New USEF Rules

[RAyers]

OK, I’ll bite.

Let’s consider why the division even exists. It was to differentiate juniors who rode smaller horses over the same courses as the larges. It was always a “small” division (pun indented). When I rode in them there were 15 or so while the larges had 60 or more.

The horses never went away but the buyers for those horses have. It is not that the horses have changed. There are still plenty of smalls, it is just nobody, as you point out wants them for nothing more than appearances and perceived fit.

The point is that the 1” difference is a baseless differential simply to add money back into the show coffers rather than simply do away with the division as should be done. Thus, I am against the 1” change because there is absolutely NO justification to make the change in the first place, other than to preserve income to the shows.

[dags]

@Renn_aissance your post actually highlighted exactly what was lacking in some others and irking my pre-coffee state Mainly, that the logic being used was A) Entirely self-serving and, B) Serving a self that does not have any relationship whatsoever to the division in question

[dags]

@RAyers

The point is that the 1” difference is a baseless differential simply to add money back into the show coffers rather than simply do away with the division as should be done. Thus, I am against the 1” change because there is absolutely NO justification to make the change in the first place, other than to preserve income to the shows.

Thank you RAyers.
But, I’m not sure that this adds any additional junior riders that are not already spending money entering the Junior Hunters. Isn’t it just taking the horses already entered and separating them by a different measure?

[RAyers]

That is my point. It does absolutely zero to improve the sport or further the development of junior riders. The simplest thing is to just have “Junior Hunters.” Back when I was a kid (1970s/1980s) the smalls were no different than the larges. We jumped the same 1.10m courses set at the same distances. I am sure there was a “noble” reason for the small hunters but even then it was never disseminated.

[dags]

I agree I’m not sure it furthers the sport, but I think it very well could boost the appeal of the 15.3ers. Also think doing away with the split entirely could deal real damage to that market.

“Back in the day” we carried a lot more pace, today we “walk the lines”. And while yes, small animals with natural 14’ strides do exist, a whole lot of them wash out because they don’t, while others get it done quite nicely but need a pretty accurate ride. The upside to that purchase is that you compete against other small-but-mighty types when you show. But if the division gets combined every. single. time. you go to compete, why even take the chance on the 15.3er?

And that’s entirely aside from the psychological effect of cantering up to a 3’6" oxer on something that’s 16.3h vs 15.3h and how that plays into the market dynamics.

[Tackpud]

Having the small juniors stay at the current height means kids need to be more accurate and that won’t happen. Most juniors wanting to do the height ride larger horses with a more forgiving stride for when they miss at the in of the line.

Personally, I disagree with changing the height because where will it end? The rule was already changed to include 16 hand horses - do we continue to alter the height every few years to accommodate whatever the market is doing? If the division is not sustainable as written, maybe it should disappear.

[RAyers]

And here, @dags, you highlight the issues. Even your description is only based on market and marketability, not any real reasons other than money.

I agree, will they move it to 16.1 in 10 years? It will only be another 1". So, it’s better to just kill the smalls than to have some weak reason to keep them around.

[dags]

I mean, I don’t think it does us any good to ignore that money calls the shots, that’s just the way things are & it’s not specific to horses. My concern at least stems from trying to get small horses into new jobs (not easy), if that makes it any better?

As a 90s kid, the Small Juniors was a wicked competitive division. It may have been smaller by entry numbers but not by quality. It’s not exactly “new” like the gazillion 2’6" classes. It does have at least some history behind it and I (for one, and possibly the only one?) would hate to see it go away.

How big was “big” back then? When the game was mostly TBs? I recall 17h being absolutely towering, and now 17.1h is quite common.

So, if the average height of show horses has increased across the board (I’d argue it has), then wouldn’t it make sense to adjust the division specs to be more inline with what is considered “large” and “small” today?

Dunno. The more I think about it the more I’m convinced that doing away with the division would devastate an already struggling market.

[dags]

@RAyers

Back when I was a kid (1970s/1980s) the smalls were no different than the larges. We jumped the same 1.10m courses set at the same distances.

Revisiting this as I just noticed a nuance and want to make sure we’re all on the same page: This has not changed. They jump the same courses, the same heights, the same distances. They’re just judged against other shorter-leg types & get their own set of ribbons.

[RAyers]

Yep. Everything is equivalent except horse height.

Yes, 17hh was a monster of a horse back then. I would guess that the average was 16-16.2.

Yes, the rules could be based on average size deviations, but has anybody looked?

At the same time, if the horses are getting larger then why aren’t we making the courses bigger? Right now everything is intended to make things easy, including this rule and others. When do we stop looking at this as a game and more as a sport?

As for the money, yes it will always play, but the great equalizer was horsemanship. Now, that also appears to be dismissed (look at all the recent judging threads). We got to be good riders and horsemen because if we wanted to show and to be competitive without money, we had to take what was in the pasture and get it there. Even as a kid I had to make my own show horses (with trainer/mentor guidance of course).

[vxf111]

If the point is to split the division equally wouldn’t a better idea be to survey the actual heights of the junior horses and draw the line wherever it appears to divide the group most equally? Rather than inch up in increments for no apparent reason? It’s a totally arbitrary split anyway. We could just as easily split mares and geldings or bays and non bays or horses whose show name starts with the beginning of the alphabet and end. It’s all a completely arbitrary split.

[dags]

The USHJA Junior Task Force would like to recommend raising the height of the Small Junior Hunter to 16.1 hands and under and the Large Junior Hunter to over 16.1 hands. The objective is to keep the Small Junior horse relevant with the times of the evolution of the horse becoming larger. Attached is Appendix A which illustrates unique horse height data of horses who have shown a minimum of five times in the Junior Hunters sections for the 2019, 2020 and 2021 calendar year. The three-year average for horses that are physically 16.0hh– 16.1hh is 6.37% competing in all of the Junior Hunter sections. Only 9.22% of horses competing in the Large Junior sections are physically 16.0-16.1hh. The data implies that physically smaller horses are the lowest percentages of horses competing in the Junior Hunters. Therefore, this indicates the physically smaller horses could be choosing not to compete in the Junior Hunter sections because they may not be competitive against the physically larger horses.

The text from the rule change proposal. Unfortunately Appendix A was not attached to the public proposal as I would like to see it… the written explanation is a bit confusing, though the numbers are about what I would expect.

I don’t think the distinction is at all arbitrary… color certainly has zero impact on athletic ability, but a 15.3h horse and a 17.3h horse are going to present very differently over a 3’6" hunter course. And as long as judges reward “slow”, the average 17.3h horse will have an advantage over the average 15.3h horse.

I’d also argue that the lines have gotten longer over the years, all while the desired tempo has gotten slower.

I also think we top out eventually; ie: we’re not likely to start seeing 18h-19h horses as a norm (though seeing too many >18h recently for my tastes…), so I don’t think this is a slippery slope scenario.

I just don’t see how this adjustment “changes the game” at all. The Large Junior numbers are too heavily weighted because horses have been bred bigger over time. All this does is distribute 6-9% of those animals back into the Small Junior classes. It has nothing to do with horsemanship?

[vxf111]

16 hand horses and 16.1 hand horses do not look materially different going down the lines. That’s my point yes a 15 hand horse could look very different from an 18 hand horse. But moving the dividing line by an inch is not an acknowledgment that inch is meaningful in terms of way of going. It’s just an arbitrary place to draw the line.

[dags]

I don’t think the goal is to create an absolutely level playing field. I think the goal is just to get the division to fill, so people that do have 15.3 h horses aren’t having to compete against people on 17H horses.

[flake]

Perhaps the height change should be to 16.2 – a more realistic reflection of today’s population of larger horses. This approach would even out the numbers in the Small and Large sections more effectively than just eeking up the small size an inch to 16.1 (which only shifts 10% of current entries into the Small Juniors from the Larges).

[Halfhalt1]

As someone who’s been 5’8 during their junior years and now 5’11” it would be great if this whole “I need I giant horse to make myself look smaller” trend would go away. It’s expensive to buy a horse to fit me and I’m sorry but 16hh isn’t small. I’m all leg. I look fine on a 16.1 horse.

It seems to be people have body issues and that’s why they need a HUGE horse.

The body image needs to be fixed, not the division.

[Halfhalt1]

I’ve also clearly been not paying attention but why did the 12’ step go away in favor of the 14’ step? Or am I missing something?

[Renn_aissance]

Sincere question.

Is anyone breeding for this division the way someone would breed deliberately to get a small pony hunter?

Is the perceived mismatch of heights between juniors and horses the problem that is making a smaller horse less attractive to the market, or are we short- pun intended- on fun-sized horses who make a competitive picture down the lines at Devon?

Obviously there is a point where the sheer physics of the thing makes a 16hh critter more likely to carry some pace down the lines than an 18hh critter, unless it’s built like a dachshund, but such horses do exist. @dags this seems like something you would know- apples to apples, if you had the same competition record, vet results, etc in a 16hh junior hunter and a 16.3hh one, is there any rarity value to the 16hh one?

I know there’s something to be said for the psychology of looking down at the top rail of an oxer from a 17hh vantage point instead of feeling like you’re looking up at it, but based on the heights of the young riders I see running around our barn- and what absolute pipsqueaks they look like when they hack their siblings’ large horses- I’d sure rather my theoretical 13-year-old little sister canter down to a single oxer on a horse she could actually get her leg around so the animal didn’t jump her clean out of the tack every time it left the ground.

[endlessclimb]

Do people really care about the height of the horse when they’re staring at the top of a 3’6" fence? Because knowing the horses scope is one bazillion times more important to me - are they at the top of their game where I have to be dead smack on, or do they have some to spare where some forgiveness can be had? That has nothing to do with their sticked height.

[Halfhalt1]

The strides are what makes or breaks horses. A horse with a bigger stride looks “calmer” than a horse/pony trying to get down the line.

Basically a large horse with a 14’ stride will look “better” than a horse/pony with a shorter stride even though they both get 5 strides for example.