interest, I pulled the FEI records of the top 10 at Kentucky in 2019 (I know they would get their MERs at national level and they would run far fewer FEIs than national levels, but the group was international and I figured their FEI clear percentages should at least approximate their general performance levels - or actually, should better them as national levels are considered prep for an FEI) and tallied their results at then-1* (now 2*).
Out of the horses who were in the top 10 at Kentucky in 2019 - who I think we can reasonably assume were fairly safe horses at the prelim/2* level - the following is true:
- 1 did not even run at the 2* level for FEI, he went right to 3*
- FOD:
- 2 never finished on their dressage score at the level
- 3 always finished on their dressage score at the level
- average FOD percentage at the level across the group was 46%
- Double jumping clear:
- every horse recorded a double jumping clear at least once at the level
- 5 (or 50%) always jumped double clear
- average double jumping clear percentage at the level across the group was 76%
- Outliers:
- two horses never finished on their dressage score at the level
- the lowest double jumping clear percentage rate was 33%
- the highest average of show jumping penalties across all runs at the level was 5.3
If we assume Danny means he wants 40% of the MERs to be finishes on a dressage score, FIVE out of the top 10 horses in the field at Kentucky in 2019 would not have been allowed to move up when they did (and one more didn’t contest the level at FEI at all). If we assume Danny means he wants 40% of the MERs to be double jumping penalty clears, one of the top 10 horses in the field at Kentucky in 2019 would not have been allowed to move up when they did.
I’m not saying he’s right or wrong (I don’t feel I have enough information to do that), but I am saying that if he believes you need 40% double clear to be safe to move up, I think that needs to apply to all “classes” of rider, and I think that will restrict people in all “classes” of rider as compared to the decisions people are currently making.
To be clear, I recognize the awful, terrible experience Danny is speaking from. I am a huge proponent of LandSafe (I consider it as important a qualification as MERs when moving beyond a certain level). I think mostly, he’s right on the nose. And where he’s not, I would always have the rules err on the side of safety than danger. The danger here is very real, and endlessly painful.
7 Likes
I don’t often disagree with you, Jealoushe, but we’re polar opposites on this one. I’m not talking about an XC packer from 10 years ago. I’m talking about a current packer. And by that I mean a horse with solid Intermed or A miles stepping down.
The focus on D and S scores as a metric to assess XC safety is nonsensical. All it does is allow people to avoid the awkwardness of judging a pair’s XC skill. It doesn’t address the problem.
16 Likes
This is the opposite of “ensuring safety”. You are now wanting to ensure competitiveness. I don’t agree with making our sport inaccessible because someone doesn’t want to spend 2 years away from the sport improving their dressage.
We probably all know people who are “lifers” in this sport who just don’t give a rat’s ass about being competitive. They love XC, they love the camaraderie, they love riding and horses. Besides, in order to be competitive these days, you need to have shaved off about 10 points from what would have been a competitive score 10-15 years ago. Not everyone has gone out and bought a fancy-moving WB to gain half those points just from the movement bias. (Never mind that the combination who wins dressage is actually statistically more likely to have a fall on XC.)
24 Likes
That’s why this board is so great! We can converse and see other sides and learn right!
Ok so I’m curious how an advanced horse can’t get a decent score on a Prelim test? Prelim is less than 2nd level. An advanced horse imo should be able to perform a decent 2nd level test.
And yes @blugal I wasn’t meaning to base it all on being competitive. I wasn’t meaning winning dressage, but acceptable dressage.
Some horses out there just don’t have it. I agree with you that being competitive isnt what matters, I was trying to say competent at the level.
Eventing is a three discipline sport. Everyone wants horses who are really good at ONE phase to be allowed to continue up the levels, but in reality it’s not enough anymore.
If people don’t want to dedicate the time to get better because they just want to run XC… well that’s part of the issue here.
8 Likes
I agree, that one quote made my nose wrinkle. The rest of it was pretty spot on though.
2 Likes
And of those horses who jumped clean or had falls etc? Either there or elsewhere?
I think he may have had some good points, but I found his overall tone to be really off-putting. It certainly showed what he thinks of lower-level riders. Also, he basically dismissed the question about requiring the MERs as a combination, which I think is one of the biggest issues with the rule.
14 Likes
I think you’re asking me what the same stats were for horses or riders that fell at Kentucky in 2019 (there were four - 1 horse fall, 2 rider falls, 1 fall on the flat. I think to get real insight I should look at a bigger data set). I’m not totally sure this information will be helpful for this discussion, since I think we can safely say that horses that qualified for Kentucky were probably fairly safe at prelim/2*, but you’ve piqued my interest. Stats are as follows:
- FOD:
- all four did it at least once
- 1 always finished on their dressage score at the level
- average FOD percentage at the level across the group was 58% (higher than the other group)
- Double jumping clear:
- every horse recorded a double jumping clear at least once at the level
- 1 (or 25%) always jumped double clear
- average double jumping clear percentage at the level across the group was 58% (lower than the other group)
- Outliers:
- One horse, despite going on to have a very good record, was a real outlier at the prelim/2* level (then 1*). This horse had a clear xc rate of only 33% at the level, a clear sj rate of only 25% at the level, and a double jumping clear and FOD rate of 17% at the level. Danny’s criteria would have held this horse back. What’s notable? This horse was the only one to fall at Kentucky 2019. Now, that’s a pretty small data set. But it is interesting.
If we assume Danny means he wants 40% of the MERs to be finishes on a dressage score, two out of the four horses eliminated on cross-country at Kentucky in 2019 would not have been allowed to move up when they did. If we assume Danny means he wants 40% of the MERs to be double jumping penalty clears, the answer is the same.
…now I want to look at other years, thanks @Jealoushe haha.
