There is a new statistical analysis service for eventing launching from Sam Watson ?? I think: http://equiratings.com/
Badminton gets a new course designer who doesnât have a great deal of experience doing less prestigious events before he starts Badminton, although he was its TD for years. His first year, the weather was awful, and only 38% of riders finished. To my personal opinion the WORST complex on course was Huntsmanâs Close, a question of light to dark to light. We know that horse vision is less quick to respond to changes in light, so was the design at fault by not taking that into consideration, or was the question otherwise very tricky (which it was.)?
Next year, same course designer, course direction is reversed. 81% finish. Weather is good. Worst problems are at water complexes, which have been drastically redone from the year before. All the water complexes had problems, but the worst results came from the big lake complex. That complex had a jump up to a step, then a bounce over another jump. Was there room for the horse to recover and make the bounce without perfect presentation?
In my mind, the first uniform principle in course design should always be âis this a fair question for the HORSE.â Can courses be designed that donât penalize less than perfection with horse falls? Derek Di Grazia and some of the other European designers like Ian Stark have proved that itâs possible to design courses that encourage run-outs, not falls, for less than perfection. The HORSE makes the decision.
[QUOTE=IFG;8171095]
There is a new statistical analysis service for eventing launching from Sam Watson ?? I think: http://equiratings.com/[/QUOTE]
Sam Watson and Diarm Byrne (better known as The Eventing Consultant on Twitter) are co-founders of EquiRatings. EN is excited to be partnering with them to bring exclusive data and analysis to our readers. The launch is planned for next month.
They are giving sneak peeks on Twitter at the data that will be available through this service: https://twitter.com/EquiRatings
You guys just brought up a major heart of the matterâthe deaths of riders and horses in these rare but horrific crashes are a MAJOR TURN-OFF to lower-level riders, riders from other disciplines, and the general public. And donât think for one minute that doesnât ultimately trickle down to sponsorships and TV time as well. No one wants to see horses get maimed or killed. People from other disciplines often think youâre nuts if you eventâeven though 98% of us are the âpuddle-jumpersâ whoâll never see Prelim, and I count myself in that cohort certainly. The VAST majority of riders in our sport DO NOT want to put their lives, or their horsesâ lives, on the line for a sixty-cent ribbon and a five-minute thrill. But the PERCEPTION of our sport is formed for better or worse by what gets seenâand every time thereâs another flip making The Chronicle, heads are shaken and a few more riders probably get talked out of continuing or moving up by their husbands, parents, or friends. I myself stopped short of Prelim because I realized how much less forgiving the questions are at that level; I just didnât NEED to take it that far into the âdanger zone.â Most of us have responsibilities.
We live now in the media ageâperception is EVERYTHING, truth be damned, and the weekly social media feeding frenzies on here make that even MORE apparent.
"The rotational falls are broken out under page 7 - âhorse fallsâ in the last column. You will see a steady rate of decline over the past few years.:
yes but that is compared to the total of almost 20,000 starts-- it does not appear to be broken out by level-over the years which percentage of rotational falls were at what level-- but the falls are broken out by level-at no time did falls go below 10 percent for the last 6/7 years for the 4 . Meanwhile for one it hovers around 4-5 percentâso the level one is riding at makes a difference in increasing the chances of something going wrong, even if you could have a rotational hacking in a western saddle.
While rotationals are the worse I would think the percentage of falls generally would also be a concern.(Another wordsâwhy is even 10 percent acceptable at that level? These are the prosâand they are falling )
[QUOTE=jkautry;8171144]
Sam Watson and Diarm Byrne (better known as The Eventing Consultant on Twitter) are co-founders of EquiRatings. EN is excited to be partnering with them to bring exclusive data and analysis to our readers. The launch is planned for next month.
They are giving sneak peeks on Twitter at the data that will be available through this service: https://twitter.com/EquiRatings[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the links and info. Sounds similar to what Maggie Deatrick has been doing. Curious as to how it will differ.
In reference to why people do not ride at the upper levelsâŠ
Well, Iâll be damned! This may just deserve to be a signature line!! Oh CoTH, how I love thee⊠let me count the ways! :lol:
[QUOTE=jkautry;8171144]
Sam Watson and Diarm Byrne (better known as The Eventing Consultant on Twitter) are co-founders of EquiRatings. EN is excited to be partnering with them to bring exclusive data and analysis to our readers. The launch is planned for next month.
They are giving sneak peeks on Twitter at the data that will be available through this service: https://twitter.com/EquiRatings[/QUOTE]
So, Manahmanah, JKautrey, vineyridge and others. Next time there is yet another thread bashing âTPTBâ for not collecting data, letâs please get to noting that there are data currently and data being collected⊠and there is not some huge coverup by the ULRs and THTB and the BNRs and the BNTs to keep us from knowing the truthâŠ
:yes:
Winding Down, you seem to be missing the entire process that has lead up to TPTB finally getting partially off their collective asses to begin collecting SOME, but not enough data.
Insulting many of the people that were involved in pushing for this probably is not the best way to show your enthusiasm for their work.
[QUOTE=BaroquePony;8171400]
Winding Down, you seem to be missing the entire process that has lead up to TPTB finally getting partially off their collective asses to begin collecting SOME, but not enough data.
Insulting many of the people that were involved in pushing for this probably is not the best way to show your enthusiasm for their work.[/QUOTE]
Plus, is this a thing officially backed or signed on to by any major organization, or is it a thing that some people are doing with whatever information they can get their hands on? Because some individuals forming a company to do better things with the available data is certainly good, but itâs not at all the same as TPTB (i.e. FEI, USEF, etc.) doing it or at least signing on and committing to real and sensible data collection.
A skim of the twitter and the website doesnât indicate an official relationship with anyone. (Though they are offering National Federation Consultancy, but who knows in what context they mean that. Better selection for team members or safety issues?)
Another horse dead this weekend.
One more is too many. People ought to get their heads out of the clouds. Disturbing.
kdow, good question.
[QUOTE=BaroquePony;8171400]
Winding Down, you seem to be missing the entire process that has lead up to TPTB finally getting partially off their collective asses to begin collecting SOME, but not enough data.
Insulting many of the people that were involved in pushing for this probably is not the best way to show your enthusiasm for their work.[/QUOTE]
And the entire point of this thread - and many others - but letâs not think anything will come of it. Experience tells us this is likely a vain attempt to save face.
[QUOTE=Manahmanah;8170479]
In response to the response to the bolded
"The people out-gassing on social media about the numbers of rotational falls are NOT the UL riders; itâs the adult-ammie recreational puddle-jumpers who are aghasted by imagining THEIR sweet Dobbin crashing through the air and maybe rendering themselves quadriplegics on the way to the compost heap. "
This is probably due to the fact that the UL riders have actually bothered to look at the FEI safety reports which indicate that BOTH the rate and instance of rotational falls has been steadily decreasing since 2004, with a 0.5% chance in 2004 and a .2% chance now. The steps the FEI is taking to make upper level eventing safer is WORKING. Are we there yet? No. Are we going in the right direction? Yes.
Unfortunately pesky things like facts do not agree with the agenda of the hand-wringers so they are summarily dismissed.[/QUOTE]
WooshâŠ
Somehow Iâm guessing you ride above the Prelim level. Youâve been doing this a âlong timeâ and are one of those who pat us puddle jumpers on the head and say âstop talking child, you bore meâ.
The thing is, I got Lady Eâs thought. I didnât take it literal, I took it that many of us down in the mud only have one dobbin and we really really really hate to think that some mean olâ Course Designer is going to take us out, because they pander to folks like yourself that live for the adrenaline rush. Who seem to feel that if you have not jumped Advanced you really have no value to this sport.
Iâm okay with that as a whole for what ever happens above Prelim is, as Lady E astutely points out, another sport. If yâall want to risk your lives and the lives of your horseâŠyou get no respect from me, but have at it.
Me, I love Eventing for what it really provides, the bond with my horse, the ideal of excelling in horsemanship, and the ability to attempt three different styles of riding in one sport while still waking up the next day with me and my horse still in one piece.
Jeloushe started this whole thread with the question âWhat are we doing?â, but perhaps a different question is âWhat should we do?â. I am all for splitting out the sport between the recreational riders with no specific interest in trying to get to Rolex or the infection that is the Olympics and those the feel a piece of metal and the color of a coat has more value than the value of the horses they ride.
So what exactly will that change? Are you saying LOWER LEVEL eventing is too dangerous? What exactly is the complaint now?
[QUOTE=BaroquePony;8171400]
Winding Down, you seem to be missing the entire process that has lead up to TPTB finally getting partially off their collective asses to begin collecting SOME, but not enough data.
Insulting many of the people that were involved in pushing for this probably is not the best way to show your enthusiasm for their work.[/QUOTE]
The data has been collected for quite some time - she isnât insulting anyone and the people in question donât get to pat themselves on the back and claim responsibility for something thatâs already been taking place. Just because you or they didnât know where to find it doesnât mean it wasnât happening.
Meow.
[QUOTE=goodmorning;8171434]
Another horse dead this weekend.
One more is too many. People ought to get their heads out of the clouds. Disturbing.[/QUOTE]
Iâve long thought their heads are somewhere ELSE, actually . . .
:lol:
Iâm sure that the data that has been collected by TPTB is far more extensive than they have been willing to publish. Iâd like to know who is doing the research to see if there is any correlation between falls and courses, weather in all its manifestations, speed, footing in all its manifestations, type of jump broken down individually and by complex, terrain, distance between elements, height, width, whether offset or not, yada, yada⊠What good is data if no one studies it for cause and correlation to falls? And then ignore the findings. Hell, before 2008, Bristol University (England) did studies on factors that affected horse and rider safety, and one they identified was jumping from water. Do we see a reduction in that type of question? Heck no. Jumping from water has actually increased since 2008, if the number of new water complexes is any indication. Not only has it increased but lower levels are doing it.
What good are such studies, if TPTBs simply ignore them? Or collect data and donât do anything with it except to publish gross statistics that they can make look good.
