A course designer is actually not an autocrat with all the power. They work with the fence builders, most of whom can design a pretty good fence or track themselves: they work with the health and safety persons: the director of the event; the TD (Eric Winter was TD and he designs really good but tough courses himself, most notably, Blenheim); the riders have imput. There is a lot happening behind the scenes.
One thing in thinking back on Saturdays xc is that different flagging would have made a difference on some fences. For ex, on the huntsman complex. Those corners were not flagged so the entire corner was available. The flagging only gave the rider about 5 wide window to it. So the corn r r became a complex question of being a corner as well as a skinny.
I know riders will stay as tight to the tip as possible but the flagging presented a very tight and limited line.
I watched the BBC coverage of the first half (so, shorter than the full 3 hours worth) and saw several big slips, which did not result in falls or penalties. However the other thing I saw was 2 more horse falls that I didn’t like (a grey somersaulting at the Quarry; and a bay flipped on its side at the angled hedge coming out of the water jump). I stand by my statement that it is too many horse falls.
I watched the Youtube BBC coverage and I do agree with Blugal. I also think the Huntsman’s Close was unfair. The long route was VERY long, especially for so late in the course; the first double corner–which was HUGE for that late in the course seemed like nothing I’ve ever seen in any 4* since 2010. If I understand how the jump was designed, the rider had the option of going either right or left, and it was flagged both ways, with flags in the middle of the jump. It appeared that was absolutely no room for any drifting at all on that fence. Plus being in the shadows and trees and having to curl so to approach the jumps --I just thought it was too much for where it was in the course with horses so tired after having to go so long on cuppy, sticky ground.
I think that WFP had the competition won until he had his fall. The horse was going beautifully and so much more smoothly than any of the other riders that I saw. He had it planned out perfectly and rode it to perfection until that brush fence popped him off.
It was pure luck and frangible pins that more horses and riders were not hurt. Those two falls were scary to watch.
Is it okay to design a fence that turns out to be unsafe if it’s made safe with frangible pins?
BTW, I hated Mike Tucker as the BBC announcer, but loved Ian Stark as commentator.
Is it okay to design a fence that turns out to be unsafe if it’s made safe with frangible pins?
It doesn’t seem smart or kind to the horses.
Agree with whomever observed how narrow the flagging was on the double corners in the Huntsman’s Close too.
from WFP;
Cross Country course
The cross country course was generally thought to be much bigger and braver than in previous years, proving a much stiffer test than we have been used to, although the ground was holding up well it was obviously going to be soft and very hard work for the horses, which inevitably added to the test.
I felt the first serious question came at fence 5: the Big Table. Down a steep slope on 3 and 4 strides to two very big arrow heads. The distances were long and the combination of narrowness, height with added birch and the drop, made it a very imposing combination.
The Owl Hole bank followed by the arrow head looked quite tricky. The Vicarage Vee looked as airy and ugly as ever, and the Mirage Pond asked a serious test of accuracy and courage.
The fence I disliked most on my first walk was the logs and mound at 18. It was a huge relief to the riders and horses when the B element was removed. I felt the line from A to B was a very unfair question and would have resulted in very messy jumps. I felt strongly that it was an unfair test as the question for the horses was unclear.
The last big test came at Huntsmans Close where there were two huge turning corners on inevitably very greasy ground.
So, after having overnight rain on the Friday and with Cool Mountain placed well out of the reckoning, his owner Tee and I decided it was best to save him for another day. I therefore had all morning and afternoon to watch the course being ridden. This was a fairly traumatic experience with the course causing untold trouble, only nine horses completed in the first two and half hours of competition.
I felt the course was fair but the conditions were undoubtedly a big reason behind the problems, with many horses not quite up for the challenge. The time soon became clearly unachievable and the competition was wide open, which was causing quite a stir.
I was very confident that, if any horse could cope in these conditions Parklane Hawk, being such a good galloper, would manage really well. He felt fantastic in the warm up and gave me a superb ride cross country, until falling at the fourth last. He was galloping brilliantly and gave me no feeling of getting tired, and I could not understand why he simply misread the fence. I was very relieved to see that he was OK after his fall, and he will now have a good holiday, hopefully returning to work soon.
No-one would have imagined the troubles the course challenged. Setting out in the start box statistics would’ve said I had a 1:2 chance of coming through the finish, and although I felt very confident, I can safely say I have never been in that position before. The overall feeling is that no-one would wish to see the course changed, the challenge was welcomed and with better conditions would have ridden very well.
It was a fantastic win for Sam Griffiths, a good friend and fellow Dorset man. I cannot also fail to mention how amazing it was to see Harry Meade finish third after his horrendous injury to his elbows, no-one deserved that result more.
It must have been a very demanding week for Hugh Thomas, Jane Tuckwell and their Badminton team. But huge congratulations to them for what they achieved battling the elements.
The grey galloped up the hill boldly & I have to agree with the commentator that people were taking that fence a bit for granted due to the removal of B…
I disagree it was ‘pure luck’ no one was hurt; the pins served their purpose. Would riders ride up to those fences the way they did without them in place? I doubt it in all the cases.
I’m agreeing to disagree, a good discussion to have. Nice to see people so interested in ULs of the sport. Any uS riders comment in the course yet?
[QUOTE=goodmorning;7576670]
I’m agreeing to disagree, a good discussion to have. Nice to see people so interested in ULs of the sport. Any uS riders comment in the course yet?[/QUOTE]
Both Clark and Tiana had blogs posted up on PRO.
From Tiana’s post:
I thought at Huntsman’s I didn’t have much to lose and decided to go direct; I knew it wasn’t really working for anybody but we’d already had a 20 so I thought I’d give it a go, and bless his cotton socks he just couldn’t get the B element at all, I don’t know how he managed to clamber over it, I know he banked it, he was so genuine to jump that but then he just didn’t stand a chance of getting to that last element so he couldn’t have been more genuine there. So that was our second stop and still then I put my foot down after that and he flew home, jumped through the quarry and again he had a whole other gear coming back from that. As I came into the ring I looked up and it said I was 45 seconds over and I couldn’t believe it, I thought it must have been 1 minute 45 seconds or something! He was just unreal, absolutely unreal; in hindsight I could have taken all the long routes and still come home clear
It’s hard to blame the course for that. (And Tiana doesn’t.)
Huntsman’s Close was tough. But I don’t remember it ever being a cake walk. Even last year, with the easier course (remember that it was designed as a test for London 2012, then left for 2013 when 2012 was cancelled), Hunstman’s was a very difficult gymnastic exercise that required precise riding. Riders who came in too fast often met the ground or had a stop. In previous years, it included upright gates, which always caused falls and stops.
This is where Paul Tapner got it right. He said you had to ride to save your horse for Huntsman’s; after that you could accelerate. If conditions had been perfect, it would have been easier, but, as I mentioned previously, eventing is an outdoor sport and weather conditions are part of the game.
I don’t like horse falls at all. But horse falls aren’t always the fault of course design. This is, once again, where rider responsibility comes into play. You need to know if you have enough horse for the straight route, the long route, or if it’s time to go home. That’s what the long route is for.
One thing that I loved about last weekend was seeing the genuine joy at the XC finish, and not just among the amateurs and lesser-knowns. Just to name two, Oliver Townend and Nicola Wilson – veterans of many big events – were completely over the moon with their rides. This was no average work day. It was a real Badminton.
I have read quite a few of the blogs by riders and they all talk about the footing but none about the wind. I think as others have said on this thread that the riders really underestimated the impact of the wind.
I think the wind had a huge factor in horses tiring. Several of the long gallops were right into the teeth of the wind. It was tiring just to walk into it.
I would also think it had an impact on the accuracy of your ride into a jump. The first element of the Vicarage Vee saw several horses land on the up-slope of the bank because they were too far left. The wind at that point was blowing right to left and I think it pushed some take-off point.
I saw several of the rider falls and two of the horse falls. The rider falls I would put at rider error. One was at the Vicarage Vee where the rider took a flat turn from A to B on the first element and tried to pull the horse back in. The horse then went left and tried to jump the creek. The rider came off.
One rider fall was at the Escalator on the last element. In reality that fall was caused by the jump over the table at the top. They over jumped the table and then had to take a bad line to B and then horse slid by C and the rider came off.
The two horse falls I saw were just the horse slipping down.
It was a tough course but I think very fair.
[QUOTE=vineyridge;7573950]
It’s interesting. I looked the eventing at Pratoni del Vivaro since 2008, and they have run one CIC 3* in all those years. This man doesn’t seem to have ever designed a 3CCI other than the 2007 Europeans, much less a 4 one before. I’ve done a good bit of searching to see what other courses he’s designed but cannot come up with anything.
There was a 3* test event in 2007. Since the FEI started posting the officials, ie since 2011, della Chiesa has not been the course designer at Pratoni del Vivaro for their annual FEI competition. Nor is he the course designer for the Milan 3*
If you search the FEI database under the person search, they have no data for him, but they have data for all other course designers under the Person search. Well, I managed to find him in the Person database. Here’s his page:
https://data.fei.org/Person/Detail.aspx?p=41A0D4326CC32F6D6BFF1EF51A4F735D
He designed a CIC 3* at Malmo in 2011. He also designed a CIC1*, CCI2* and CIC 3*in Italy in 2011. That’s it for his recent experience as an Eventing Course Designer, as found by a Google search of the FEI database.
The vast majority FEI database results are as a Jumper rider with quite a few as an eventing TD.
This man is qualified to design Badminton WHY?
Interesting tidbit from the FEI Database. Mark Phillips is not registered for 2014. Reckon he’s retired?[/QUOTE]
I’m a little late but I finally got around to reading the article in Eventing about della Chiesa in their Badminton preview issue and thought of your post Viney. Based on the article, he seems light on experience.
