BE Course Descriptions how do you find them?

A

alwaysbroke

Well-Known Member
Joined
6 July 2008
Messages
4,561
Visit site
Do you find the course descriptions given by the event organisers, useful?
Is there enough information given to help you decide where to run, or do you find the reports on this site more helpful?
I have been looking at the new fixture list and think that my entries will probably be influnced by what I read on this forum this year.l
 
I have to say what I read on here is always influential. I'm also an EWW member which has proved invaluable in choosing! I chose my 14.1's first two events with the help of people on here, and was pleased to find it all how I expected it - not as much Gt Witchingham I have to say, people forgot to mention how beefy it was!!
 
Most are very unuseful and sometimes completely untrue IMO.
I go by what friends have either said but its mainly down to whats within travelling distance that does it ( from down in Devon)
What I do like is when they tell you the about the dressage and sj and the warm-up areas. Also type of soil is usefull as reflects ground conditions
 
I would take issue with Rolleston last year which was billed as 're-built and suitable for the first-timer' (at Int and Adv). The report in H&H quoted two pro's who said the Int was trickier than the Adv.

Generally I either know the course from previous visits or come on here or EWW. I don't tend to trust the schedule!
 
Not sure I would agree with all of them, in particular Draycott and thier ground prep, they claim to have more equipment than some 4*'s to keep the course in good condition, didn't seem to work very well this year, has put me off entering it next season, particullary with the increased entry fees.
 
Completely agree bennsboy, Draycott is off my list too I think
frown.gif


I work on friends recommendations and try to research as many as possible throughout the years!!
tongue.gif
 
I ask my instructor, where I have been before, how local they are, if they are a central JRN (for my sis). But after Stonar this year in my opinion you cant relay on what they were the year before - I thought it would be a good early novice, but no it was completely changed from the year before....
 
I don't think they are usefull at all. I think they could give a bit more detail TBH. Just go on where I've been and what people on here say really.
smile.gif
 
TBH last year (my first year BEing) was hit and miss - i asked a lot of people on here for advice and went with what the schedules said. However theres no way some of the events I did were at all suitable for first timers!
However, now i've been to these events and others while i've been reporting for the magazine, I know which ones to choose and have expanded into a couple of unknown ones. I also now know which ones to go PN and which to stick to intro. If its a new venue this year im tending to stick to intro to try out the track as this year for me is all about gaining Rocks confidence.
 
Eventing magazine do descriptions of each event before the season starts. It is in the Jan and Feb issues I think with the first half of the season one month and the second half the second month. Each event has a write up and covers lots of info., good and bad points, and gives actual opinions of the event, as well as % of xc clears in each class which is really handy. I've always found these pretty accurate.
 
Agree with AnShanDan, the Eventing Mag ones are the best (I think its the Feb and March issues FWIW), good unbiased opinions from more than one pro (sometimes they contradict each other!) about dr and sj as well as xc, and the % of xc clears is a real good indicator too. Agree with everybody the organisers' own descriptions are pretty much useless, only if they say it is designed to be testing believe them
shocked.gif
 
I think the ones in the Eventing mag are good and EWW are fabulous especially with the pics (some taken by me!!) but find that all the BE ones without doubt say "huge effort will be made to the going, courses of the level with easier alternatives" fat lot of use that is!
 
I think the course descriptions are a bit useless, on the whole.
A few give a bit more detail than the bog-standard 'suitable for first timers, plenty of alternatives' etc etc, but even then it's not much to go on really.

Like others I do my research on here, EWW, people I know who've been, but courses change from year to year and I really don't think it's too much to ask for a FAR more accurate course description - listing the jumps people typically find tricky for example, what the water involves, how long it is, that kind of thing. After all, they only have to do it once per event and thousands of people will read it and make use of it.

It works both ways - at the end of last season I went to a really disappointing event which was very short and had no water at all. Despite the fact that some mention if they have no water in their course 'description' this one didn't
mad.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top