[QUOTE=Big_Grey_hunter;7807195]
It’s not a height problem. My 17h hunter struggled to get the lines, while my little 16.1h TB walked the lines and could easily take out. The small juniors get the strides just fine.
Not every horse is suited for every discipline. The same is true if you show a downhill, bad moving horse in dressage, a heavy, unathletic water phobic horse in eventing, or a warmblood in reining. It’s pointless to stomp your feet and complain the disciple is wrong and should change to suit you. Your options are easy, 1) buy a horse that is suited to the discipline, 2) take your not-so-suited horse to a different discipline, or 3) show your not-so-suited horse and know you won’t win.[/QUOTE]
agreed. 100%. i think it CAN be a height problem with ponies or with really extreme height differences… but usually not. i’ve known many 15 hand horses who struggle because their stride is TOO big!
[QUOTE=kdow;7807128]
But “look” is subjective, right? If you were used to seeing an 8’ stride pattern between jumps, then anything else would look weird, too. Because your eye is expecting to see X number of strides. So is there something special about the current stride length that should make it optimal for all horses? If not, why is everyone so wedded to it? Dressage judges get all kinds of training to supposedly help them judge fairly and not be caught out because a horse is a funny color or whatever - what is the process for hunter judges? Can just anyone be a judge, or is there training required provided by the governing organization? If so, why couldn’t the training focus on looking at the individual horse, not how well it got the striding? If the goal is to demonstrate ride ability and comfort in the hunt and so on, then I’m not sure why a smaller horse that has precision control with no apparent rider effort and a nice gait should do worse than a bigger horse that gets the strides but is more of a handful? But from reading posts here, no one would want the smaller horse because it wouldn’t get the strides.
I am legitimately confused. The history of hunters fascinates me, but hunters as it is now seems very confusing from the outside looking in. (Particularly since I thought there was a suitability component to the judging? And yet you see people on horses that don’t actually looked suitably sized for them necessarily, because of the striding issue and the fashion. Is everyone just ignoring that part?) (To be fair, dressage has also for a while had a tendency towards very large horses and that also perplexes me. You aren’t judged by appearance so much there, but how on earth do you properly use your leg on the horse if you kind of look like a lead line kid perched on top because you just don’t have the length of leg for the horse?)
I mean, to be honest as far ass the people are concerned I don’t care much - be judged by whatever standards you want as long as you aren’t hurting the horses. But with the whole issue of pony measuring because of getting the strides it sounds like the current system IS encouraging poor horsemanship to get a pony to measure, and I don’t understand why the stride numbers are so important that the judging standard can’t be tweaked so that a good ride on a good horse/pony is a good ride, even if they took Y strides instead of X to do it.[/QUOTE]
Thank you. That was exactly what I was trying to say, but you said it better.
[QUOTE=Big_Grey_hunter;7807028]
What I don’t understand is why so many people who don’t show hunters feel the need to ‘ask questions’ while unsubtly telling everyone why they think hunters are stupid and awful and wrong.
If you (generic you) don’t agree with the way modern hunters are judged/ridden/shown/cared for/etc, why not vote with your money and show in a different discipline?
This rant does not apply to those who are genuinely curious or asking honest questions.[/QUOTE]
I agree it is so annoying. I rode in the late 70’s and early 80’s as a junior and courses were set to a specific number of strides. If you wanted to place in a class, you needed the correct number of strides.
[QUOTE=Big_Grey_hunter;7807028]
What I don’t understand is why so many people who don’t show hunters feel the need to ‘ask questions’ while unsubtly telling everyone why they think hunters are stupid and awful and wrong.
If you (generic you) don’t agree with the way modern hunters are judged/ridden/shown/cared for/etc, why not vote with your money and show in a different discipline?
This rant does not apply to those who are genuinely curious or asking honest questions.[/QUOTE]
Tbh if I did show, I probably wouldn’t do hunters much. So in that way I am voting with my money in the sense that hunters doesn’t interest me. But there are plenty of things people do with horses that I’m not interested in doing myself where I still try to understand what is going on and what the goals are.
And particularly where it sounds like there are horse welfare issues possibly involved (I really hope the withers shaving thing is just a nasty rumor, but drugging and trimming too short and those tricks aren’t great either) then I really get curious.
Like I said, the actual history of hunters as a way of judging horses for the hunt field is quite interesting (I like reading about the appointments classes where you had to have the right sort of sandwich?) but the goal of the sport as it is now confuses me. What is hunters actually testing for, you know? Does striding actually matter that much for that?
(Particularly with a pony I feel like other factors like suitability should be much more important than getting the strides, if the idea is to harken back to fox hunting. If you’re putting a kid on a pony to ride around leaping whatever is in the way, it seems like a babysitter type that will take care of the kid is more important than how many strides it takes between things to leap over?)
(Eventing is has a bit of an identity crisis right now, too. Modern horse sports may not reference back to anything anyone used to do with them, which is fine. But it still seems like what you’re testing for should be a standard that makes sense? Or why do it?)
[QUOTE=kdow;7807128]
But “look” is subjective, right? If so, why couldn’t the training focus on looking at the individual horse, not how well it got the striding? If the goal is to demonstrate ride ability and comfort in the hunt and so on, then I’m not sure why a smaller horse that has precision control with no apparent rider effort and a nice gait should do worse than a bigger horse that gets the strides but is more of a handful? But from reading posts here, no one would want the smaller horse because it wouldn’t get the strides.
… you see people on horses that don’t actually looked suitably sized for them necessarily, because of the striding issue… how on earth do you properly use your leg on the horse if you kind of look like a lead line kid perched on top because you just don’t have the length of leg for the horse?
…why the stride numbers are so important that the judging standard can’t be tweaked so that a good ride on a good horse/pony is a good ride, even if they took Y strides instead of X to do it.[/QUOTE]
I think your post comments have a lot of good things to think about. I left in what I thought was the most valid points to consider.
I ride Hunters. But I would love it if I could be competitive on a variety of horses as said in the quoted area above depending on that particular horse. Always shopping for an 18 hand horse isn’t always feasible. Lucky for me I am a bigger rider and look suited for the larger horse.
With Hunters balance of horse and rider is not judged; and I think any horse over 16 hands is a bigger price point because that is what everyone is buying.
Shouldn’t the length of the lines be appropriate to the median size pony in the class, not the largest one? Why are they set so that the smallest of the size is usually guaranteed to have to scramble? It doesn’t seem to be an equal test of the ponies involved.
[QUOTE=Kestrel;7807416]
Shouldn’t the length of the lines be appropriate to the median size pony in the class, not the largest one? Why are they set so that the smallest of the size is usually guaranteed to have to scramble? It doesn’t seem to be an equal test of the ponies involved.[/QUOTE]
Who I feel bad for are the really cute small ponies who are on the small end of their division.
It would be nice if the jumps were set to the median size pony. Then the smaller ones could open up a bit and the larger ones compress slightly. But then I think someone would find something wrong with that approach too.
No matter what happens, someone is going to complain about how the striding is set. As long as hunters remains as subjective as it is, these types of discussions are always going to take place.
I love it when people mention nefarious whither shaving. It’s just clipping the whither hair really short. “Shaving” the hair on the whither.
As far as striding, it’s vital in the in and outs which I believe are based on the distance between neighboring fence lines.
And the children’s pony division is for kids on the nice easy ponies that are suitable and add up. The regular ponies are for the standouts where the jumps are bigger and the striding is tougher.
Not every horse and kid are cut out for the juniors, and not every pony and kid are cut out for the regulars. If your pair can’t cut it in the regulars you have a whole other division to show in.
My first show horse was a 17.1 Hanoverian mare who had a monstrous stride. To the naked eye she would appear to easily lope down the line, but if you counted, she would typically leave out a stride if the line was longer than 60’. It was such a pain because shortening her stride ticked her off and she wouldn’t look at good.
Then when I had to buy my own horse in college I purchased a much less fancy almost 15.3 paint gelding. Even in front of my leg and moving, we will typically add. If he had it his way, we would double add. The only way we’ll get the stride is if we absolutely gallop down the line. I eventually just gave up and stopped showing him in hunters because I didn’t like encouraging that style just to get ribbons. Now we show in jumpers and while we’re still not fast, we can turn like you wouldn’t believe
Then finally, the universe rewarded me with a 16.2 paint/TB mare that will nail the stride every time as long as she’s in front of my leg. She accepts my mistakes and just keeps on truckin’. I have a thread on her somewhere because COTH brought us together and I am seriously the luckiest person in the world to have her.
It’s interesting that all the explanations for counting strides reference a horse adding a stride and being penalized. Leaving out a stride is also severely penalized. But the logic of a ground covering stride should reward a horse that is able to do a 4 stride line in a nice flowing 3. And there are horses that could easily do that but don’t because it is penalized.
It is true that in the 70s and I rode in the junior hunters I did not count my strides but I did carry a consistent rhythm and so I’m pretty sure we were doing a 12 foot step because we did jump in and outs and they were set based on a 12 foot stride.
When I first learned to count strides I found it very difficult to incorporate because it almost made me stop feeling which is how I rode. It felt mechanical. Now that I am more proficient at counting strides after all these years it’s really just a reference point for me that I am on the correct step.
The most detrimental part of counting strides to me is that you see a lot of people counting the number of steps and then bending over but they actually aren’t at the correct distance. I think in today’s hunters counting strides is important but finding the jumps is important as well.
As far as a horse not having a long enough step I do believe you can make adjustments to some horses steps. I had a 16.2H warmblood jumper who had a massive body and short little legs like a 15.2H horse so I think his natural step was about 10 ft. I practiced every day on that horse always carrying a 12 foot stride and validating it with canter rails on the ground until it became his new normal.
P.S. I’ve seen lots of people in the little non-rated divisions at AA shows win champion doing the adds. When it’s a beginner division and safety is key I think the judges recognize that.
I thought it was about having consistent speed and rhythm. So, instead of teaching a student how to judge pace, the trainer sets up a line, says do x number strides between here and here, and off you go.
Hunters are about consistency-each step the same as the one before. Add straightness, and that gives you a uniform approach to a fence.
As I was taught to ride with hunting in mind, all this makes sense, because the unpredictability of the hunt field makes a consistent horse very desirable. And I am another that learned when the dinosaurs roamed.
Well let’s face it the good pros are getting it right. They carry a consistent rhythm; they are in straight lines; they find the jumps and they do all the correct steps.
I think it’s more in the amateurs and juniors that you can see some of the issues and maybe some of the lower level pros.
[QUOTE=Cannonball;7807661]
It’s interesting that all the explanations for counting strides reference a horse adding a stride and being penalized. Leaving out a stride is also severely penalized. But the logic of a ground covering stride should reward a horse that is able to do a 4 stride line in a nice flowing 3. And there are horses that could easily do that but don’t because it is penalized.[/QUOTE]
It’s penalized because in many cases it’s dangerous.
Often it’s a horse that’s too quick, one that is too much horse for its rider, etc.
Some horses may make it look easy, but if you have an in and out, a 4 stride and a 6 stride on course chances are you will do the in and out in the correct number of strides, you may or may not leave out in the 4 stride, and you left out in the 6 stride. This means that your strides were not uniform around the course, and it won’t look as smooth.
In an eq, a handy, or a derby it will be obvious that a certain line is set on a half stride, in that case the course designer is telling you that the line is not dangerously long or short and you have to choose if you can open up your horses stride to make it down in a bold (not dangerous) ride, or if you need to shorten.
The one change I do find kind of interesting is how many jumps are rubbed or knocked down by the nicest hunters in the country now. Unless I’ve lost all perspective… that didn’t used to happen as much.
[QUOTE=LaurieB;7806624]
Let me preface this by saying that when I showed in the pony divisions, dinosaurs roamed the earth. So even though I have competed much more recently than that, I still remember a time when fences weren’t set in related lines and riders were meant to be able to find a distance by riding off their eyes. But the current uproar about pony measuring has me wanting to ask a question I have wondered about for a long time. Why did length of stride become a huge part of what defines whether or not a horse is suitable to show in the hunter classes? When did “adding in a line” become such a sin that it will cause an otherwise beautiful round will go unpinned?
Why on earth does it matter so much how long a horse’s stride is? (Nobody ever counts in the hunt field…but I digress.) It seems to me that the main–if not the only–reason that it is so important now for horses and ponies to be right up to size in their divisions (ie, taller than everyone else no matter what must be done to achieve that goal) is because they must have the step to get down the lines. Why can’t a small horse (or pony) have a smooth round with an extra stride in each line? Or a larger horse leave out a stride if it can do so easily and gracefully?
And while I’m asking questions, who decided that a 13 foot stride is optimal? To me, that decision seems as arbitrary as someone deciding that only bays should be eligible to show in the hunter classes. Or just geldings. Or only horses over 17 hands.
Truly I don’t understand the purpose of mandatory stride counts. Would someone please enlighten me?[/QUOTE]
You are my hero. As a fox hunter of more years than I’d like to count and also remembering real, outside courses, this drives me insane.
[QUOTE=GoodTimes;7807740]
It’s penalized because in many cases it’s dangerous.
Often it’s a horse that’s too quick, one that is too much horse for its rider, etc.
Some horses may make it look easy, but if you have an in and out, a 4 stride and a 6 stride on course chances are you will do the in and out in the correct number of strides, you may or may not leave out in the 4 stride, and you left out in the 6 stride. This means that your strides were not uniform around the course, and it won’t look as smooth.
In an eq, a handy, or a derby it will be obvious that a certain line is set on a half stride, in that case the course designer is telling you that the line is not dangerously long or short and you have to choose if you can open up your horses stride to make it down in a bold (not dangerous) ride, or if you need to shorten.[/QUOTE]
If it was penalized with the mind set you stated I would agree but that is not how it works in reality. Ride a horse with a big stride at a consistent forward pace on a course and do a 5 in a 6 (possibly with a little extra pace on this line) and see how it’s scored. The previous will be scored lower than the horse that chips into the 6 stride but gallops like hell to get down the line in the “magic 6” and leaves the ground 5 feet early. It happens in children’s hunters somewhat regularly.
I think terms like “walk the lines” have gotten us into an unappealing place. We’ve got huge horses that look like they are lumbering around a course because their stride is so long. they are hardly moving, they jump hard and land hard because they have no pace to assist them…and then they are awarded. Blech. No thank you.
[/quote]
I really don’t think this is an issue up for debate at the upper levels. A horse that is athletic enough to jump 3’ and over should be able to make it down 12’ strides. [/QUOTE]
12’ stride? Try 13’+ stride these days.
You really can’t compare equitation to hunters as the options are allowed in equitation and are showing rider ability. Rewarding the bold ride over the safe choice in equitation makes tons of sense.
[QUOTE=Big_Grey_hunter;7807195]It’s not a height problem. My 17h hunter struggled to get the lines, while my little 16.1h TB walked the lines and could easily take out. The small juniors get the strides just fine.
[/quote]
This is true. Horse height isn’t really the prime factor in stride length. I’ve known huge horses that had 10’ strides. Conformation will play a larger factor, IMO.
Your options are easy, 1) buy a horse that is suited to the discipline, 2) take your not-so-suited horse to a different discipline, or 3) show your not-so-suited horse and know you won’t win.
The options are not as easy as you’d like to think. Because the pool of horses that can “walk the lines” at an A show, jump in the correct manner and is hopefully a good movers to boot is a fairly narrow, you have to be able to pay the price for that horse.
So be it…but if you don’t think people are protecting their investments/livelihoods by narrowing the pool of acceptable horse types, you are not looking at the big picture. It pays to keep the pool narrow.
Just ask the person with a top of the line large pony what a narrow pool does to their sales prices. Or the person who lucked out on the bottom of the line medium…who then grew an inch and a half that the owner didn’t think would happen and got a permanent card.
[QUOTE=doublesstable;7807396]
I ride Hunters. But I would love it if I could be competitive on a variety of horses [/QUOTE]
This.
BUT, open up the pool of acceptable horses will affect the income of a lot of people…and it just won’t fly.
[QUOTE=IPEsq;7806793]
Regarding ponies and setting lines for rated pony hunters specifically (versus setting a 12’ stride where ponies do an add or double add from the horse step), the bigger the pony for the height division, the easier it is to make the strides, and yes, it is of most importance where the show sets in and outs. .[/QUOTE]
This is where I call bullshit. It isn’t the size of thh pony that determines the length of stride, it’s the athleticism. The “good mover-ness.” I showed a 13.1/2 pony in the larges for a few years, ( That tells you a little about how old I am). At that point the larges (and greens and juniors) had 24’ in and outs. And she had no problem. Could keep up easily with the horses all day out hunting, too. Some 17 h. horses are comfortable with a 13’ stride, some 15h horses are, too. Some 17h horses are more comfortable with 14 or 15’. Cappy Smith was on TV a few years ago talking about stride-counting. His take was that if you had a really good moving horse there was no way to show that, as he would be penalized for leaving out strides.
Size has very little to do with stride length, especially when the sizes are varying only by a hand or so.
[QUOTE=avesane;7806901]
Definitely. I have only seen a few shows where the hunters were split into smalls (<16h) and larges (>16h) and I don’t recall the distances being shortened. It takes a VERY special small horse to make those lines and make the distances look great when the heights get over 3’.[/QUOTE]
At every major A or AA show in the country, the Juniors are divided into small and large. Most of the smalls have no issue whatsoever with the strides. We have 2 in our barn that are as stridey or more so than their larger cousins. At smaller shows, the large and small are often combined, with the smalls doing equally well. Frankly, when they first divided the division, I felt like it was a way for the show to have more classes and thus more $$, as well as a way for trainers to sell more horses; a kid can do 2 horses in each division, so 2 small and 2 larges=a possible 4 hunters sold to one lucky client:D!
