Hunters - What Are They REALLY All About?

[goodlife]

@RugBug;7201530

I think it really depends on the competition. If a really nice horse has a bauble in a class with other nice horse, well…that is going to affect the placings. If the really nice horse is head and shoulders above all the other entrants? It might not have as much affect.

Yes, this likely played a good part in it. That makes me think about a funny story - I had sidelined myself with injury and ended up lending my horse to one of our novice kids whose horse had turned up lame so that she could still do her novice/limit/whatever it was division - she was neck and neck for some year end award or something and was devastated about not being able to go.

My horse is used to amateur me making her jump around the big hunters, so I figured the kid was probably a shoe-in if she could just hold on for the ride. In her over fences class, she was laying down a trip until she jumped an oxer backwards. Oops. Ended up 4th out of 4, or however many there were.

At this time, I was barely a year out of the equitation ranks, so my horse still had some pretty solid counter-canter drilled into her. Novice kid goes into the flat class on my horse along with a couple of old campaigners that move like sewing machines. When the judge calls for the canter the first direction, kid proceeds to counter-canter 3 full laps of the ring. Oops again. Last again.

A friend of mine was announcing and was sitting next to the judge. After the show, she told me that the poor judge was practically pulling her hair out, having to pin the nicest moving horse dead last. It was definitely a good laugh for everyone but the poor kid, but I think she ended up winning her award anyway.

[Trixie]

Ooooh, can I be an exception?

My horse hunting

Playing show hunter

I’m not claiming to be any sort of big name anything here, but some of us still ride out. FWIW, on many of the hunt events I’ve been to, I’ve seen a lot of riders that compete at the horse shows around here - and often do very well.

I will say my horse has the same fear of cows… out with Rappahannock, you’ve never seen something jump as high and hard and fast out of a field as when Wings discovered there were COWS in that field and a nice, easy coop to to FREEDOM FROM COWS!

[doublesstable]

[QUOTE=chunky munky;7201406]
Here’s one for you. In a hunter under saddle, should a poor moving, half broke ( use whatever term you want) rapid paced (etc) horse win a higher prize than the lovely moving performing animal that picked up one step of the wrong lead and immediately corrected it, continuing on with a beautiful canter? Looking forward to this discussion.[/QUOTE]

I won’t bite on this question without seeing it in person. Have I seen rounds that I thought they should have won the class or done better? Yes…

Saying that it really depends on the judge and at what kind of show you are talking about.

I have found at the A shows the judges are pretty darn accurate as far as what I would pin. It’s fun sitting there and trying to guess/place the class.

[Sunset_Ponies]

@RugBug;7201530

I think it really depends on the competition. If a really nice horse has a bauble in a class with other nice horse, well…that is going to affect the placings. If the really nice horse is head and shoulders above all the other entrants? It might not have as much affect.

I agree that this question has a lot to do with the competition in the class. I have a pony that is the hack winner. She has a good ribbon in the National Pony Finals Under Saddle Championship to prove it. Over the winter she was in a green pony under saddle class and picked up the wrong lead right in front of the judge. Everyone saw the judge see it. The rider fixed it quickly. We still won the class. There was no other pony in the class that moved as well OR went as well as she did. Had she been in the class with others that moved and performed like she did, I believe the outcome would have been much different.

On the other hand I have a pony that is awesome at her job, but is not as talented as some of the ponies she competes against. She puts in great trips and often wins, but we know a bobble from her will not be as easily forgiven as the bobble from the other pony. Same thing for her in the hack. She goes around pretty, but isn’t the hack winner. If she does what she is supposed to she gets a piece of the hack. If she picks up the wrong lead, she is last.

[alterhorse]

[QUOTE=meupatdoes;7201264]
I really do not understand how a horse that has the straightness, pace control, balance, self-carriage, seamless lead change and style which form the principles of the hunter discipline could somehow be inherently lacking in basics.

Do you think that just drops out of the sky?

Granted, lots of lower level hunter people suck and can’t train that but that’s why they go run their students around the puddle jumpers and b*tch about politics.[/QUOTE]

In my view of horsemanship, there’s a methodology of training and riding that is based on psychology, physiology, biomechanics, and physics.

There is science beneath the layers of intention to express some arbitrary “quality” that the governance of a discipline has defined as the “ideal”.

Everyone is free to explore the classical tenants of horsemanship as deeply as they may choose.

But let’s make no mistake regarding riding technique, by being clear about what is real and what is actually a form of illusion.

Could EVERY top Hunter actually preform exactly the same as they do in a ring as they would if you were to take that horse and rider out onto uneven, nonuniform terrain on the open countryside?

I doubt you’ll say yes to that. So my point is to examine why the show hunter must preform in the ring to preform as intended, and then you may hopfully begin to see how the classical tenants of horsemanship are devided and segmented to fit the set of “chosen” ideals for a discipline.

I apologize for being an idealist and a purest, but I believe the classical tenants of horsemanship represent the path to the highest level of function for the horse and rider, and that function would probably be represented most fully by a discipline that includes a broad scope of requirements such as eventing.

[goodlife]

@alterhorse;7201607

Could EVERY top Hunter actually preform exactly the same as they do in a ring as they would if you were to take that horse and rider out onto uneven, nonuniform terrain on the open countryside?

I doubt you’ll say yes to that. So my point is to examine why the show hunter must preform in the ring to preform as intended, and then you may hopfully begin to see how the classical tenants of horsemanship are devided and segmented to fit the set of “chosen” ideals for a discipline.

But, show hunters are not field hunters. It’s a discipline that has evolved from a field-hunting past, but it isn’t the same thing. Just like every person performing dressage isn’t riding a white stallion and isn’t a Spanish dude doing caprioles.

I’m sure not every top hunter would be fine to take out in the back 40. My hunter is fine, but I can’t speak for every Tom Dick and Harry-hunter-owner.

[alterhorse]

[QUOTE=goodlife;7201623]
But, show hunters are not field hunters. It’s a discipline that has evolved from a field-hunting past, but it isn’t the same thing. Just like every person performing dressage isn’t riding a white stallion and isn’t a Spanish dude doing caprioles.

I’m sure not every top hunter would be fine to take out in the back 40. My hunter is fine, but I can’t speak for every Tom Dick and Harry-hunter-owner.[/QUOTE]

Evolution is what created the hunter discipline. It’s an adaptation from one form into another,

So if hunters are not actually representing the ideal field hunter, then what is the discipline actually representing?

[meupatdoes]

[QUOTE=alterhorse;7201607]
In my view of horsemanship, there’s a methodology of training and riding that is based on psychology, physiology, biomechanics, and physics.

There is science beneath the layers of intention to express some arbitrary “quality” that the governance of a discipline has defined as the “ideal”.

Everyone is free to explore the classical tenants of horsemanship as deeply as they may choose.

But let’s make no mistake regarding riding technique, by being clear about what is real and what is actually a form of illusion.

Could EVERY top Hunter actually preform exactly the same as they do in a ring as they would if you were to take that horse and rider out onto uneven, nonuniform terrain on the open countryside?

I doubt you’ll say yes to that. So my point is to examine why the show hunter must preform in the ring to preform as intended, and then you may hopfully begin to see how the classical tenants of horsemanship are devided and segmented to fit the set of “chosen” ideals for a discipline.

I apologize for being an idealist and a purest, but I believe the classical tenants of horsemanship represent the path to the highest level of function for the horse and rider, and that function would probably be represented most fully by a discipline that includes a broad scope of requirements such as eventing.[/QUOTE]

Fancy words do not obscure logical fallacies.

Is there some reason why riding is required to be performed outside an arena to have correct principles inherent in the discipline?

Perhaps the Spanish Riding School should move operations to a grassy, uneven hill then.

[Trixie]

alterhorse, you’re not being an idealist and a purist, but you’re being awfully close-minded.

First, if I may, it’s TENETS, and PERFORM. A tenant is someone who rents from a landlord. Preform means to shape or form beforehand. If you’re going to make such an obtuse argument, at least make it correctly.

But let’s make no mistake regarding riding technique, by being clear about what is real and what is actually a form of illusion.

What exactly IS an “illusion” in this case? A well trained horse jumping around a course of fences doesn’t seem like an illusion to me, it seems like a well trained horse jumping over a course of fences. This is usually the result of years of work, since they don’t usually come out of a box this way.

Could EVERY top Hunter actually preform exactly the same as they do in a ring as they would if you were to take that horse and rider out onto uneven, nonuniform terrain on the open countryside?

No, but do you see anyone asking them to? Frankly, that’s WHY we have different disciplines - so that those that are better suited to one aren’t asked to compete in another.

In layman’s terms, that’s also why we have different occupations - I would suck as a mathematician, but I’m an excellent Marketing Director.

I doubt you’ll say yes to that. So my point is to examine why the show hunter must preform in the ring to preform as intended, and then you may hopfully begin to see how the classical tenants of horsemanship are devided and segmented to fit the set of “chosen” ideals for a discipline.

I give. What the heck does this mean?

I apologize for being an idealist and a purest, but I believe the classical tenants of horsemanship represent the path to the highest level of function for the horse and rider, and that function would probably be represented most fully by a discipline that includes a broad scope of requirements such as eventing.

Why? And since when is eventing the be all and end all of horsemanship? There are plenty of eventers who are terrible horsemen, who struggle with the dressage, who chip miserably around a show jumping course, and whose XC is abysmal. That’s not the “highest level of function,” whatsoever.

Again, not every horse is suited for every discipline, and I don’t agree that they should be forced into an area that doesn’t suit them to allegedly prove that they meet a “broad scope of requirements” when they’re perfectly happy cantering around the AAs. Remember, the HORSE doesn’t give a damn if he’s highly trained and therefore has your so called “highest level of function.” The rider, of course, should aspire to be the best rider they can be and get the best performance they can out of their animals - but don’t forget, this is also supposed to be FUN.

Some horses could be doing more, sure. Some can’t. What is ACTUALLY horsemanship is knowing what you can ask, and what you shouldn’t be asking.

[goodlife]

[QUOTE=alterhorse;7201636]
Evolution is what created the hunter discipline. It’s an adaptation from one form into another,

So if hunters are not actually representing the ideal field hunter, then what is the discipline actually representing?[/QUOTE]

The show/competition hunter. Would you argue that the current state of dressage accurately represents Xenophon and the Spanish Riding School?

[goodlife]

I mean, if you really want, I can put on my Go-Pro and take my hunter (the one in my signature jumping around in a piddly little ring, probably on her forehand and lunged to death and stuff) and jump around on our back trails, whilst assuming this jumping position. Do I win then?

ETA: PS - I’m not docking her tail, though. I just worked my butt off to grow back what she rubbed out this summer.

[meupatdoes]

@Trixie;7201641

alterhorse, you’re not being an idealist and a purist, but you’re being awfully close-minded.

First, if I may, it’s TENETS, and PERFORM. A tenant is someone who rents from a landlord. Preform means to shape or form beforehand. If you’re going to make such an obtuse argument, at least make it correctly.

Also PURIST, but I mean, whatever.

[Trixie]

I’m still wrapping my head around people who rent from landlords having horsemanship skillz that are devided and segmented and wondering what’s preformed about hunters.

[goodlife]

[QUOTE=Trixie;7201659]
I’m still wrapping my head around people who rent from landlords having horsemanship skillz that are devided and segmented and wondering what’s preformed about hunters.[/QUOTE]

It’s those darned pre-formed rings. Maybe we should start ordering them with more lumps and bumps. That’ll separate the men from the boys. And the landlords.

[Trixie]

I want a preformed ring. Mine’s grass and at the bottom of a hill, with plenty of lumps and bumps, and is about the size of a suburban lawn.

[loshad]

[QUOTE=alterhorse;7201607]
In my view of horsemanship, there’s a methodology of training and riding that is based on psychology, physiology, biomechanics, and physics.

There is science beneath the layers of intention to express some arbitrary “quality” that the governance of a discipline has defined as the “ideal”.

Everyone is free to explore the classical tenants of horsemanship as deeply as they may choose.

But let’s make no mistake regarding riding technique, by being clear about what is real and what is actually a form of illusion.

Could EVERY top Hunter actually preform exactly the same as they do in a ring as they would if you were to take that horse and rider out onto uneven, nonuniform terrain on the open countryside?

I doubt you’ll say yes to that. So my point is to examine why the show hunter must preform in the ring to preform as intended, and then you may hopfully begin to see how the classical tenants of horsemanship are devided and segmented to fit the set of “chosen” ideals for a discipline.

I apologize for being an idealist and a purest, but I believe the classical tenants of horsemanship represent the path to the highest level of function for the horse and rider, and that function would probably be represented most fully by a discipline that includes a broad scope of requirements such as eventing.[/QUOTE]

I’ve got to ask: Are you high?

Because that ^ is the sort of pseudo-philosophical BS I would expect to hear from a college freshman hitting the weed for the first time. She thinks she’s being super deep and insightful, but everyone else is giving each other the side eye and checking their watches.

[goodlife]

[QUOTE=Trixie;7201668]
I want a preformed ring. Mine’s grass and at the bottom of a hill, with plenty of lumps and bumps, and is about the size of a suburban lawn.[/QUOTE]

I don’t have a pre-formed ring either. :lol: If they existed though, I’d order mine with some cool derby jumps. Those things are a PITA to try and build for schooling.

[alterhorse]

[QUOTE=meupatdoes;7201637]
Fancy words do not obscure logical fallacies.

Is there some reason why riding is required to be performed outside an arena to have correct principles inherent in the discipline?

Perhaps the Spanish Riding School should move operations to a grassy, uneven hill then.[/QUOTE]

I’m not focusing on correct principles inherent in any one discipline.

I’m focusing on the correct principles inherent to ALL horseback riding… call it the complete set…

Then I’m making the premise that different disciplines empathize only a portion of those correct principles to accomplish the goal of the discipline.

I’m not focusing on the horse, I’m focusing on the knowledge.

Under this concept the Spanish Riding School is only empathizing the portion of the complete set of principles inherent to their discipline… Training and riding Lipizzans.

[meupatdoes]

[QUOTE=loshad;7201669]
I’ve got to ask: Are you high?

Because that ^ is the sort of psuedo-philosophical BS I would expect to hear from a college freshman hitting the weed for the first time. She thinks she’s being super deep and insightful, but everyone else is giving each other the side eye and checking their watches.[/QUOTE]

If you check out the posting history on that one you will discover that is one long lasting hit. Kine bud x 100.

[goodlife]

[QUOTE=alterhorse;7201671]
I’m not focusing on correct principles inherent in any one discipline.

I’m focusing on the correct principles inherent to ALL horseback riding… call it the complete set…

Then I’m making the premise that different disciplines empathize only a portion of those correct principles to accomplish the goal of the discipline.

I’m not focusing on the horse, I’m focusing on the knowledge.

Under this concept the Spanish Riding School is only empathizing the portion of the complete set of principles inherent to their discipline… Training and riding Lipizzans.[/QUOTE]

I’m just getting more confused…are you saying that we need to be more well-rounded horsemen by taking from other disciplines? That part I get (and do on a regular basis) but are you going so far as to say we need to acquire a complete set of “empathetic knowledge”, from Lipizzaner leaps to CCI**** XC questions to Xenophon dressage in order to truly be complete horsemen, and then, only then do we need this knowledge, if we should choose to partake in the dreaded hunter division, where horsemanship goes to die?