Menu

Stay in Touch
Sign up for ENews
Subscribe Now

Unlimited access >

Menu

WTF Are We Doing?

Eventing
#441

Posted by Lady Eboshi:

I evented a horse that some people considered a tough ride–because he WOULD stop or run out if you let him–for seven years. I interpreted his “chicken” streak differently: If he either didn’t understand the question, or didn’t think you were serious, he’d STOP rather than make a mistake and crash or flip. His self-preservation instinct very often also took care of ME, and I’ll take that kind of “dishonesty” ANY DAY over what they tried to sell me when he aged out; a TB mare who would happily have thrown herself off an open drawbridge had you asked. Nothing but air between her ears, and I declined to buy her. Honest to a fault, but she was ALSO the kind that can get an imperfect rider killed. And damn, I KNOW I’m “imperfect!”

I don’t really think of that first horse type as a “dishonest” horse. Less than enthusiastic is still “honest”. And I don’t like stupid horses (second horse type) … too frustrating.

To me a “dishonest” horse is one who takes advantage of a tricky situation and dumps you and leaves town … or comes back and tries to stomp you after he dumps you (or me in this case on a ruined auction type horse).

#442

[QUOTE=JP60;8172994]
jealoushe,

I think I’ve seen the future and it may solve all your issues for upper level riders. Check this out

https://youtu.be/_luhn7TLfWU

The future of Professional Eventing. Now there is no worry about the horse and given many of the responses on this thread, rider safety is optional … since they know the risk and choose to go anyway. When you think about it, this is the natural progression for even if the jumper breaks, it just gets replaced before the next go. Granted, the gait is different, but a mod could be built into get that galloping feeling. Now training is just an upload away.

The vehicle will need some training, it looks like maybe starter level for now, but I figure they can push it up the levels pretty quick to get it ready for some real Eventing. Once established, the Pro circuit will take off with their wonder machines, jumping impossible trappy questions with fearless joy while us puddle jumpers continue with our inefficient, always eating and pooping animals, running around our same old boring courses full of logs log and more logs…and happy.

Breeders of top of the line 4* equines may need to either learn how to be mechanics or consider breeding for those who still love the bond of a horse or can’t afford the perfect 4* jumper.

FEI will love this machine for they can finally remove the words from their charter they have been paying lip service to for a number of years; that being “the welfare of the horse”.[/QUOTE]

But is there a place for a sponsors logo? :smiley:

Even if phase A and C, or just one were reintroduced - it would make a huge difference in the outcome. It would make a difference in the horses, the riding, the fitness, and understanding of how the horse is feeling.

#443

Can it bend through the circle? Looks a bit stiff.

#444

Theoretically speaking:

Is there a obstacle height at which there is no chance of it causing a horse to rotate?

Start with an isolated vertical obstacle. Anything higher than the carpal joint could trap the knee if the foot is at the base of the vertical at take off.

Forcing the take off point away from the vertical with ground lines will increase the theoretical height of the rotation-proof obstacle.

#445

Along those lines-- I always thought that the jumps-- with a slant or stacked front on a jump would decreased rotations–just on the unproven theory that the slant or distance from the base to the apex- would give a horse hanging a leg- that few extra seconds to get it up before hitting the top/ape,. But perhaps for a rotational there is such a large significant “miss” that would not make a difference?

Apologizes if this has been answered but has there been a raw data break down on type of fences where falls have occurred? (That is assuming you can categorize them.)

#446

Posted by CSU92:

Theoretically speaking:

Is there a obstacle height at which there is no chance of it causing a horse to rotate?

Start with an isolated vertical obstacle. Anything higher than the carpal joint could trap the knee if the foot is at the base of the vertical at take off.

Forcing the take off point away from the vertical with ground lines will increase the theoretical height of the rotation-proof obstacle.

I think Gnep could answer this question. He was doing math / engineering equations and building some serious experimental jumps … he’s an engineer and an Advanced Event Rider. And I think Ray Ayers was helping him with speed and impact issues.

#447

[QUOTE=BaroquePony;8173060]
Can it bend through the circle? Looks a bit stiff.[/QUOTE]
Reading more, there considerations to making a more flexible spine. Don’t think its any more stiff then my attempt at bending my horse :lol:

#448

Oh dear.

#449

Hope links work–the study i think to which Viney was referring.
As to falls generally --this reports horses are injured in 32 % of the falls.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090023305001310

Risk factors for cross-country horse falls at one-day events and at two-/three-day events J.K. Murraya, , , E.R. Singerb, K.L. Morgana, C.J. Proudmanb, N.P. Frenchc

#450

[QUOTE=Jealoushe;8173049]
But is there a place for a sponsors logo? :smiley:

Even if phase A and C, or just one were reintroduced - it would make a huge difference in the outcome. It would make a difference in the horses, the riding, the fitness, and understanding of how the horse is feeling.[/QUOTE]
Even better you can wrap the whole thing in a logo :lol:

There are rather simple things that could be done tomorrow if this sport was not submissive to the FEI and it’s goal of making Eventing a spectator sport.

1 - Length the courses to require more fitness for both rider and horse. at a typical 540 mpm (at the top) we are looking at adding 1, maybe two minutes for a total distance added of 1400 meters. Somehow that could be found at most top venues. Add one minute to BN, extra 350 meters, N - 425 and so on. To go with your thought, Run a Phase A around the edge of the venue, even if it is multiple rounds it puts the emphasis on fitness.
2 - (Obviously for upper levels) reduce the technical and trappy questions appearing in the upper levels. If the OT is based on 540 mpm than build courses that reflect a narrower range of speed adjustments instead of going from 300 to 800 on the same course. Allow teams to get into a good rhythm for longer periods so then maybe we can do the next which is…
3 - Get rid of the watch. By the time a team gets to the top they should be able to know the basic pace of the horse they are riding. make time faults for both above and below OT so that the idea is to come close to OT which requires a smoother ride. From 1* on, remove the watch.

Now you have put Dressage back in its place as part of the score, not the whole score.

Y’all are going to bounce around this whole “study” issue till it has no shape any more. There are no good studies, there are no good statistical databases currently, and while something could be created (ha), by the time data has been collected enough to make determinations, you will have condemned more horses, more riders to injury or death.

Those three suggestions could reduce risk (not completely), challenge a team, and make the sport balance between roots and modern realities while keeping it fun.

It would never happen, because many top riders, and some on this forum feel their ego is compromised if the sport is not extreme. They put it out there for [fill in the blank] years and don’t see a problem with the sport. I say one more time, the horse does not give a crap about anything but it’s next meal and not getting eaten. It does not care if the jumps are smaller, the course longer, or what color ribbon is hung on its head. Why should we? This sport exists solely (and pardon the pun) on the back of the horse. Without said horse we cannot Event so the questions that should be right up front is “Who are we doing this for, my ego or the horse’s welfare?”

I know I take part in this sport, because it is a sport that brings out the best in a horse, the best in a rider, and the joy of working together. I’d rather we as a whole accepted taking a small step back first than keep taking time to watch more get seriously hurt.

#451

[QUOTE=JP60;8173514]
Even better you can wrap the whole thing in a logo :lol:

There are rather simple things that could be done tomorrow if this sport was not submissive to the FEI and it’s goal of making Eventing a spectator sport.

1 - Length the courses to require more fitness for both rider and horse. at a typical 540 mpm (at the top) we are looking at adding 1, maybe two minutes for a total distance added of 1400 meters. Somehow that could be found at most top venues. Add one minute to BN, extra 350 meters, N - 425 and so on. To go with your thought, Run a Phase A around the edge of the venue, even if it is multiple rounds it puts the emphasis on fitness.
2 - (Obviously for upper levels) reduce the technical and trappy questions appearing in the upper levels. If the OT is based on 540 mpm than build courses that reflect a narrower range of speed adjustments instead of going from 300 to 800 on the same course. Allow teams to get into a good rhythm for longer periods so then maybe we can do the next which is…
3 - Get rid of the watch. By the time a team gets to the top they should be able to know the basic pace of the horse they are riding. make time faults for both above and below OT so that the idea is to come close to OT which requires a smoother ride. From 1* on, remove the watch.

Now you have put Dressage back in its place as part of the score, not the whole score.

Y’all are going to bounce around this whole “study” issue till it has no shape any more. There are no good studies, there are no good statistical databases currently, and while something could be created (ha), by the time data has been collected enough to make determinations, you will have condemned more horses, more riders to injury or death.

Those three suggestions could reduce risk (not completely), challenge a team, and make the sport balance between roots and modern realities while keeping it fun.

It would never happen, because many top riders, and some on this forum feel their ego is compromised if the sport is not extreme. They put it out there for [fill in the blank] years and don’t see a problem with the sport. I say one more time, the horse does not give a crap about anything but it’s next meal and not getting eaten. It does not care if the jumps are smaller, the course longer, or what color ribbon is hung on its head. Why should we? This sport exists solely (and pardon the pun) on the back of the horse. Without said horse we cannot Event so the questions that should be right up front is “Who are we doing this for, my ego or the horse’s welfare?”

I know I take part in this sport, because it is a sport that brings out the best in a horse, the best in a rider, and the joy of working together. I’d rather we as a whole accepted taking a small step back first than keep taking time to watch more get seriously hurt.[/QUOTE]

HEAR! HEAR! Seconded^.

#452

Could someone with academic access download these two studies and post the important stuff here? And/or be willing to send me copies?

omare found this one:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...90023305001310
From the abstract, I do believe that it was the study that made such an impression me and seems to be evidence that such studies are not only possible but potentially very helpful.

Here’s another study on the same topic with slightly different authors:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2746/042516403776114180/abstract

2008 Horsetalk.nz discussion of Dr. Singer’s work.
http://www.horsetalk.co.nz/news/2008/12/028.shtml

Here’s a link to on online discussion of the 2003 study.
http://www.livinglegends.org.au/horse-health/horse-management/falls-in-horse-trials-and-three-day-eventing/

The last study was done in 2006 (they did about five). Abstract is here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16536386

RESULTS:

An increased risk of a horse fall was associated with jumping into or out of water; taking off from good-to-soft, soft or heavy ground; fences with a drop landing; nonangled fences with a spread > or =2 m; and angled fences. Other risk factors included riders who knew that they were in the lead within the competition before the cross-country phase; an inappropriate speed of approach to the fence (too fast or too slow); horse-and-rider partnerships that had not incurred refusals at earlier fences; and riders who received cross-country tuition.
CONCLUSIONS:

This study has identified modifiable course- and fence-level risk factors for horse falls during the cross-country phase of eventing competitions. The risk of horse and rider injury at eventing competitions should be reduced by 3 simple measures; maintaining good to firm take-off surfaces at fences, reducing the base spread of fences to <2 m and reducing the use of fences at which horses are required to jump into or out of water. Risk reduction arising from course and fence modification needs to be confirmed by intervention studies.

Did anyone listen?

#453

This is like herding cats.

#454

I did a research study in 2009 looking at fence shape in relation to approach speed and take-off distance. I asked event riders to canter into a 1m tall vertical and a 1m square oxer at three different speeds (<350mpm, 350-400mpm, and >400mpm) and measured their actual speed, take-off distance to base, and trajectory. While I had fewer than 30 subjects, I found that 1) riders could not accurately gauge their approach speed (mostly too fast); 2) take-off trajectories decreased (got more shallow) as speed increased, which was expected; and 3) take-off distance to the jump base DECREASED as speed increased, which is a recipe for hitting the jump. Afterwards, I was approached by the safety committee to share my results with them, and did, but never received any feedback from them. On the other hand, both the European Society for Biomechanics and the European College of Sport Science invited me to present at conferences to share the data with their membership.

Studies can be done, and I’d love to see some of my membership dollars or starter fees go that direction. :slight_smile:

#455

lecoeurtriste, wouldn’t it be correct to say that if riders can’t accurately judge their speed, they also can’t accurately judge distance? Did they tend to err on the side of faster or slower?

#456

I’m happy just to get over the jump.

#457

lecoeurtriste, thank you for posting and doing the study in the first place.

#458

[QUOTE=JP60;8173514]
Even better you can wrap the whole thing in a logo :lol:

There are rather simple things that could be done tomorrow if this sport was not submissive to the FEI and it’s goal of making Eventing a spectator sport.[/QUOTE]

The thing is, with the improvements in technology that we have with things like drones and inexpensive GOOD cameras and the availability of large high quality screens, there’s no reason why you need to shove all of Eventing into an arena to make it into a spectator event. Have a good plan for filming and a good live sports director to piece things together, and then install screens in sensible places (including in the vendor areas, to encourage people to shop while they watch, which always makes people happy and gives sponsors a chance to get more foot traffic to their tents) and have seating/viewing around interesting areas like people usually cluster now, at the water complexes and so on.

If you did that plus made it safer so people would stop being afraid to watch lest they see a horrible accident, I imagine you’d get quite decent viewing numbers.

#459

[QUOTE=vineyridge;8174082]
lecoeurtriste, wouldn’t it be correct to say that if riders can’t accurately judge their speed, they also can’t accurately judge distance? Did they tend to err on the side of faster or slower?[/QUOTE]

In theory, I agree with that first observation, but more anecdotally than cause/effect at this point…I needed a much larger sample for better statistical power (but my IRB was already having kittens at the thought of potential injuries!). I think a lot of people don’t understand that jumping something with width requires greater trajectory (for the same take off distance) as the same height vertical…the horse must be able to transition enough horizontal impulse into vertical lift without losing the horizontal completely (to span the distance). Riders need to take that into account when determining take-off distance and speed (or course designers can by softening/defining ground lines better to move the eye ‘back’). Riding to the base is my personal mantra, but it doesn’t mean getting all the way to the bottom 2x8…some riders in the study were less than 70cm from the front rail of a 1m x 1m oxer, and that’s too close (and yes, I used a ground line, but it was directly under the front rail).

And to answer your second question, they were all over the place! A few pairs were under 250mpm and thought they were going 350mpm (and others at 500mpm vs 400mpm). The only statistical difference was that less experience riders and more experienced horses tended to be faster (YRs on older ** and *** horses).

#460

[QUOTE=lecoeurtriste;8174064]
I did a research study in 2009 looking at fence shape in relation to approach speed and take-off distance. I asked event riders to canter into a 1m tall vertical and a 1m square oxer at three different speeds (<350mpm, 350-400mpm, and >400mpm) and measured their actual speed, take-off distance to base, and trajectory. While I had fewer than 30 subjects, I found that 1) riders could not accurately gauge their approach speed (mostly too fast); 2) take-off trajectories decreased (got more shallow) as speed increased, which was expected; and 3) take-off distance to the jump base DECREASED as speed increased, which is a recipe for hitting the jump. Afterwards, I was approached by the safety committee to share my results with them, and did, but never received any feedback from them. On the other hand, both the European Society for Biomechanics and the European College of Sport Science invited me to present at conferences to share the data with their membership.

Studies can be done, and I’d love to see some of my membership dollars or starter fees go that direction. :-)[/QUOTE]

Thank you for sharing this!!

And yet instead of making speed/endurance/time more important, we just make the jogs deformable or fall down.

Get your Digital Subscription here - only $29.99 / year

Subscribe here
See gift options

Sign up to our monthly newsletter!

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.

Copyright © 2023 The Chronicle of the Horse