As someone who has been with the horses at the end of both courses the past two years, I’m actually shocked how massive the fitness required is.
Many of those horses finish the 4 short looking like they are ready to go around again. But when horses finish the 5 star, they are visibly tired across the board. Even the uber fit, high blood percentage ones look like they have exerted effort.
I’m not sure it’s reasonable to imply that 5 star is a stretch for this horse because the fitness program isn’t good. That level is the top of the sport for a reason. Just as every human athlete isn’t comfortable competitively running a marathon (even humans who are very talented runners at other distances), why would we expect every talented horse to be comfortable being competitive at 5 star? The horse is too talented, and frankly the incentives (prize money, opportunities to attract sponsors, etc) are too good, to waste his legs at a level where he does not excel.
Will has brought 8 horses through the 5 star level, by my count. His horses are known for longevity - many of those horses have returned to the level again and again, and several of his horses have gone on to lower level FEI careers after they have stepped back from top level.
I don’t disagree that in trying to produce long-lasting 5 star horses, the sport will find out horses who cannot hold up to the fitness element. But Will’s program seems an odd example of that, and selecting a horse with four completions at the level plus a championship, who is still competing and setting personal best scores at Olympic level at the age of 16, seems to prove the opposite.
Probably a bad example. And at no point did I say there is a problem with his fitness program. However, I would argue if the horse was capable of winning the 5star he would run the 5star not the 4 star, but for what ever reason he doesn’t feel the horse is capable of winning the 5star.
Outside of Will, who just came to mind since he recently had made a comment in an interview about the horse (the let him decide comment), the point still stands that a big component of getting a horse fit enough for the level is base level soundness.
No, we’re not saying the same thing. There are a lot of reasons a horse might not run at 5*, and suggesting that the only reason someone wouldn’t is because they can’t keep a horse sound is a little unfair. Horses can have fitness issues without being unsound, fit horses can still struggle with the questions being asked, etc. There are also horses that are very solid at 5* who struggle with the more technical championship courses so it’s not as easy as a linear progression up the levels.
I’ve seen similar as well at events (not as up close and personal as you!) but I was thinking more in terms of the work being done at home to prep and whether that would be enough of a difference to cause problems for a horse that’s perfectly sound in a 4* program. Do you know what the conditioning programs might look like between the two?
It’s very different. The 4S horses need maybe one or two big gallops. The 5 horses will need double that. And probably double the amount of ring work/trot sets overall.
With the FEI changing the naming system, it seems many people are forgetting the huge difference between a “short” and a “long”. I hate those terms. Let’s briefly revisit the old nomenclature, CIC vs CCI (cours complet Internationale).
CIC is an international horse trial. A horse trial, like your ordinary Prelim, Intermediate, or Advanced horse trial…just run under international rules. No drugs. International judges. Stewards. Passports. Higher entry fees $$$. The xc will be slightly different from the horse trial (formerly known as CNC) course-- perhaps 50-150m longer, perhaps one or two extra fences, perhaps a slightly more difficult combination (ABC instead of just AB). But it is a horse trial, not a 3 Day Event. CICs were created because some lesser eventing countries (like Russia, and places in South America) has national events that were not up to standard, and at the time riders only needed qualifying results from national events to qualify for a CCI. Requiring a CIC to qualify for CCI ensured riders were safe at the level. (Remember a CCI used to be endurance day).
CICs and horse trials are typically 6 minute xc courses, (it varies). CCIs are 10-12 minute courses, with many more jumping efforts and maximum difficulty. That’s a big difference in fitness and exertion for the horses, and why you can run two CICs or horse trials a month, but only two or three CCIs per year.
Returning to the current nomenclature, “CIC” = CCI-S and “CCI”= CCI-L.
Just because it has “star” in the name does not mean it is a maximum difficulty & length CCI-L.
I just stumbled across this video on YouTube when I was looking for something else. Is this the same person who made the post on Facebook that started the big discussion in the first place?
I mean I reread your comments and you heavily implied that the reason that Off the Record isn’t doing the five is because Coleman is capable of getting him fit enough. It’s not fair to think that length is the only factor separating a 4L from a 5L. There are other factors that will prevent an amazing 4* horses from being an amazing 5* horse.
And, it is a good horseman that realizes their horse is not a 5* horse and does not try to make them one just because.
Why is it a negative to have a great 4* horse?
I don’t disagree it reads poorly. I am leaving the original comment as is instead of editing it. I still stand by IF Will felt he (Timmy) could (still) be competitive at the 5star he would run the 5 instead of the 4 short.
I agree with her.
I also think it’s a reflection of Will’s skill and reputation as a horseman that he has a deep enough pool of talent to draw from that he can cultivate the horses that have the true talent to compete at the highest level of the sport (or be honest with the owners of horses).
Another reason why sometimes you see rougher rides with younger pros with fewer backers struggling to make their names isn’t just the fact they have less experience, but also they often really only have one decent enough horse that can get around a 5* and they really have to hold the horse’s hand to do it. (And even at the same event, riding multiple horses around the same course, as Boyd often can, can be an advantage.)
And does the latter rider deserve to have their goals and dreams denied?
Also, how is the latter rider supposed to truly know whether or not their horse is a 5 star horse unless they take a crack at it?
Someone like a Boyd or Will who has produced many horses to the top has that experience to pull from. But very few people ever reach the point where they develop that type of experience. Even long-time regulars might have less horses competing at that level in their entire careers than someone like Boyd or even Will campaigns in a few seasons.
Sorry, but something that has become a real pet peeve of mine has been the duality of social media criticisms of eventing: on one hand, the “mob” is ready to chastise any rider who makes a mistake, claiming the rider doesn’t belong. Yet in the same breath they will bemoan the lack of entries and small fields. So do you want people to ride at the level or not?
No. Different person who is pot stirring every weekend.
Milestone Equestrian. - Kentucky 3 day was this and the muscle atrophy and lack of topline of 5* horses backs. That was her also
Kentucky Derby was angles of Sovreignty’s hooves/shoeing
Not sure what this weekend will be, but clearly she is a seasoned keyboard warrior that rider
Em
Just so folks can make their own opinions, here are the channels for Milestone Equestrian:
YouTube:
Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/sdequus/?hl=en
Facebook:
Em
Anyone can call themselves a professional can’t they?
Thanks.
I refuse to give her clicks. She outright asks for money to support her “horse welfare”.
She’s been getting into it with people since the early/mid-2010s on the equestrian side of tumblr, it’s nothing new. She migrated over to YT and IG when horseblr started dying. The subject matter has changed (she was not obsessive about R+ back then) but the attitude hasn’t. I blocked her multiple years ago for accusing a very good friend of mine of horse abuse when anyone with a working brain cell can see that said friend has gone above and beyond to provide the best degree of care possible for her (extremely complicated) horse.
Her posts have escaped containment to such a degree that I had to explain her and her entire internet history as I know it going back to… 2012? to my trainer last week (we joke that I’m chronically online so that she doesn’t have to be, so you know it’s bad if she saw it). That was fun.
Late to the discussion. Just watched the video without reading the comments.That was a very ugly fall, the horse took, even if the rule book definition says it’s not a fall. The rider’s horsemanship was a total fail. Adrenaline or fierce competitive spirit is a cop up for his lack of concern for the well being of his supposed partner and not stopping to check his horse’s well being. Bad horsemanship is bad horsemanship no matter what level you are competing. Note I said bad horsemanship not bad riding. There is a difference.
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
