Are the different show classes getting blurred?

[zoeshiloh]

I was wondering this last year as I stood at a big championship show and watched the hacks, which to me looked like nice riding horses, and then the riding horses, which looked more like hunters. Now, when it comes to ridden showing I admit to not knowing a lot, but it seems that the differences between the classes are gettng more and more blurry. I was recently in the presence of a top international judge at a training day (not a show) I was just spectating, but a participant asked him "what classes should I enter". The judge replied "lightweight hunter, although he could also be a middleweight at some shows. Riding horse classes, and sporthorse classes. Also do some workers." Now, how can that one horse be the right type for five different classes (we are talking county level here)?

This year I was watching a hack class, and the horses seem to have grown in size (bone/weight) again. I always thought of a hack to be a dainty thoroughbred, or something with a bit or arab blood, but it seems more and more warmbloods etc are creeping in. Now don't get me wrong, I have absolutely nothing against warmbloods, but do they fit the traditional hack type (Volatis please don't murder me!!)? I will be the first to amit I don't know what a hack is judged on, having never competed in a hack class, but it just seems that when I look at pictures from ten years ago, and look at pictures from this year, those that are hacks today, should have been riding horses ten years ago, and the hacks from ten years ago would now be classed as show ponies. Am I the only one who has noticed the edges of these classes becoming blurred, or is it really happening (and I'm not mad)?

 

[humblepie]

I think type has changed to some extent as you have said, though there has always been bit of a blur between the sections depending on how the horse is prepared and how he goes. There are still a lot of hacks that are thoroughbreds and quite a few of the top hacks are ex racehorses.

 

[FMM]

To add something else into the equation.
The categories were defined MANY years ago - showing has been around for 100 years and more.
let's look at hacks - When hacks were first decreed to be a certain height (no idea when the heights were first brought in), people were smaller and lighter than they are now. I am 5'6 and aged 46 years old. When I was at school I was one of the tallest people in the school. Many children now tower over me.
So trying to find a horse suitable for adults that is around the 15hh mark is very difficult. Not only is this type of horse not really being bred as there is no real job apart from showing, but many adults don't look right on this small type of horse. So with less small horses being bred, obviously the type is more difficult to find.
Another point
Riding horses were introduced to fill the gap for horses that were not hacks and not hunters. Some horses, if they go over height for the hacks, just move into the riding horse category - as height takes precedence over type. Is that right? Well, not a lot of choice if you have a 16hh finer TB type.
Cobs - interesting, with the introduction of maxis, there were many people who felt that type would be lost and the biggest maxis would always win. This has absolutely not happened, and the maxis doing well are those which are very typey cobs (most of which have gone overheight by a centimetre or two) rather than 17hh hunter types.
So there will ALWAYS be a blur between the hacks and riding horses and riding horses and hunters. There is even a blur between small hunters and cobs.

So height seems to be the main problem. If you have a hunter, there are no height restrictions - LW, MW and HW - of any height providing the horse is typey. The exception is the small hunter which is 15.2 max.

Should this be carried over to other adult showing classes? Is type irrevocably bound up with height? Not for the hunters it seems.

I don't know the answer, but it is something that I do think about when watching classes!