No, we actually had a lot more info about xc courses “back in the day” than we do today. We did not use portables, so the courses were the same from year to year with maybe a new fence here or there or maybe a change up in the direction. Some years an event would announce that they had brought in a new course builder/designer and there was a new complex and/or several new fences at each level. Those years ALWAYS had more problems until people learned how to ride the new questions. Now courses can vary widely in look, size, difficulty and technically from years to year and often do. Because of the consistency year to year it was much, much easier to be prepared for a given course, and if it had trappy, airy stuff you knew that going in. Today it is an absolute crap shoot as to what you are going to see.
I have no doubt that the next thing we will see on Novice courses are skinnies. Including the mini wedge-brushes - and once again as a surprise for the competitors. It’s easy to build those with no real width to them and that is a good training exercise to introduce them. But not for the first time on course, when the competitors and trainers had no clue those were coming and never schooled one before, ever.
If these level-creep obstacles were options, that is definitely the way to go to accommodate the broad skill levels of Novice riders in the Rider Division, ammys and juniors, and green horses in the Horse Division. The majority of novice riders and horses can do these little problems, IF they have prepared for them. KNOWING and PREPARATION are the keys to safe eventing. (ahem Rio - the increased level of course was not known to the riders & trainers ahead of time)
So let’s hypothesize that level creep continues to expand, and the word is out that to prepare for Novice you have to be schooling things that traditionally were not encountered below Training. And that for whatever reason CD’s, TD’s and GJ’s are not flagging them as options but are forcing every competitor to navigate the level-creep jump.
So then: A) The criteria for move-up from BN to N becomes much steeper and it takes more months, more training, more practice - even an extra year or two, depending on the rider and/or horse. And, B) some riders who would have ridden “old Novice” opt never to ride New Novice. Both of these factors increase the number of riders in the BN division. And they give trainers a new set of issues to deal with to try to move riders up from BN to N.
Maybe level creep helps a few get to Training - and let’s face it, level creep is aimed at those few, not the majority who are supporting the N division. But as it grows, if it is not made optional, it’s going to do the opposite. It’s going to create more apprehension than confidence. Forget the struggle to get riders to move up to T, because that struggle will move down a level getting people (and horses) from BN to N. Not the intention, I’m sure.
Is that what eventing wants? There is no right or wrong answer. But there are very different consequences based on how level creep is handled. Consequences that will change who does what division and how long they prepare for it. Consequences to the organizers and the trainers. The consequences aren’t necessarily desirable - the shrinking numbers of riders at each progressive USEA level starting with Training could start to affect the numbers at Novice.
In some ways the heaviest consequences of riders upset by surprises they weren’t prepared for will fall on the organizers. Even though the organizers may not have much say about the course. Riders tend to associate a problem course with the venue, not the CD/TD/GJ. They decide not to go back to Ponyup Farm. And/or they talk with others and pass the word about how difficult are the courses at Ponyup Farm Horse Trials. Trainers may understand that it is the CD/TD/GJ who is in control of the course, but the general mill of riders associate everything with the venue.
Has USEA officially thought this through for a unified policy re the goals and outcomes of level creep? Have they communicated such policy to the organization members? The answer to the second question is ‘no’, so I’d guess the answer to the first question is probably ‘no’ as well. At the policy level, anyway. I will remain skeptical until I see official policy communicated by the USEA.
We just added “Modified” to bridge the gap between Training and Prelim. If level creep is not optional on course, eventually we’ll need “The Second Modified” to bridge a growing gap between BN and N. Then level creep will hit BN (it already is), then we’ll need a level below BN to help new eventers get started (we already do with unrecognized Starter, although that was the original reason for adding Novice, and then BN), then “Starter” will become recognized and level creep will come to Starter as well … how exactly are we streaming in eventing newbies and inexperienced riders? Wouldn’t it be better to get in control of an organized, rational introduction of each new level of difficulty that isn’t a surprise, that will increase confidence rather than destroy it?
If these level-creep obstacles are optional, IMO that is a very reasonable way to go. Of course then not all competitors for the same awards are riding at the same level. But that can be accommodated by scoring which riders took the “hard option”. As well as by adding distance to the “easy option” routes. JJ’s will need modified score sheets to mark which rider was clear over 8ab as opposed to 8ab(option). Awards can then be parsed accordingly. Yep, that becomes confusing … that’s why a comprehensive policy decision is needed to make this whole thing more rational, understandable and executable to everyone. So that everyone knows what to expect, horse trial to horse trial.
The USEA needs to first open up communications with the BN/N Rider Division membership generally. Then, with the broad input of the competitor members in the Novice Rider Division (those most affected), think through a real policy much more thoroughly. One that incorporates the problems at the level to be consistent with developing confidence, not knocking it down and discouraging riders. That is going to take a LOT of work in the preparation and execution phases. It will take some time to work through the process, but, done correctly, it should pay off handsomely in the end.
Chances of that happening? However many decades of this organization? And it hasn’t happened yet.
That’s IMO. An opinion that the sport and the USEA has never asked for, as I am just a BN/N Rider Div. rider…
I once got 160 time penalties because my horse stood trembling at the edge of the bank, getting up his nerve to hop over a tiny log into the greasy reflective water at Novice. First after dressage, too, & he jumped all the other things, no problem. But after that, he jumped into water…I just wish I’d known to school it beforehand!
What I don’t get is, even if the rule is vague in the rule book, why was this not flagged in such a way that you could either do the drop or ride in straight? If they had just increased the flagged area, I’m sure there was a more flat spot to work with. With water, there is no reason to not give riders an option at lower levels. It just makes no sense to design anything that might take away confidence in place of building it up at this level.
Yes and it sucks to get eliminated at water at that level.
@OverandOnward there was a level creep at the recent Starter HT I did…almost all the XC jumps were 8-10 feet wide. Some looked even smaller. I remember not really noticing walking the course but then on my horse all I could think was, these are practically skinnies! So many of them, it seemed really unfair to green horses and riders.
This is the last I’m posting on this. First off…this event was identified by some one back on page one as Round Top in area 9. And stated that this water has been on the novice course as is for years. So it wasn’t new creep.
Second. The USEA DOES open up communication for all its membership. You want to get involved…contact your area chair. They are always looking for more volunteers and there are tons of ways to get your voice heard. But you know what…most people do not raise their hand. Most people do not even send in evaluations. Then the USEF is also at play, and they are who make the rules. Go to the USEA convention. Get involved in your area…trust me…it is not hard.
The USEA is hosting “Town Hall” meetings yet again this year in all the areas. Attendance, like last year…has been minimal. Some areas are better but generally, people don’t show up. Do you have other suggestions? They do surveys all the time too…And ALL their emails are right on the web site. The USEA office has like 10 people. This is a SMALL boutique sport. There is not a HUGE membership all over the country. Whether we are competing at the low levels or a professional…this is NOT a difficult sport to get your voice heard. BUT just because you get heard…doesn’t mean everyone will agree with your opinion. But please do not make this an us verses them. It truly is not. This sport is one that is cared about by a lot of people at all levels.
There have been a lot of blanket statements being made here.
LL riders are more aware of not ruining their horses.
Really, how much fence judging have you done??? It’s a fact - there are good riders, so-so riders, and poor riders. If they are more aware of not ruining their horses then about 50% of them should dismount. .
There was limited information on course design back when … that’s been rebutted. I thank those who did.
And spooky modern fences? - when almost every course out there has the atypical fences built to precise measurements with dictated facings, all big and solid - no more airy elephant traps or palisades or helsinkis. And I used to see those at every level.
Now skinnies –
folks address your own issues. I’ve watched clinicians do this repeatedly at lower level clinics - school these questions EARLY and at LOWER HGTS!! Jump diagonally at 1 ft, build a low corner to school, make a skinny. We do it in our backyard - it’s not rocket science.
I’m guessing this is all addressed at me? Well I have done a lot of fence judging, I ran an unsanctioned event at my farm for 5 years.
I would rather jump the fences you mentioned any day, than a giant carved duck :lol: Spooky isn’t just the build, it’s the placement too. I’m sure you already know that.
About the skinnies - not sure if the readers of this forum need that reminder, I would think most of here are more on the ball than others in the sport and thats why we are here and involved. I never said MY horse had a problem with skinnies. I said at starter I think it was ridiculous to have the fences all 6-10’ wide when it’s meant for green horses and riders. I don’t think someone showing starter needs to be schooling corner fences and skinnies regularly.
If it is possible to have pictures of bits and put boxes with checks or x’s next to them for legal or not - in the rule book…
Why is it not possible to have pictures of types of fences (including revetments into water) in the rulebook and boxes for the levels next to them with checks and x’s?
Really simple to have an X at N and a check at T.
Language and writing skills not needed.
And I do agree there should be options flagged for those whose horse is not solid on the obstacle presented.
There shouldn’t be it-might-not-be-legal surprises if the rulebook has pictures.
And for my money that is a revetment, not a drop = quite legal. But a tough question for the level, nonetheless.
This is a really good idea. And while I personally do not think this little drop is a challenging question for a Novice team, I fully understand that there are variations of experience within the level so agreed that there should be a flagged option.
I’m having a hard time appreciating this lower level scope creep concept - when I look at scores here in Ar 2 at N top ten finishers are usually the same top 10 results from dressage. There may be a few flip flops (2nd and 3rd switch), because #2 after D has a rail in SJ for example or a little time on XC. If the vast majority of the division is finishing on their dressage score…it’s pretty much just an extremely expensive dressage test? It seems like there is considerably less jumping influence than there was just a few short years ago.
I truly feel bad for the OP, and the OP was very diplomatic with the question about fairness. But as BFNE reminded folks - this revetted water has been on the N course at that venue for years - so seems like an extremely poor example of scope creep.
Actually, I assume it is a competition where most feel they are ‘stuck’ doing Dressage in order to get access to a cross country run. Most seem to actively dislike the current scoring system without being able to do anything about is so…
Otherwise they’d just do D or J shows 
(Ain’t no X-C only competitions that I know of, more’s the pity.)
Well, in area 2, especially SE PA, we have ample opportunities to school. My novice horse has done keyholes, angled fences, those brush chevron skinnies, corners, coffins, trakheners, steps, jumps into water, out of water, in water, etc. So yes, I would expect few stops on XC especially at the top of the leader board. But I think we are the exception to the rule. Most places don’t have the opportunities to school that we do here.
I specifically asked a question about level creep during a round table style discussion with several upper level riders. First, most of them had no idea what I was talking about so I had to explain. I think this is due to most of them not having students below Novice, I think most of the level creep affects the low low levels.
Second, they said that things like corners at Novice weren’t really corners, they were slightly angled tables so for them it wasn’t really an actual question about a corner but more a rider question about being scared of something that was labeled a corner on a course map but was basically a table. When I watched them schooling people over real corners anyone who had issues had to slow it down. Halt a few strides away. Organize. Face horse at corner. Canter corner. It was more important to get the horse to understand where he was going then to worry about speed and time.
Third, they said that even if you have not schooled that exact same question (a drop into the water) you should have schooled similar questions in a variety of ways so should be able to put the two of them together when you come across something.
For example, you might not have dropped into water but you have schooled drops in general, and water, so a drop into water should be viewed for the rider as just adding the two questions in together.
They also strongly encouraged people to work the rules to get your horse’s feet wet by schooling through the water first then coming through the flags and down the drop if you think the drop is going to be a problem. Especially after a stop, none of them advised presenting to the same drop twice in a row. If you had a stop, circle around, go school through the water, then represent. You already have penalties and are out of the running so why get eliminated and walk off the course doing the same thing twice. Take the time penalties and give your horse the right experience.
They did believe that getting to a competition and having a ditch never having schooled a ditch before was a recipe for disaster and something someone should never ever do. In general, you wanted to at least school something similar if not in the same combination before getting to it in a competition.
They also added that knowing your venue was important and they mentioned that they never go to an event not having an idea of what the course will be like. They suggested asking other competitors, the organizers, and course designers to make sure the course was appropriate for your horse since some events are known to be more difficult than listed.
…One person I worked with said that dealing with skinnys due to lack of materials at the weenie levels should be considered an accuracy and training question. Now was the time to slow down to the trot, confirm that your horse was straight, and jump. It was more important to get over the fence then it was to canter to it and miss.
