New USEF Rules

[AAHunterGal]

@dags

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.

I disagree with this statement. I’m “average” height for a woman, 5’5", and I can easily fit on a 15.1h horse. The barrel makes much more of a difference in how a horse takes up the leg/how you look on a horse than the height at the wither. This notion that you “can’t” ride smaller horses or that you are “too big” to them is not as common as we’re led to believe. Again, Scott just won Grand Champion on a 15.1h horse - the judges didn’t seem to think he was “too big.”

Not saying it DOESN’T happen - but more folks are fine on smaller horses, they’ve just been told they aren’t.

With ponies, the “small medium” does have a disadvantage because the jump heights are different. Not so with the horses, so I’m not seeing that logic (though I can see how that story can be told).

[awaywego]

Whatever height the rule states, assume that horses at least an inch+ bigger will be in the division.

Signed,
A small junior hunter rider from the 90s (the dark ages of under 16h)

[fivestrideline]

I would also disagree that 16h and under is “too small”. I’m 5’9”, and look better on my big barreled TB who is 15.3 on a good day than I do on one 17h mare I ride (slab sided as all get out). Do I personally like “bigger” horses? Yes, but more because I like to have some shoulder and neck in front of me, but taller doesn’t necessarily constitute a longer neck and bulkier build.
Plenty of people would be better suited to a 15-16 hand horse with some barrel and step than they are on their dinosaurs. And the horses last longer, IME.

[dags]

eh, okay. Regardless of where you fall on the highly subjective “what is too small”, I still see this move as a good thing for smaller horses.

Signed,
Another junior from the 90s whose hunter stuck at 16. 5/8h and would have loved this

[Xctrygirl]

But they do measurement cards on horses now. Not as easy to lie about heights now.

Em

[trubandloki]

@dags

Signed,
Another junior from the 90s whose hunter stuck at 16. 5/8h and would have loved this

And then the very sad junior line just moves from where you were to 16.1 5/8.

My history is in the hunters, so I get how everyone is taught that everything under 16hh is tiny. But darn, it is the only place where 16hh is called tiny and a 5’-3" person is told that they are too big on anything under 16hh.

Signed an old person who is over 5’-6"tall who only rides for fun now and rides something that would stick as a large pony.

[Mander]

@dags

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.

You say this as though there won’t just be a new “no-man’s land” at 16.1 1/2.

As for anything under 16h being too small for many riders, well that’s just absurd. Do you think this rider is too big for her horse?

It’s a bit of a trick question, because this isn’t a horse - Theodore O’Connor was a 14.1 3/4h pony, and Karen O’Connor is 5’6’’ (above average height for women!).

[dags]

Okay. I categorically withdraw my “small” assessment and then maybe we can get back to discussing whether this rule change is a good thing for smaller horses.

No, I don’t think we’ll see a new no-mans land apply to 16.1 1/2 because everyone already wants something 16.2+.

[Mander]

@dags

No, I don’t think we’ll see a new no-mans land apply to 16.1 1/2 because everyone already wants something 16.2+.

I guess I just don’t see your logic here.

You’re saying that raising the cutoff from 16h to 16.1h is going to help small horses because now those 16 and some change horses can go in the small horse classes and won’t end up in “no-mans land”. But you’re also saying that no-man’s land won’t just move up to the 16.1 and some change horses because everyone want’s 16.2h horses. What exactly do you think the demand for horses between 16.1-16.2h will be?

I’m tending to agree with others, that this whole horse-height division thing seems unnecessary.

[Cassi1125]

Perhaps a nod to adopted children, same-sex male couples with children, grandparents with custody, and the like? IMHO, this changed language is splitting hairs, because I think it used to be “parent or legal guardian”.

[dags]

@Mander

What exactly do you think the demand for horses between 16.1-16.2h will be?

About the same that it is now, which is less than that of horses that are 16.2h+ but better than those under 16.1h.

Regardless of everyone’s particular stance on the issue, the market considers a horse just over 16h as small, and a tougher sell. Over 16.1h and you start to get away from that prejudice by the sheer fact that you are now within 1" of everyone’s favorite size: 16.2 (sometimes 16.3). Usually, you can get someone that’s convinced they need 16.2 to at least sit on something that’s 16.1 1/2 but you’re not likely get them to sit on something that is 16. 1/2h unless, perhaps, there’s a division specifically for that sized animal where ribbons are a bit easier to come by because 70% of the circuit is mounted on actual behemoths.

[RAyers]

Don’t tell my old 15.3 jumper that he was short. Sure, I am short, for a guy (5’7", 7’ if we include ego).

[awaywego]

@Xctrygirl

But they do measurement cards on horses now. Not as easy to lie about heights now.

Em

They had measurement cards back then too. Still happened. I don’t follow junior hunters these days but I’d guess it still happens.

[Tha_Ridge]

@awaywego

They had measurement cards back then too. Still happened. I don’t follow junior hunters these days but I’d guess it still happens.

Oh, yeah, there are definitely still some stewards known for giving “good” measures.

[fivestrideline]

And some farriers known to be able to get a hoof short enough to measure while keeping the horse sound. Though my experience has been strictly with ponies.

Still, I personally know a carded large (14.1 1/4) that was done 100% by the book, and still put on a growth spurt + muscle which might have him pushing 15 hands now. So, just because the horse looks huge now doesn’t mean something nefarious was happening - though it DOES.

[173north]

You can do everything by the book and still get a variation in heights just based on where they are in their trimming cycle, if they’re relaxed or fresh, if the steward is wearing a scary hat, if the steward is rushing or taking their time…

[Renn_aissance]

I, personally, dislike the rule change for the small junior hunters because I, personally, know damn well my long legs can fit around a 16hh horse with a big barrel and I really like how the price of a quality animal goes down with its blanket size because other people disagree with me. Obviously, all rule changes that pass must serve me, me, me, a person who is not even a current USEF competing member.

(My big eq horse, the fellow in my profile pic, sticks at 15.2 1/2.)

[chestnutmarebeware]

I’m 5’8” and Will, a TB, was 15.2hh and change (RIP, Buddy!). If I’m too big for a horse his size, then there’s something seriously wrong here.

[dags]

I’m glad that everyone here loves their small horses. That’s wonderful. But, for some reason, the Small Junior numbers are dismal. The Small Hunters don’t even fill. The rule change is not about nixing the division. It’s about making the division more inclusive which, I’m inclined to think, will do more to increase the general acceptance of smaller equines than simply admonishing the Way Things Are to anyone who will listen & posting pics of big-barreled smalls. No one in a decision-making position is unaware that a big barrel takes up a lot of leg and yet still the numbers dwindle and the prices drop as the blanket sizes go down (really like that qualifier to whomever posted it).

We can only ride what breeders breed. And if they routinely lose money on their smaller offspring they will breed bigger, and we will ride bigger. We have self-corrected this before, when the warmblood trend went really thick & clunky, and that was because the market demanded a lighter & more nimble athlete.

So, I’m looking for arguments against this rule change that are something other than ‘well, I rode X size decades ago or in an entirely different sport so why can’t they’ and weirdly gatekeeping over this 1" difference.

[Renn_aissance]

My post was tongue in cheek, which I know you know. I both recognize that people will keep breeding behemoths as long as there is only demand for behemoths, which means I don’t get my nice compact sports car model because no one will be breeding them, and am bummed that the nice compact sports car model is not sufficiently appreciated by most of the market to fill the division.

The 15.3 version of the small junior will not be impacted by this change, and probably not the 16-hand version either, so I still get a horse that fits a 75 or a 78 blanket and is (IME/IMO) better predisposed to long term soundness than the absolute moose loping around the ring in the other division.