In the What does competing FEI give me? thread, the topic more recently has changed to multiple people saying they would like to be able to compete with more technical questions at smaller heights (myself included).
What would this look like to you? Has anyone found a way to compete this (outside of setting up fun lines schooling)?
Interestingly, I have watched some videos from BE (british eventing) & their 90cm classes seem to much more technical than you would find on a USEA novice course. Has anyone else noticed this? Is this another reason why the US in the past gotten beat overseas? Overseas they start asking more difficult questions earlier?
I actually donât think they look that much more difficult, just fancier. Looking at the Badminton Grassroots 1 meter for example, I felt like Iâd done everything on that course at a Training level HT, and most of it together on the same course at the T3D. It just didnât look like a mini 5 star because the fences werenât specially made (but I probably couldnât have afforded to go if they were!)
I do get it, I no longer have my own horse and the horse Iâm riding is lovely and game and very successful at BN but is an older draft cross and is best suited to stay at that level. He would absolutely eat up a BN Rolex, but the girl from my barn who just did her first BN would probably die. At the end of the day it is meant to be an intro to the sport. I do wish there could be more options but I canât afford to pay more in entry fees to make it happen.
The biggest difference I see is the skinnies. I cannot find the guidelines for BE (maybe someone else can??), but the min width of a narrow seems to be different in the BE (and overseas) relm.
Iâve also watched a fair amount of lower level British Eventing courses online and also get the impression that their courses are more technical at lower levels - more combinations (often on shorter strides) and more skinnies.
One of these days Iâd love to dig into the specs between BE and USEA and look at some of the actual competition courses and see if there are differences and if they come from the specs or the course designers. I think the USEA rules actually allow for more technical courses than we typically see, but course designers donât use the full range of technicality permitted - likely in response to pressure from competitors to keep things simple at lower levels. It just seems like the expectation in the UK is different in exposing green horses to technical questions at lower height early on in their career.
The big issue, to me, comes from a LeGoff statement, âI can make a 2â jump no horse would jump.â
I think to have such a competition, which I believe is not a bad thing, a clear understanding of the complexity desired that can account for horse and rider experience. Sadly, this leads back to MERs at low levels, but there will need to be some gatekeeping.
This is an interesting â and longstanding â discussion (see this 23 year old thread!).
I understand the point of the lower levels to be to introduce horses and riders to cross country riding â first learning to jump in balance out of a forward rhythm, then adding straightness, then adjustability. Technical fences require both adjustability and straightness, so I donât think they are appropriate at the lowest levels.
In addition to competing, I do a lot of fence judging. At starter and BN (and often novice) there are a real mix of horse-and-rider pairs. Some easily jump everything out of rhythm and could safely handle narrower fences and combinations even if they arenât ready or able to move up in height, but there are plenty who have not nearly mastered balance and straightness, even at simple âgallopingâ fences with nice shapes and wide jumpable faces. These pairs would not be well-served by more technical courses at all.
Thereâs a lot of variation from course to course (and I agree that is difficult for riders â training at one event may be far more technical than training at another, and the omnibus is not always a good guide to what to expect.). For example, the training course at Essex this spring had a decently narrow though acute brush corner as fence 4; two downhill turning combinations with skinnies at both A and B; and a water complex that had a jump in the water and a small skinny after a turn past a very busy tailgating tent.
I believe 7AB was a 6 stride though itâs been a few months, but Iâm uploading photos as an example. Those fences were nowhere near maxed out, but they were an appropriate introduction to the question for the level, IMO.
At HPNJ in April, training jumped a fence a few strides before the water, then splashed through the water, up onto a mound and jumped a skinny (with generous but spooky barrels on the side that functioned as wings), cantered back off the mound, out through the water, and then up and over a corner. Again, nothing was huge, but it certainly adds technical elements. Earlier on the course, there was a 2 stride brush to brush, a different sort of question. Loch Moy makes notoriously creative use of its terrain. These things are out there, though I agree they arenât on every course.
As a lower level rider I might be interested in more technical questions at my height. But it might also cause me to have a stroke course walking so maybe not?
I remember back in the day when Starter was just 10 logs on the ground and varied by location from 18 inches to 2â 3" ish. Now Starter is recognized and is set to 2â 3" with and includes brush jumps and tables. Course designers have built entire new Starter courses set to max. So now recognized horse trails have added âgrasshopperâ divisions.
I think thereâs a lot of level creep, and thereâs a fine line between making a âyou can walk over this jump while cryingâ course to a âready to move up to the next level and needs to see more difficult questionsâ course.
The other point I would like to make, is I want an option, either 2 different courses at the same height -or- options for a more technical line/question. I do believe the BN should be an introduction to eventing for green horses or riders, but would be nice to have an option for those who donât want to compete the upper level heights/width/speed but have a choice of technical questions. Could be as simple as offering a
Honestly, my choice would be to have another separate division with the difficult questions (ON vs ONTech or something), or for the cross country equestrian (CCE) new thing to catch onto these wants and maybe offer something to appease those looking for something more at the lower levels.
These suggestions are not to change of the lower levels, but another option for those of us not looking to move up to the international levels. Please, I want that to be clear.
I think having separate divisions is a big ask of event organizers, but this could be a good fit for something like the CCE program since it seems to emphasize options and choosing the fences appropriate for you and your horse, even within a level. (Itâs also expensive to build new fences and especially complexes, though a lot can be achieved with portables.)
But honestly, I think of training level as the sweet spot for an introduction to technical questions without huge fences. As I said earlier, there is still quite a lot of variation in just how technical courses are at that level, but by scouting things out, itâs possible to choose courses that present interesting challenges.
I went through the USEF/USEA cross-country course designer program last year, and received my small ârâ license to design for Prelim and below.
I too have always enjoyed it when a course at Training or below offered an option. It was fun, it gave you something to think about when walking, and sometimes allowed you to try the ânext levelâ question at your fence height.
However, when I brought this up during my training, I was discouraged from offering these types of options. The thinking is:
Courses should be âup to the levelâ at all levels. This means using mostly maximum height, asking questions within the scope of that level. Then a pair who completes knows they are either competent at that level, or not. They wonât try moving up with too many âeasyâ courses beforehand. Therefore, an option should be of equal/similar difficulty, so that pairs arenât getting clear rounds by doing just the easy options.
Often the open space at the event is at a premium, so adding extra fences can âjam upâ the flow of other levels
by the same token, many events donât have extra jumps for making options. It requires more time to add extra jumps, more flags & numbers, more consideration of jump judgesâ placement and experience.
Having said that, of course a rider at BN must wonder, well there are options at Prelim, and they have extra jumps and already deal with the jump judge considerations, why canât I?
Some ways designers can incorporate âoptionsâ include siting the fence(s) so that there is a option of how to approach or land, such as a short, sharp approach or a long, time-consuming approach and/or get-away. They can strategically place shrubs or trees to do this. They can number a combination as separate numbers, allowing a direct route and a non-penalized long route by circling in between. Obviously, there are also lots of ways terrain can be used, as well as where in the course questions are placed.
I do think that courses for championships should make the effort to be at the maximum for each level, to give that little extra for those who have proven they can do the level and want to be challenged.
I get it but man can it be super hard schooling those types of questions in anything but a show and if all the shows are set at max there arenât really any âsoft for the level, good introductionâ shows. I wish I lived in Florida where they can school 7 days a week over the same courses they will show over.
I donât know where you are located, but in VA, Win Green has a lot of really tiny versions of technical/terrain questions. Loch Moyâs schooling course is not great for getting into a galloping rhythm, but it also has plenty of technical questions at all levels. If you are further north with access to Boydâs, you are in luck â he has some of everything in every size. Maybe others have suggestions that are more accessible to you, if these are not.
My first thought is no, I wouldnât want that. But now Iâm trying to write a response thatâs not just âIâm getting old and I miss the 90sâ
When I started eventing, the lowest recognized level was novice, and it wasnât that hard to take a horse ~6 months off the track around it. That level of technicality (a variety of natural looking fences, no skinnies, few combinations) would probably be equivalent to starter today.
I think I preferred that as an entry level experience (helps horse-sized horses jump in a better shape while going forward), so IMO the size/technicality ratio is already going the wrong way. OTOH, I appreciate that the training/prelim/5* that we were preparing for then is quite different from now.
I can see that CCE might be the right direction for this kind of course development, since it isnât bound to the USEA/USEF guidelines. Wingreen has a million tiny skinnies . . .
The powers that be decreed that there shall be no options and no âmove upâ courses. The course designers and the TDs ensure that all courses are maximum difficulty. If an organizer wants to have a move up friendly course the TD tells them no. Since there are no more move up courses, options that are more difficult for the level would be useful for competitors who are not yet ready to move up or who choose not to move up and appreciate a challenge above and beyond what is normal for the level.
There is a big gap between novice and training. In the recent past TPTB acknowledged that there is a big gap between training and prelim and created modified to help bridge the gap. Most of USEAâs members are at novice and below, and many have no interest to jump bigger and many more can jump bigger but do not live near any cross country schooling venues and so cannot practice enough to move up.
I think there is an appetite for a bridge between novice and training but it does not necessarily need to be an entirely new division; it could just be option fences that are more difficult than normal or as someone stated up thread a âtechnicalâ division where everyone in that division jumps a few additional obstacles with increased difficulty. Or a division where half the jumps are novice and half are training (no new jumps would need to be built!).
Competitors like options. An option fence could be at the same height as the level but have increased technicality. It does not necessarily mean more work for the organizer. I think that organizers would like to be innovative and accommodating (to the extent feasible, safe and practicable); it is the course designers and TDs who are rigid.
While BE 100 may be similar to USEA training, BE 90 appears to be significantly more technical (multiple skinnies, multiple related distances) than USEA novice (based on watching rounds on YouTube). Comparing the BE guidelines to the USEA guidelines is of limited usefulness because the guidelines have not recently been revised to catch up with reality.
For example, the USEA guideline for training is an 8 foot jumpable width. Training courses these days have significantly narrower fences, as in 5 to 6 feet. IMO the guidelines should either be followed as written or updated to be consistent with what course designers are actually doing. Otherwise what is the purpose of the guidelines?
So much also depends on terrain and available space. BE sets consistent standards for fences, at every level (measured, recorded, analysed), but even at 80 and 90 some courses are easier than others because of the terrain. A dead flat course across level fields is a different ask from one that has undulations, light and shade under trees and variable ground types. It is very common to have riders ask each other about the suitability of a particular course for a first-timer or if one is looking to move up to a new level. Currently there are many green-field sites used for competitions in the UK, with associated rough edges here and there, which are highly variable and popular. However, there is a growing trend towards specialist locations, such as big Equestrian Centres, where it is far, far cheaper to run the Event because of the permanent infrastructure. These also tend to be on easier, flatter terrain and (IMO) far less fun to ride.
Every BE course is designed and built with the intention of being âeducationalâ because the assumption is that every combination is seeking to improve. That, however, doesnât stop people happily running at the same level, on the same horse, for years and years but over very different courses.
I am going to start with addressing some of the comments here, and then follow with my own thoughts/opinions.
Several people commented on Intro/Starter/ Beginner Novice being an Introduction to Eventing. It was anticipated that each horse or rider would do a handful of those competitions before moving on to, for instance. Novice. That is why there was no Beginner Novice level offered at the AEC. Then there were a lot of complaints, by people who continued to compete at BN for a year or more, that they were being discriminated against by being excluded from the AEC. After much discussion, a BN level was added to the AEC. I was not there, but I understand it was an utter disaster. Horse/rider combinations that had quaified by good placings at truly âintroduction to eventingâ courses (aka â10 logs on the groundâ) were completely overfaced by the âchampionship level courseâ at the AEC. There is a direct conflict between âa course that is great for your first time going cross countyâ and âa course that demostrates you wonât be overfaced by a championship courseâ. The result was a push to make ALL BN courses challenging enough to weed out the competitors who would be overfaced at AEC. (Not, by the way, a choice I agreed with).
Others talked about options, which are great in principle, but troublesome in practice. I have been, for many years, TD at some of the schooling HT at Loch Moy (Maryland), which often has options. Even with experienced jump judges, and even with me pointing out in the jump judgesâ meeting âWhoever is judging BN jump X, remember that there is an option,â almost every time, the jump judge at X will call in ârider Y is off course at jump X, they jumped the wrong jumpâ, when they simply jumped a different option from the first few riders. This is more often a problem with the jump judges than the riders.
Also, as mentioned, using options often involves more work for the course builders. and can cause complications for the course designer (especially if there is not a lot of space to work with), who need to have a good âflowâ for all levels. One way of dealing with these issues is to mark, for instance, a Novice bank (which is within the spec for BN) as a option for BN (with another, smaller, bank as the other option) . With other kinds of jumps, however, it can be problematic. A trypical Novice jump that is within BN specs, is probably âtrickyâ in some way, so not desirabe for the BN course. But if it is used as an option, that is not as much of an issue.
Someone talked about having a more challenging course for (for instance) Open BN, and a less challenging course for BN Horse and BN Rider. First of all there is the added work and cost of designing and building another course. Second is the issue of MARKING the course, so it is clear (to both the jump judges and the riders) which fences are on which course. (Sometimes, at Area or series Chapionships, there are a few fences that are marked as just for the Championship section, not the âregularâ sections, and there are always people who go off course, both ways, by not understanding the markings.)Third is the issue of putting competitors in the right section. (In the US, at least) you donât explicitly enter âBN Openâ or âBN Horseâ. You enter âBNâ and indicate a PREFERENCE for âOpenâ or âHorseâ, etc. The secretary (or whoever is doing the scheduling) is free to put you in any section you are eligible for. Often, their objective is to have roughly equal sized sections, NOT one section with 15 and another with 3. If only 3 put âOpenâ as their first choice, then several who put âHorseâ as their first choice may end up in the Open section, even though they wanted an âIntroductoryâ, not a âchallengingâ experience.
My experience is the other way around. For instance, at the lower levels (Starter through Training) I see lot of jumps that are, narrower than spcified by the rules. They are still inviting and very jumpable, but more technical than âpermittedâ. Even more jumps that are within the rules, but more technical than suggested by the guidelines.
I am old. When I started Combined Training (a it was then called), the lowest recognized level was Prelim (3â7"). The only Combined Training competitions below that were Pony Club Rallies, and Pony Club run competitions. Then they introduced âTrainingâ as a new, introductory, level (circa 1971). The first recognized Training course I rode was pretty much the same fences we used in the hunter pace run on the same land. Much simpler than the Pony Club cross country courses at the same height.
My first is that riders who want to jump more challenging jumps should take advantage of the flexibility in the rules for âschoolingâ on course. Under the current rules, there is no penalty (except time) for âschoolingâ (jumping a jump that is not actually on your course) as long as you are not dangerous, and also jump âyourâ jump. This applies both to a jump at a lower level (e.g. a lower bank or a narrower ditch, or even just a lower âscary lookingâ jump) before jumping âyourâ jump, as well as jumping a jump at a higher level (which might be more technical without being much bigger) before or after âyourâ jump.
Of course, âdangerous ridingâ is at the discretion of the Ground jury, and often delegated to the TD, so it is a good Idea to check with them if you are planning to jump a higher level jump. I DO know that there have been 2 cases of BN riders jumping an Intermendiate fence BACKWARDS, and they were given dangerous riding penalties (both were at, different, AECs).
The other is using the jumps at cross country schooling facilities, like Win Green or Loch Moy, but many areas of the country do not have access to places like that.
I thought âlarkingâ was frowned upon nowadays? If not, AWESOME!! I once disappeared for 5 minutes jumping a myriad of fences before I got back on course. Thankfully this was unrecognized and the organizer was not surprised it was me.
