Disappointed with eventing performance

[bornfreenowexpensive]

@Bayhawk;6486580

They said the course was like a 5*…read the words from the course designer. This Olympic Games was a 3*…once again , read.

Don’t trust everything you read. It is wrong. The Olympics by the rules must be a 4*. I know people who rode it and I know the rules of my sport. There is no such thing as a 5* in eventing. The course was not as tough as WEG or other 4*…but had some tough questions mostly as a result of the terrain. It did have options to make it softer but take up more time…as is typical. It was a course they thought would favor the nippery/cattier horses but it proved to be just fine for some of the bigger horses as well.

Burghely will be tougher and bigger in a few weeks…but the Olympics with the team pressure is different.

The PanAms used to be a 3* and was recently down graded to a 2*.

[Bayhawk]

[QUOTE=bornfreenowexpensive;6486601]
Don’t trust everything you read. It is wrong. The Olympics by the rules must be a 4*. I know people who rode it and I know the rules of my sport. There is no such thing as a 5* in eventing. The course was not as tough as WEG or other 4*…but had some tough questions mostly as a result of the terrain. It did have options to make it softer but take up more time…as is typical. It was a course they thought would favor the nippery/cattier horses but it proved to be just fine for some of the bigger horses as well.

Burghely will be tougher and bigger in a few weeks…but the Olympics with the team pressure is different.

The PanAms used to be a 3* and was recently down graded to a 2*.[/QUOTE]

The course designer made the staements. The marquis reads 3* Olympic Event. You don;t believe the IOC or the course designer ? Wow !

[bornfreenowexpensive]

@Bayhawk;6486653

The course designer made the staements. The marquis reads 3* Olympic Event. You don;t believe the IOC or the course designer ? Wow !

The course designer was talking to journalist who (A) could have gotten it wrong or (B) she was talking to an “audience” and making it come across for a certain agenda. So no…I don’t believe everything I read.

And because I’m a bit sick of this. Here are the FEI rules for olympics.

http://www.britishdressage.co.uk/uploads/File/FEI%202012%20Olympic%20Rule%20Book.pdf

Page 19 for Eventing—clear as day “The competition will be conducted according to special olympic format [which is two SJ rounds] at a 4* level of difficulty.”

The qualifications needed are also what you need to compete at a 4* NOT a 3* (which are lower). The dressage test done is th 4* test not the 3*.

Not sure what else there is to say…it is a 4* but always considered a softer 4* with more options than what you see at the standard 6 or so 4*s that are held annually around the world.

[vineyridge]

Then why should eventers even care about the Olympics if it is not the pinnacle of their sport?

If the XC course designer says that there were fences on course that would not be allowed at 3*, how can the course be a 3* course.

Please cite to the IOC document you reference.

[grayarabpony]

I don’t even know why bayhawk is arguing about whether the course was 3 or 4 star. TBs and horses with very high levels of TB blood still succeed on today’s 4 star courses.

[Bayhawk]

[QUOTE=vineyridge;6486674]
Then why should eventers even care about the Olympics if it is not the pinnacle of their sport?

If the XC course designer says that there were fences on course that would not be allowed at 3*, how can the course be a 3* course.

Please cite to the IOC document you reference.[/QUOTE]

I’ve already provided it to you. It is all over the web that the Olympic Event was a 3*…you people don’t believe the sky is blue

[bornfreenowexpensive]

@Bayhawk;6486734

I’ve already provided it to you. It is all over the web that the Olympic Event was a 3*…you people don’t believe the sky is blue

And I quoted the rules…it is a 4*. There are mistakes on the web…which tend to be repeated…over and over and over again.

[grayarabpony]

If it’s all over the web it must be true. :rolleyes:

[Bayhawk]

[QUOTE=bornfreenowexpensive;6486771]
And I quoted the rules…it is a 4*. There are mistakes on the web…which tend to be repeated…over and over and over again.[/QUOTE]

The “rules” are not what’s talking. Everyone that is involved with this Olympics in eventing has stated it is in fact a 3*.

You go and prove that it was a 4* . Show us where it is listed as a 4*

the course designer has stated over and over that she in fact designed a 3*.

Prove her wrong !

[bornfreenowexpensive]

@Bayhawk;6486814

The “rules” are not what’s talking. Everyone that is involved with this Olympics in eventing has stated it is in fact a 3*.

You go and prove that it was a 4* . Show us where it is listed as a 4*

the course designer has stated over and over that she in fact designed a 3*.

Prove her wrong !

She said she designed 3* options…not a 3* course. It was a course that a 3* horse could survive by taking the options (and incurring substantial time) as its ALWAYS the case with Olympics. There is a difference. I live minutes from a CCI 3* course in this country…I know what a 3* course looks like (and what is considered a stiff one)…and its options are designed for the greener horses to survive but be hit with time. The course in Greenwich was harder if you rode all the direct lines and on par with a 4* given the terrain…not the hardest 4* mind you but a 4*. People who rode that course and the results of the course are not saying it was a 3* course. The specs are not that of a 3* so I’m not sure why you are so hung up on the point. And I did search the web…and can not find anywhere that says it is a 3* course… and the rules of the governing body clearly state it is to be run as a 4*.

and honestly…this is the last I have to say on this. You clearly can not ever admit to being wrong.

[Bayhawk]

[QUOTE=bornfreenowexpensive;6486835]
She said she designed 3* options…not a 3* course. It was a course that a 3* horse could survive by taking the options (and incurring substantial time) as its ALWAYS the case with Olympics. There is a difference. I live minutes from a CCI 3* course in this country…I know what a 3* course looks like (and what is considered a stiff one). This was harder if you rode all the direct lines and on par with a 4* given the terrain…not the hardest 4* mind you but a 4*.

and honestly…this is the last I have to say on this. You clearly can not be wrong.[/QUOTE]

I don’t care where you live. I only care that this Olympics “was set at a CCIO3*” as is listed. Prove that it’s not !

If I’m wrong…please prove it.

here is my proof from the course designers interview.

http://www.an-eventful-life.com.au/eventing-news/london-2012-olympic-games-eventing-news/greenwich-–-london-olympic-cross-country

[bornfreenowexpensive]

@Bayhawk;6486899

I don’t care where you live. I only care that this Olympics was set at a CCIO3* as is listed. Prove that it’s not !

If I’m wrong…please prove it.

here is my proof from the course designers interview.

http://www.an-eventful-life.com.au/eventing-news/london-2012-olympic-games-eventing-news/greenwich-%E2%80%93-london-olympic-cross-country

And I did prove it in the RULES of the governing body…it is run as a 4*. Not a fluff journistic piece…which probably has a damn typo.

ETA: And if you read that piece that you posted…no where does it quote those in the know saying that it is a 3*. It says some of the jumps were made smaller and easier because the Terrain adds such difficulty. As many event courses designers have stated…you can build a 3’ fence that is unjumpable because of the terrain. So just because a fence or a question is that of a 2* or 3* level (without adding in the terrain)…when you add in the terrain, it INCREASES the difficulty.

The course is a run under the rules as a 4*. A course designer, uses the terrain, and time on the course to increase and decrese the difficulty. NOTHING in that article indicates that the course was designed to be a CCI3* and only in one place does the author (NOT Sue) say it is run as a 3* and I’m saying that author got it wrong…based on the RULES.

[grayarabpony]

Bayhawk viney was right, you really should just shut up.

[vineyridge]

If you want to play in the Wbfsh sandbox:

The current #1 event horse in the world (as of June) by points is a pure TB.

If you take the top five horses in the eventing ranks that are listed as a TB and add up their points, the TB would come into second place after the ISH in the studbook rankings.

And in the 2011 sire list of the top ten eventing sires today, the #1 and #2 are full TBs and so are #6 and #10.

The rankings don’t mean anything because all they are based on is volume of showing and not quality of competition. One horse can very heavily skew the rankings. The horse breeding is also not exactly complete or accurate, since it seems to be based on what was turned in the FEI.

[S_A_McKee]

[QUOTE=bornfreenowexpensive;6486771]
And I quoted the rules…it is a 4*. There are mistakes on the web…which tend to be repeated…over and over and over again.[/QUOTE]

You are wrong.
Please look at the FEI site.
The Olympic games are listed as OG. A separate catergory.
Not a 4*.
This has come up for years and years. If they ran a true 4* half the countries who entered would not have been able to so any prep for the event. More 3* events wordwide than 4*'s.

[bornfreenowexpensive]

@S A McKee;6487042

You are wrong.
Please look at the FEI site.
The Olympic games are listed as OG. A separate catergory.
Not a 4*.
This has come up for years and years. If they ran a true 4* half the countries who entered would not have been able to so any prep for the event. More 3* events wordwide than 4*'s.

I quoted the FEI rules earlier. It is run as a 4*. They always run it softer by having more options for the lesser prepared. To qualify…you have to qualify as you would for most 4* (run a CCI 4* or run a CCI 3and CIC3–all with qualifying results). It is why there are some counties who didn’t send teams…You do have to qualify and earn a spot for the Olympics both as teams and as individuals…that process weeds out many.

See page 19

http://www.britishdressage.co.uk/uploads/File/FEI%202012%20Olympic%20Rule%20Book.pdf

The special Olympic format is in reference to the 2 SJ rounds. The dressage test is 4*…level of xc 4* (but most course designers will design softer options…no one wants to see a blood bath).

[Renascence]

Who freaking cares about the Olympic course, it is history. Bayhawk is just diverting the argument to the star number because he started this thread insinuating that US eventers lost because they suck and they are cheap and they don’t ride Holsteiners.

And I do not why he loves to slam thoroughbreds, they put his favorite registry on the map, and they need more tb blood, and the people in charge of the registry are currently looking for it, Viney has posted an article from them about it recently.

[Tamara_in_TN]

the fact is that we put more effort into breeding hogs than we do horses here,while in Europe both species get the same attention.

Tamara

[Bayhawk]

[QUOTE=S A McKee;6487042]
You are wrong.
Please look at the FEI site.
The Olympic games are listed as OG. A separate catergory.
Not a 4*.
This has come up for years and years. If they ran a true 4* half the countries who entered would not have been able to so any prep for the event. More 3* events wordwide than 4*'s.[/QUOTE]

Finally ! Someone with half a brain. This is exactly true SA Mckee. It’s right there for all to see but the blind leads the blind here.

[Bayhawk]

[QUOTE=grayarabpony;6486948]
Bayhawk viney was right, you really should just shut up.[/QUOTE]

No. you people don’t have a clue as to what you are talking about. You don’t even know how to look something up for heavens sake. With every post you make yourselves look more and more and more and more foolish.

It’s right there if you take your blinders off.