Are horse riding competitions completely pointless?

[Flame_]

I was just having a ponder, thinking about how, in racing (mainly thinking about jump racing), the competition is between the horses. Although having a very established, talented jockey on board is a recognized advantage, it is ultimately a test of the best horse.

How, in other disciplines is it assumed that it is a test of the best rider? What is really the difference? In, say, eventing, if a rider comes first and tenth on two different horses, is he or she the best rider, or the tenth best rider? Doesn't that just depend on which of the two horses they are sat on?

Over time it reflects very clearly which riders get consistent good results with many of their horses, like it does with jockeys who get recognition over a season. However, in individual competitions, like in racing, I think a lot comes down to who is sat on the best horse on the day and doesn't f**k it up. I know I'm not making my point particularly clearly, but if anyone can see what I'm getting at, what do you think?

 

[Flame_]

LOL, no replies yet. Either no one understood my rambling at all, you can't be bothered to explain what the difference is, or no one else knows what it is either.

 

[amc]

I think it's a combination of both.....but saying that when I was young, many moons ago, I had my first P-P on an old school master and to be honest I could of sat on him back to front and still have got round safely so ......I don't really know

......not a lot of help am I ?

 

[Onyxia]

Not really.
the best horse cant do it alone,nor can the best rider make an average horse excell at world level.
It's a test of the combination and the truely great riders are he ones who are aboe to get the best out of a varity of horses.

 

[xspiralx]

I think you're right.

I do think that in the majority of horse sports, success comes down very much to the quality of the horse, unless all of the horses are of very similar ability, in which case rider skill comes much more into play.

I mean, I do think that rider skill is influential, but I also think it is true that money can buy success. I know of quite a number of people who are mediocre, or pretty average riders, but whose parents have thrown money at the problem by buying ex Olympic horses, complete schoolmasters that you can moreorless just sit on and kick, that kind of thing, and as a result they are pretty successful, get into teams etc. I do think that tactic can only work so far though, as in once you get up to the very top level, then you will only get consistantly good results on a variety of horses if you are a decent rider. By contrast, a very good rider can get good results on a horse that isn't really quite quality enough, but its certainly a much harder job - its a shame really that in the horse world, money is much more influential than talent.

So yes, I do see what point you're making [I think], and I guess ultimately its never quite a level playing field - but its certainly more satisfying to do well on a horse you've made yourself than having to buy your way to the top. I think its quite funny though that the rider nearly always gets [or takes!] all the credit, when the difference between First and nowhere is usually what they're sitting on!

 

[Flame_]

[ QUOTE ]
I think its quite funny though that the rider nearly always gets [or takes!] all the credit, when the difference between First and nowhere is usually what they're sitting on!

[/ QUOTE ]
Thank you, that was exactly what I was trying to say!

I do appreciate the "partnership" aspect, but surely a partnership is equally important in completing a jump race, the horse couldn't do that on its own, but its the winning horse who is the hero. The rider and trainer get some credit, but secondary to the horse. In all other disciplines the focus seems to be on the competition between riders.

 

[Onyxia]

[ QUOTE ]
In all other disciplines the focus seems to be on the competition between riders.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ahh.
IMO thats a manners issue,there are some riders out there who always say "we" meaning themself,the horse and team behind it all while other hog the glory for themselves alone.
It's wrong to forget the part your human team plays,and disgusting to ignore what your horse has done for you.

 

[Minxie]

If i were onboard my horse then, yup, a competition would be completely pointless.

However my oldest mate has her on loan for the last few years and is doing brilliantly with her at dressage. She's got a brilliant attitude though in that she couldn't care less where she is placed but gets a huge amount of pleasure seeing if she has improved from the previous show. So she really uses them as a litmus test for their own performance regardless of who else is there / competing against. Does that make sense?

 

[xspiralx]

That's why I hate it when presenters say things like "that horse has been a good servant for him." I know that its true in the sense that the horse basically obeys the rider, but in my opinion it demeans the importance of the animal to that of a tool, when it is so much more than that.

 

[gnubee]

IMO, the difference between racing (where I think it is mostly the horse?) and other sports (where I think one could argue for a 50/50 split) is the training.
In horse racing, it is not uncommon for a jockey not to get on the horse until race day, and for someone else to ride it in the next race. All the work on the horse, identifying and working through its problems, is done back home by the trainer, as is identifying which horses are worth the financial and time expenditure to get them competing at a certain level in the first place.
For other disciplines (eventing, dressage, show jumping etc) at the top levels the horses are trained by their riders. It is not a one-off sit on someone else's horse and try to get the best of it, but a consistent behind the scenes effort to identify strengths and weaknesses in the horse and train accordingly. Because of this system, each rider only has limited space/time for horses to train, and they will again be utilising thier own skill in selecting which ones to make the investment in, and which to pass over.
The chances of handing a relative novice Peppermill and them getting him round a course are probably not very different to giving them Hedgehunter and getting him round the national. The difference is then that in racing, when the novice ruined Hedgehunter's confidence his regular lad would be there on the gallops with him again next time out to build him back up again, whereas in the Peppermill situation he doesn't get out of the situation, so would continue to lose confidence and be put at jumps wrong until he was no longer suitable to compete at that level.
You can probably buy yourself success at one non-racing competition, but ultimately the horse is then your responsibility, and that means that you can only continue to be successful at that level if you are good enough for the horse.

 

[Flame_]

Yep, I think I see what you are saying. Competitions are a way of measuring how a horse and rider are progressing together? That's true.

 

[MrsMozart]

[ QUOTE ]
That's why I hate it when presenters say things like "that horse has been a good servant for him." I know that its true in the sense that the horse basically obeys the rider, but in my opinion it demeans the importance of the animal to that of a tool, when it is so much more than that.

[/ QUOTE ]

That really gets my goat too

.

 

[xspiralx]

[ QUOTE ]
You can probably buy yourself success at one non-racing competition, but ultimately the horse is then your responsibility, and that means that you can only continue to be successful at that level if you are good enough for the horse.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is probably the reason that a lot of the people who buy themselves success either go through a hell of a lot of horses, or have someone else school the horse most of the time and only get on for competitions.

 

[1275gta]

IMO racing, jumping, XC needs a partnership, when it comes to showing most of the time it comes down to who's leading or riding, with certain professionals being able to show a donkey and still being placed. Happens at local level

 

[arwenplusone]

[ QUOTE ]
Not really.
the best horse cant do it alone,nor can the best rider make an average horse excell at world level.
It's a test of the combination and the truely great riders are he ones who are aboe to get the best out of a varity of horses.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this, 100%.

It winds me up a bit when I hear people going on about top riders & how it is only money and the right horse that has got them there. It isn't only that - there is STILL a degree of talent & hard work on the riders part.

But by the same token, I know some thoroughly brilliant riders who don't have the right horse power and could be in the GB top 10 - if they had the money.

However, IMO the combination is everything. Take Meredith & Shutterfly for example. Not everyone could ride him to the top.