Is everyone able to open the links to view the proposals on that page? For some reason they don’t work for me.
Yes but had to enable pop ups
Ahh, thanks.
Ew. I hate this. I’m a big fat chicken, but my horse loves ending our warm-up with a 1.30m vertical. I am in no way, shape, or form, qualified to jump an entire course at that height at the moment, and I largely just kick and pray, but it gives me a lot of confidence trotting in the ring. This “rule” would alter that routinely pretty significantly.
6 Likes
Well, and what problem is it solving? Is there really an issue of people jumping so big in the schooling ring that it’s a welfare concern? I doubt it. So what exactly is it based on?
The safety of the schooling ring doesn’t change based on the height of the individual fence being jumped, and sure there might be a degree of less safe riding with the less experienced riders, but is that really going to be changed whether they’re jumping a 1.10m vertical or a 1.30m vertical? No.
It’s a stupid proposal and I hope it doesn’t pass.
5 Likes
Possibly people making schooling annoying or more difficult for others? If there are only two schooling jumps and it’s immediately prior to a 2’6 class and both jumps are being hogged hardcore by someone who has them set for 3’3 and then walks away without lowering them, that’s annoying. Not annoying enough to warrant this rule change (which seems like a nightmare to enforce) but that’s what immediately popped to my mind when I thought about a rule requiring the schooling jumps being set at the height of the class to follow.
4 Likes
I read through and commented on a few of the proposals. My immediate take away is that we have a lot of folks who really want things catered to them to be as easy as possible, and potentially not threatening to their little world.
Em
8 Likes
What are the overall opinions on raising the size of a “Small” horse from 16h to 16.1h?
I personally ::stands on soapbox:: feel that the trend of larger and larger horses isn’t good for the long term breeding health of our horses - big horses just don’t last as long, especially the way we pound them at the shows all year long. Plus, the thought that bigger horse = bigger step is truly not a 1:1 ratio. There are PLENTY of lovely smaller well bred horses out there 110% capable of making it down the lines, it’s just that nobody wants to produce them because we’re telling this narrative of small = less capable.
If we flipped the script and touted all of the benefits of a smaller horse, I bet there would be more of them in the rings. There sure used to be.
Just look at Jordan at 15.1h. Maybe more of a finessed ride, but completely doable, he seems like he’ll make a great jr/ammy horse.
So I would NOT like to see this rule passed. They’re doing it because the Small Jrs aren’t filling anymore, so another money grab - but again, I think they WOULD fill just as much as they used to if we stopped the Large Horse = Better Horse narrative.
::puts soapbox away::
10 Likes
I assumed it was to help the division fill. But at that point, why not just do age splits and not size splits? Add section splits if there are too many total entries. If there are only a couple of true small juniors, then there’s no more disservice to they approach than just allowing some bigger horses in the class. The AOs work fine on age splits only.
I agree that overall horses are getting a bit too big for the longevity of the horses and the sport, and that’s another problem. But I think the rule change proposal is more about filling classes.
Getting rid of the size split altogether was in my mind as well - especially since there’s no difference to the height of the jump or the lines.
1 Like
Agreed, at most shows, they are splitting by 3’3"/3’6" or age group anyway now.
I have never shown hunters, so forgive my asking, but why do classes have to “fill”? Why can’t they have a class with however many show up? (I’m used to disciplines who have no problems with one horse classes.) And what happens if it doesn’t fill? Have you now paid money, traveled, and now can’t show? That would be enough for me to never show again.
I think it has to do with earning points. Many people showing in the USEF Hunter classes are looking to earn the points required to qualify for the indoor shows, year end awards etc…
There have to be a certain number of entrants in a class for points to be awarded. This is how it used to be… I may be corrected by someone who is currently showing, since I am not.
Back in they day, friends of a person who needed points to qualify for say, equitation finals, would enter the class so it would “fill” and points would be awarded.
So if it doesn’t have enough riders for points, does the class still go on for those who just want to show and don’t care about points?
At this point the size split seems totally arbitrary to me. Might as well split by sex or color or number of white legs.
4 Likes
I don’t know, I’m not showing anymore. There are many people here who are showing or have students that are competing. Hopefully one of those people will answer your question.
@CBoylen ?
Thank you for your help so far!
1 Like
A lot of times it depends on the show and the exhibitor(s). If the exhibitor is fine with paying the entry fees, and want to have an experience and get a ribbon, most shows will run it. I’ve seen plenty of low level (2’ hunters/eq for example) at HITS that run with only one or two. Age split divisions will often be combined (younger and older junior hunters, for example) to have enough for points to count. If it is a money class (typically in the jumpers) they may just give a smaller money amount or no money at all.
I will say, interestingly enough, most local hunter shows around me will first try to combine divisions that are equal height/skill (Children’s Hunter with Adult Hunter for example), but if they can’t get enough to fill, they don’t tend to run the class (Pony hunters/green hunters or local association equitation are a big local example). I think a lot of this is that people point chase on the local circuit like crazy, and if one show isn’t going to fill, they might be able to find another show that weekend to go to to get points.
Often they just combine the smalls and larges. Sometimes if one is big enough they’ll keep them split and the points just won’t count in the section that didn’t fill.
I actually think the change would encourage the embrace of smaller horses.
16h & under is small. Like, small enough that many riders are simply too big for them. And anything that sticks at 16. 1/2"h or the like ends up in that no-man’s land that nobody wants. It’s not quite as bad as a pony clocking in at just over 13.2h, but it’s certainly not encouraging people to purchase 16.1h beasts that they otherwise fit quite nicely.
It’s not really a money-grab as those horses are gonna go show anyway, just in combined divisions. But this change could really breathe life back into the Small Juniors, and that division returning to its former glory will be far more effective at quashing the “Bigger is Better” narrative then a handful of us changing our tune.
3 Likes
