Just wondering what everyone’s thoughts are about the 3’3 Maclay finals?
Since riders don’t need to qualify, it’s not a finals. It’s a 3’3" equitation class with a trophy and a pretty cooler. I like equitation and trophies and pretty coolers. I don’t like a horse show calling a class something it isn’t to make it sound special.
Perhaps next show season we’ll see the qualifier class show up during the regular season, in which case I would be happy to watch the 3’3" Finals, which would actually be a finals. I have no objection to bringing in more 3’3" equitation classes to align to the low juniors and low amateurs. It also occurs to me that 3’3" classes also give riders opportunities to develop in the equitation without qualifying themselves into the Open division in IHSA, if that’s a thing that’s important to them.
7 Likes
Horrible idea in my opinion
2 Likes
I’m glad this will be a stepping stone to the 3’6". Its no surprise (and there seems to be a new post on here after most of the finals) that some horses and riders are overfaced with the course/jumps/atmosphere etc. Now can a 3" smaller jump turn the unprepared into super stars? I doubt it. But the 3’3" classes are so popular now, you could’ve almost guessed this was coming.
Renn, I agree you shouldn’t call this a finals if its almost an open equitation class.
2 Likes
I’m perfectly happy with the concept of a 3’3" finals–New England has been doing it since 1978 and many Big Eq finals winners have come through that program. Have it at NHS and name it for Christy Conard or Leo Conroy (I somehow think Frank Chapot or GHM would be horrified to have their name on a 3’3" finals). But, dear god, don’t call it a Maclay finals and cheapen the most prestigious equitation finals in our sport.
I know it’s just a class now. I just see the evolution on the horizon.
13 Likes
Here is a link to the press release:
https://app.robly.com/archive?id=aba797e7bccbd99bfa14a20bd897dd0d
As a middle-aged, not-very-confident rider who just rides for her own enjoyment, I am all for horse shows offering a diverse range of classes at heights that are safe and appropriate for a variety of horses and riders. I have no dog in this fight, never did the Big Eq, didn’t ride as a junior, and even if I did ride back then, wouldn’t have been good enough to do the Big Eq.
But the idea of calling this “the 3’3 Maclay” makes me twitchy. Why try to associate it with the Maclay itself through this kind of verbal slight-of-hand? I can’t help thinking that it will make it easier for some people to fudge things and say that they qualified for “the Maclay” when they really meant the modified version. The actual Maclay has been so significant in launching many young professional riders’ careers it seems to be a disservice to them to cheapen the name. Even on the press release…I’m not crazy about the use of photographs of the top Maclay winners from 2016.
I’m also not clear how the class will really prepare riders for the Maclay itself and act as a stepping-stone, if that is actually what it is supposed to do.
8 Likes
I have no problem with 3’'3 eq classes as a stepping stone but disagree with the name. The Maclay is the most prestigious of the big eq finals and calling a lesser class by that name is disrespectful to the real Maclay and the winners of that class. In my area we already have mini Maclay and mini Medal classes. 
7 Likes
Is there a flat phase? As in, it actually runs like the Maclay?
USHJA has a 3’3" Medal… where is the finals for that? I thought this was it, but apparently not.
Me thinks this is a veiled attempt to boost attendance at a seriously struggling horse show.
Which is fine.
But this insistent ignorance when naming things irks me to no end (see previous rants on National vs. International Hunter Derbies… has zero relevance to what distinguishes the two classes… and don’t see a whole lot of “international” riders flocking to Derby Finals). Words matter. Get a dictionary.
Being an old-ish fogey that somehow survived the leap from 3’ to 3’6" as a junior I could gripe about the continuing downward trend in fence heights… but looks like that ship has already sailed.
5 Likes
It’s not a final if you don’t have to qualify. How many are they taking, is there a cutoff? Is it just a matter of sending in an entry on time? Looks like a shortsighted money grab.
1 Like
Yeah, I think having a 3’3" USHJA Medal with finals is a fine idea. I’d fully support that. Having some kind of stepping stone between the THIS/StateHSA 3’ medals and the Medal/Maclay is a good thing. As is a finals with fancy ribbons and coolers. All great.
What doesn’t make sense to me is calling it the 3’3 Maclay. That diminishes the value of the actual Maclay finals that riders work incredibly hard to qualify for. Especially this year, when there’s not even qualifying for it.
5 Likes
Totally agree. Last year’s finals showed that a lot of riders were not prepared, so a stepping stone class could be useful, but don’t call it the Maclay, and I’m not sure why you would call it a “finals” prior to riders having to qualify for it.
6 Likes
So will this be a class that anyone that wants to can enter if they are not in the real Maclay? Or take the riders that just missed the cut off for the 3’6?
Create a 3’3 class/final, that’s fine, but don’t call it the Maclay. Name it after someone who had great success in the equitation ring like Brianne Goutal. Or someone who won some of the finals and went on to compete in show jumping championships.
It’s like running a 1 mile race at Churchill Downs the first Saturday in May and naming it the One Mile Kentucky Derby. You know, for those horses who are overfaced by the last furlong. Or maybe even the 7 Furlong Kentucky Derby for those robbed of fame by spitting it out after turning for home.
Oh, wait, they do have races that day at those distances to showcase those horses. But THEY CALL THEM SOMETING ELSE.
Call it something besides the 3’3" Maclay. Particularly if riders don’t even have to qualify, that’s quite a disservice to past participants.
On thinking about it, adding the 3’3" to Maclay sort of reminded me of the “Not ready for prime time players”. That’s kind of a disservice to those riders.
Hold the class, by all means. But change the name.
21 Likes
Nailed it.
1 Like
I would agree with this view.
I concur with the others who think the new 3’3" class should have a different name, rather than including it in the Maclay, which is an existing 3’6" class with a long and distinguished history.
2 Likes
But yet they qualified for the final. So, perhaps something was off along the way. It’s not like those riders who qualified for the Maclay final would decide to step down to the 3’3".
What wouldn’t be fair is to allow those who didn’t make it through regionals do a 3’3" final against riders who were not showing at 3’6" all year. And then there are the riders who do well at the 3’6" state/regional equitation level who don’t have the prep or the horse to do the Maclay final. Are those riders going to be eligible to compete at 3’3"?
And yes, call it something else. What’s the current 3’3" medal? Is it jumping seat? So this one is the hunter seat? Do we need two? Maybe have one 3’3" medal along the WIHS format with both phases.
I don’t really get all the rated 3’3" divisions in general. I get it for the 2nd year of the pre greens. Not so much for the juniors. Isn’t that what the modified jr/am division is for? A stepping stone? Why does it have to be rated and come with its own set of equitation? It’s hard enough to get the regular medals to fill in some areas.
And…get off my lawn. :eek:
1 Like
IPEsq, I don’t know about you, but shows in my neck of zone 3 don’t typically have a modified junior/am division. The low junior/am filled that niche.
Re. the 3’3" USHJA jumping seat medal, The SW Virginia HJA has a 3’3" jumping seat medal called the Oak Ridge, modeled after the Talent Search with the finals featuring a gymnastics phase, jumper class, and a flat phase which included the counter lead. I loved that class and showed in the finals. I was never getting to the Talent Search- even if I had any talent 
it didn’t fill at the shows I could afford to attend- but that was a great class for young riders, not just juniors, who were interested in jumper seat equitation. I imagine it was also a great step-up class to the Talent Search in a way that a children’s jumper class or the rest of the big eq isn’t necessarily.
Back to this class- I have no problem with the class- I’m just flummoxed by the name. It’s not the Maclay and it’s not a Finals so I have no idea what’s with any part of that. Are there not enough illustrious horsemen and horsewomen we could honor with a namesake class at the National Horse Show?
1 Like
Yes, sorry I wasn’t clear. Modifieds still exist some places but I never understood why it had to be replaced with a rated 3’3 jr/ao. Is it really that hard to go from 3’ to 3’6 anymore?
Think it’s the step more then the height but while most 3’ horses can stretch a bit to get to 3’3", between the extra step, height, wider oxers and less inviting combinations set at 3’6" to ask more challenging questions of riders? Need a better horse, these days that prices many out. That’s what comes up in the discussion threads about horses being over faced we’ve had many times. I understand the feeling there is a place for sort of a stepping stone national Medal class…and money to be made for a show that hosts it, especially if they snag a corporate sponsor. Nothing wrong with that. Changing the format is not necessary, it’s a Hunt Seat Eq class with jumps and flat, we have Talent Search and WIHS for riders who want to branch out to more challenges and have the horse for it.
Face it, if they want to hold the inaugural this fall? No way anybody could qualify even if they wanted to. Far better to have announced this last fall, not 6 months out. Calling it a Finals cheapens the brand, they should consider that.
Also should keep in mind there’s still those out there who have been referring to this show as the (Not so) National Horse Show since it popped up in Florida a decade or so ago. You want to add the (Wannabee) Maclay to the (Not so) National Horse Show???
Change the name.
3 Likes
Well, I’m not a junior but yes that is a huge jump in height. I found the 3’3" A/O division a godsend and quite frankly I never would have made it up to the 3’6" A/O without it. No way I would have ever moved up to 3’6" without that stepping stone, and I think a lot of people feel the same way.
Now for these “finals”, I agree that’s ridiculous. It’s not the Maclay and it’s not a finals right now. I think it’s a great idea, but definitely change the name.
1 Like
