Disappointed with eventing performance

[Christa_P]

[QUOTE=NOMIOMI1;6488111]
Lot of TB talk and I like all that but…

What bothers me is people saying more blood and more Tb’s but there is no qualifying that?

Which Tb’s?

The breed as a whole has a HELL of a lot of horses that dont jump well or move well enough for dressage… So? (I say this as a TB owner and an off-breed lover)

Im all about the Tb’s, obviously, but I wouldn’t breed one for eventing unless the mare was able to show ability in collection, boldness, and LOTS of jump. And I mean actually taking the animal to venues and being competative at a decent level.

Whats funny to me is the breed is tossed around as a whole when most are not purpose bred enough to qualify any certain lines as sport so the horse itself has to give you a reason to change what purporse right? (mind you there are SOME out her purpose bred but I mean majority)

Personally, I want to see mares/stallions having an extensive record in one or all of the portions of eventing to just pimp that TB line:)[/QUOTE]

Just a point. Even within the Warmbloods, that are supposedly purpose bred, only a small percentage has everything to make it to be succesful in any of the Olympic disciplines. Also, from the horses I saw in the show jumping it looked like most of them had a lot of TB blood (not checking pedigrees, just looking at conformation and build - most looked like sport type TBs with a little other breeding in there).

In addition, in the US most WB x TB horses will probably have a TB dam and, from what I have read, would therefore fall into a TB sporthorse studbook.

Christa

[Fred]

[QUOTE=shea’smom;6488402]
Fred, Bayhawk doesn 't get it. And never will.[/QUOTE]

I’m sure you are right shea’smom, just as I am sure he probably thinks we don’t get it either.

I’m sure too that there are problems with the eventing programs here and in the US, issues and obstacles, but I truly believe that those problems don’t include the quality of horses we are breeding.

We have the horses. Now we just have to fix those other things.

[JWB]

[QUOTE=Fred;6488784]

I’m sure too that there are problems with the eventing programs here and in the US, issues and obstacles, but I truly believe that those problems don’t include the quality of horses we are breeding.

We have the horses. Now we just have to fix those other things.[/QUOTE]

I couldn’t agree with this more. The horses are not the issue For what it’s worth, none of the horses on the US team were US bred, so obviously it’s not that we were using “inferior” horses.

The major problem behind the US horses is

1. cost to produced them to that level when (as has been said ad nauseum) no one will pay for an eventing prospect. If proper resources were devoted to the horses on North American soil, there would be plenty that could do the job.
2. the riders, team, and resources are mismanaged. We could have purchased Germany’s entire gold medal winning team (as opposed to one horse) and we still would have come up short.

Lets not blame the quality of the horses. They can only be as prepared as we make them.

[NOMIOMI1]

I hear what you are saying and I understand all of that and delight in new information…

My only issue is IN PRACTICE I see too many breeding horses for eventing from Tb’s that have no proof that they could perform any of the three events (my point).

My suggestion was to get a record behind anything that wants to suddenly be a crossed to more purpose bred animals.

There is nothing wrong with qualifying a huge decision such as adding more blood (good blood), to a line?

I think we need more TB stallions competing, and mares too obviously to be added into our pool here instead of what I see in practice… This mare is heavy so I add more blood even if its a sprinter without a chance in hell of getting out of its own way.

[Graymaresrule]

[QUOTE=NOMIOMI1;6489471]
I hear what you are saying and I understand all of that and delight in new information…

My only issue is IN PRACTICE I see too many breeding horses for eventing from Tb’s that have no proof that they could perform any of the three events (my point).

My suggestion was to get a record behind anything that wants to suddenly be a crossed to more purpose bred animals.

There is nothing wrong with qualifying a huge decision such as adding more blood (good blood), to a line?

I think we need more TB stallions competing, and mares too obviously to be added into our pool here instead of what I see in practice… This mare is heavy so I add more blood even if its a sprinter without a chance in hell of getting out of its own way.[/QUOTE]
Salute the Truth

[NOMIOMI1]

[QUOTE=carolprudm;6489514]
Salute the Truth[/QUOTE]

Exactly… I have to laugh a little because right on his site it says “America’s only Thoroughbred Eventing Stallion Proven at the Advanced Level”

So more to my point :yes:

[Maren]

Just out of curiosity, I’m not here to pick a fight …

If Salute the Truth is the only one, then what about Sea Lion (Elephant)? I will meet him in CA this summer and I’m looking forward to the opportunity, just curios if he would fit the bill of what you’ve been discussing here.

[Graymaresrule]

[QUOTE=Maren;6490491]
Just out of curiosity, I’m not here to pick a fight …

If Salute the Truth is the only one, then what about Sea Lion (Elephant)? I will meet him in CA this summer and I’m looking forward to the opportunity, just curios if he would fit the bill of what you’ve been discussing here.[/QUOTE]
AFAIK Salute the Truth is the only TB stallion who has actually competed at advanced.
There are other stallions who seem to have the potential to produce eventers but Willy has done it and his get are doing it.

Not affiliated, just a long time admirer
http://www.dodonfarm.com/willy-offspring.html

[grayarabpony]

[QUOTE=NOMIOMI1;6489471]
I hear what you are saying and I understand all of that and delight in new information…

My only issue is IN PRACTICE I see too many breeding horses for eventing from Tb’s that have no proof that they could perform any of the three events (my point).

My suggestion was to get a record behind anything that wants to suddenly be a crossed to more purpose bred animals.

There is nothing wrong with qualifying a huge decision such as adding more blood (good blood), to a line?

I think we need more TB stallions competing, and mares too obviously to be added into our pool here instead of what I see in practice… This mare is heavy so I add more blood even if its a sprinter without a chance in hell of getting out of its own way.[/QUOTE]

There is a huge shortage of good TB stallions for sport everywhere, that’s no secret.

Imo any breeding program that uses a mare that can’t perform due to lack of talent is not a good one. Simple as that.

[NOMIOMI1]

Agreed.

My question was qualifying the blood we are using. Rather than insisting TB’s are needd which is obviously a fact, but for what? I think that we qualify Tb sport horses as such… With inspections and so on.

Identify the lines and catagorize them more thoroughly.

Its not fair to cross them onto Wb’s and then say voila now THAT is a good sport horse line because all it COULD mean is they didnt kill jump or movement.

I would prefer to see more horses brought to a certain level of competition themselves…

[Maren]

Carol, Thanks.
I saw Sea Lion on the Rolex list, he competed, and had to qualify for **** level, so I assume he is also an advanced competitor. What Salute the Truth then has that sets him apart are get that also competed at advanced level? Not many sires like that around, TB or no TB. Nice!

[vineyridge]

I’m looking at this year’s XC start time list for Rolex. Sea Lion finished the dressage with a 61.5 penalty score. He retired on XC, so can’t be considered a 4* horse quite yet.

However, in order to qualify for Rolex, he had to meet the FEI qualification standard. Had to have 3 qualifying finishes at the 3* level. That’s clear XC at a CIC or 1 stop at a CCI with no more than 90 seconds over time; no more than 75 penalty points in dressage; and no more than 16 jumping faults in sj. There is no mention of time in sj. Since 3* is Advanced, I’d say that it’s time for Dodon Farms to change their advertising, as it is no longer correct.

[vineyridge]

Bayhawk, I’ve not heard back yet from the FEI, so while waiting, I thought this was interesting.

specification differences for 3* and 4* CCIs.

Speed is the same at 570 meters per minute.
A 5700 meter XC course is the shortest allowed as a 4*, but is in the middle for length of 3*

Time: 10 minutes is the shortest acceptable 4* time, but is in the middle for a 3*.

XC Jumping efforts: 4* must be 42 to 45 jumping efforts. 3* must be 38-40 jumping efforts.

XC Obstacle size:

Height:
Fixed: Same at 3* and 4* (1.20 meters)
Brush 4* is 1.45 meters; 3* is 1.40 meters

Maximum Spreads:
Highest Point
4* 2 meters; 3* 1.80 meters
Base:
4* 3 meters; 3* 2.70 meters

Maximum Spread without height:
4* 4 meters; 3* 3.60 meters.

Maximum Drop
Same at 3* and 4* at 2 meters.

Dimensions of obstacles in the show jumping phase: the same at 4* and 3* with a different number for 3* & 4*that must be maximum height.

The major fixed difference between a 4* course and a 3* course is the number of required jumping efforts and the height of brush fences. The spreads are described as Maximums and there are no minimums defined.

On further research into FEI Course design guidelines, there is a disconnect where number of jumping efforts for a 4* are concerned. The guidelines say that a 4* course should have one jumping effort for every 140-145 meters of course length. A 5700 meter course, when measured that way, works out to not quite 41 jumping efforts if the 140 meter measurement is used, and just over 39 jumping efforts if the 145 meter measurement is used. Neither number meets the minimum requirement for jumping efforts for a 4* that is set by the rules.

There is, however, a Rule permitting exceptions to the number of jumping efforts for difficult terrain. Courses claiming the exception must be approved by the FEI Secretary General and the Chairman of the Eventing Committee. One suspects that the Olympic course went this route.

If that’s the case, then the only real fixed difference in course design for 3s and 4s per the rules is the height of the brush fences.

[grayarabpony]

Viney I would imagine that some of the jumps were 4* specs, hence “the special Olympic format of a 4* difficulty”. So, not a 3* either. And around and around we go…

In any case good TBs don’t have a problem with 4* specs and fewer jumping efforts should have theoretically helped horses with less blood.

[NOMIOMI1]

One of the commentators mentioned that they were not. It looked like they said it wasnt quite 4* all the way around.

[grayarabpony]

[QUOTE=NOMIOMI1;6491297]
One of the commentators mentioned that they were not. It looked like they said it wasnt quite 4* all the way around.[/QUOTE]

AGAIN –not all of the jumps have to be to 4* specs. How many times do people have to say it??? Not to mention the terrain has to be factored in – although I doubt it is factored in officially, unless FEI officials are proficient in calculus.

In any case there can be no doubt that horses with a high degree of blood handled the course and overall competition very well – in fact the best.

[Bayhawk]

[QUOTE=vineyridge;6491220]
Bayhawk, I’ve not heard back yet from the FEI, so while waiting, I thought this was interesting.

specification differences for 3* and 4* CCIs.

Speed is the same at 570 meters per minute.
A 5700 meter XC course is the shortest allowed as a 4*, but is in the middle for length of 3*

Time: 10 minutes is the shortest acceptable 4* time, but is in the middle for a 3*.

XC Jumping efforts: 4* must be 42 to 45 jumping efforts. 3* must be 38-40 jumping efforts.

XC Obstacle size:

Height:
Fixed: Same at 3* and 4* (1.20 meters)
Brush 4* is 1.45 meters; 3* is 1.40 meters

Maximum Spreads:
Highest Point
4* 2 meters; 3* 1.80 meters
Base:
4* 3 meters; 3* 2.70 meters

Maximum Spread without height:
4* 4 meters; 3* 3.60 meters.

Maximum Drop
Same at 3* and 4* at 2 meters.

Dimensions of obstacles in the show jumping phase: the same at 4* and 3* with a different number for 3* & 4*that must be maximum height.

The major fixed difference between a 4* course and a 3* course is the number of required jumping efforts and the height of brush fences. The spreads are described as Maximums and there are no minimums defined.

Since there were only 39 jumping efforts, the course was not a 4*, regardless of the rest of the specifications. I apologize.[/QUOTE]

Apology accepted.

I reaserched it , I listened to the broadcasters and also the course designer. There were multiple places in print and multiple times verbally where it was indeed titled a CCIO3*.

Now lets move on and learn from one another to become better as a whole.

[vineyridge]

The only real fixed difference in XC jump specifications is in the height of brush fences. There is a difference at the maximums for spreads, but there is no minimum that is required. If the course used 4* maximums for at least one spread fence and had 1.45 meter high brush jumps, and the designer and TD got FEI approval for a less than minimum number of jumping efforts because of the terrain, technically it would fall within the definition of a 4* course.

Bayhawk, I can find no specifications that are unique to CCIO3*s.

[grayarabpony]

[QUOTE=NOMIOMI1;6490761]
Agreed.

My question was qualifying the blood we are using. Rather than insisting TB’s are needd which is obviously a fact, but for what? I think that we qualify Tb sport horses as such… With inspections and so on.

Identify the lines and catagorize them more thoroughly.

Its not fair to cross them onto Wb’s and then say voila now THAT is a good sport horse line because all it COULD mean is they didnt kill jump or movement.

I would prefer to see more horses brought to a certain level of competition themselves… :)[/QUOTE]

The TB in general has already proven itself in many disciplines over the decades, although there is a need to reidentify lines needed for top showjumping and dressage talent. There have been countless threads on this board about using TB in sporthorse breeding in this country but in fact there are just not that many breeders in this country breeding for the Olympic sports… and too many warmblood breeders here not interested in using TBs. In spite of the jumping ability, athleticism, staminia, speed, heart and even movement and temperment that TB horses could bring to the table.

If you’re talking about people using mediocre unproven TB mares as broodmares, well, that’s not good breeding. If you want to breed a jumper see if she can jump, if she’s rideable, if she’ll hold up to work. Then see if she passes her talent on. If so then you may have the start of a good TB jumping line.

In most cases you wouldn’t just call a TB cross a good sporthorse just because it retained movement and jump; you’d expect the horse to have increased agility, speed and stamina too.

[RyTimMick]

@vineyridge;6491347

The only real fixed difference in XC jump specifications is in the height of brush fences. There is a difference at the maximums for spreads, but there is no minimum that is required. If the course used 4* maximums for at least one spread fence and had 1.45 meter high brush jumps, and the designer and TD got FEI approval for a less than minimum number of jumping efforts because of the terrain, technically it would fall within the definition of a 4* course.

Viney, I had respect for you that you came on here to admit that you were wrong. Now you are coming on here trying to sweeten your humble pie by trying to explain why you were wrong. The Eventing in the Olympics is and always has been a 3* Event. There are no “technicalities” here. It is not a 4* under any circumstance, hence the OFFICIAL classification and title of the Olympic Games CCIO3*. Nothing more nothing less, you are wrong with or without your technicality.

GAP,

You are always misinformed and confused. Even Viney admitted she was wrong. Try and salvage a little bit of character and integrity, and do the same.

Tim