StaceyTanglewood
Well-Known Member
I guess im not looking at it the same as others both years i have gone both my foals have gained good First Premium scores and reflected that this years foal was much better than last years !!
BEF Futurity Premiums
- Thread starter puc
- Start date
charliebo
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
(iii) animals will only be allowed to enter one discipline and one venue (can be transferred to another due to an unforseen no show in the normal way of course) but if the evaluators feel that this is the incorrect one they will suggest to the owner that it is moved (not complusory to follow this advice but probably a good idea as those that have done this in the past will verify
)
[/ QUOTE ]
I think this is a very good move
(iii) animals will only be allowed to enter one discipline and one venue (can be transferred to another due to an unforseen no show in the normal way of course) but if the evaluators feel that this is the incorrect one they will suggest to the owner that it is moved (not complusory to follow this advice but probably a good idea as those that have done this in the past will verify
) [/ QUOTE ]
I think this is a very good move
clair
Well-Known Member
I dont very often comment on threads but feel in this case that i need to, i presented two fillies at arena UK, both were given second preimiums on scores of 7.96.........on the flip side of the coin one was vetted at a straight 9.....HIGHER than some elite horses and many of the firsts and one of the best vet scores of the day........the other filly if not for foot balance which was off due to farrier attendance, he'd had to cancel 2 appointments...grrrr... would have scored 8.75, she was scored a little lower .........the point is we are breeding good correct stock....Jane Nixon couldn't praise me enough.......
I've come away knowing that i need to elevate my babies. But was told by many spectators that my yearling had the best trot they'd seen presented that day.
What I'm trying to say is that although we came away with seconds it doesn't make my horses crap.....the vet score tell us that, what it does do though is make us look at how we improve what we have at least we have a good foundation to be building on.
I have to say some of what went through on first preiums I would love to have seen the vet scores on as some were shocking!!!
I've come away knowing that i need to elevate my babies. But was told by many spectators that my yearling had the best trot they'd seen presented that day.
What I'm trying to say is that although we came away with seconds it doesn't make my horses crap.....the vet score tell us that, what it does do though is make us look at how we improve what we have at least we have a good foundation to be building on.
I have to say some of what went through on first preiums I would love to have seen the vet scores on as some were shocking!!!
_jetset_
Well-Known Member
What is the benefit of each animal only being able to enter one discipline?
Stallions can be graded as dual discipline so how would a singular discipline aid the BEF?
I have always done the two disciplines which are of interest to me and that my horse was bred to ho (his sire has both jumping and dressage line). I have taken him since he was a yearling (and he has gained 1st Premiums and the highest score for his age across the discipline on both occasions), and the plan was to do the same 2010 as a three year old.
I have to say, reducing it to just one has really put me off attending in 2010. I planned to bring both my 3 year old and a foal to the evaluation, but after spending the money to put him through both for two years for a reason I now find it disapppointing that next year I would have to choose. I value the judge's evaluation of him and it gives me things we need to work on. I do not know what career he will end up having, and as I intended to breed from the mare in the future the results and comments are important to me.
Stallions can be graded as dual discipline so how would a singular discipline aid the BEF?
I have always done the two disciplines which are of interest to me and that my horse was bred to ho (his sire has both jumping and dressage line). I have taken him since he was a yearling (and he has gained 1st Premiums and the highest score for his age across the discipline on both occasions), and the plan was to do the same 2010 as a three year old.
I have to say, reducing it to just one has really put me off attending in 2010. I planned to bring both my 3 year old and a foal to the evaluation, but after spending the money to put him through both for two years for a reason I now find it disapppointing that next year I would have to choose. I value the judge's evaluation of him and it gives me things we need to work on. I do not know what career he will end up having, and as I intended to breed from the mare in the future the results and comments are important to me.
millitiger
Well-Known Member
i suppose they are limiting to one discipline because they are meant to be looking for the cream of the crop in each sport.
it is hugely unlikely that a horse with the movement for GP dressage will have the gallop of a 4**** eventer etc and i think they are trying to improve the breeding for specific disciplines rather than nice alrounders.
obviously don't know if the above is the correct reason, just my view.
it is hugely unlikely that a horse with the movement for GP dressage will have the gallop of a 4**** eventer etc and i think they are trying to improve the breeding for specific disciplines rather than nice alrounders.
obviously don't know if the above is the correct reason, just my view.
ESH_Jess
Well-Known Member
I think they are trying to encourage people to breed for a discipline. A lot of well put together sports horses will be good athletes and have an ability to do most things (to a certain level) anyway so i don't think it is an issue.
Amelia27
Well-Known Member
I agree that things should be tightened up a lot. I know some people who's 3 yr old colts scored incredibly well in the BEF evaluations but then when put forward for grading didn't come up to scratch. Owners were left bemused wondering why one vet would give their horse 9/10 and a few weeks later another vet is slating the horse's conformation.
But I absolutely love the idea of the futurities and think it's a very positive thing for British breeding
But I absolutely love the idea of the futurities and think it's a very positive thing for British breeding
jamesmead
Well-Known Member
I too think that futurities are a great idea. I am (as of next year) returning to breeding after a break so no opportunities yet to present stock at a futurity; however, I am interested both for the future and for the present in terms of learning what is wanted and in slecting breeding stock.
Perhaps this is risky or a misuse of the Futurity as I understand it is about the animals themselves viewed as potential competition horses; not about their background breeding.
Am I right in thinking that the animals forward are evaluated in their own right, on their own strengths and weaknesses?
If so, this concerns me.
[ QUOTE ]
(v) sports ponies will be expected (not required) to have at least one parent of 148 cm or less as well as being expected / projected to mature at 148 cm or less with evaluators being given general guidelines on how this is indicated according to age/breeding etc
[/ QUOTE ]
This will affect me as I am particularly looking to breed up-to-height teenage eventing ponies / jumping ponies and at the 14.2 mark it becomes difficult to predict whether you are going to get a small horse or a big pony. I have previously (accidentally) bred a 14.2.hh pony from a 16.1 mare covered by a 15.1hh stallion. (I was hoping for nearer 16hh in this instance).
Viewed as breeding stock and not for her own competitive worth it would be reasonable to judge this pony in terms of her larger forbears; yet viewed as a competition prospect in her own right, she was clearly a pony; her ancestors' height was irrelevant.
If I presented this pony as a youngster today, what would happen.
She would fully meet the requirements of entry. In terms of height (and competitive future) she was a pony.
She would correspondingly NOT meet the requirements of entry as a horse.
She would certainly NOT comply with the evaluator's expectations; not only were her parents not ponies but a perusal of her pedigree would show that she came from a long line of horses on both sides; NO ponies.
Any judgement of her pedigree, rather than a judgement of the animal itself, suggests that the futurity is not doing as it claims in terms of judging the animal in front of it. I am not saying this is necessarily wrong- but its not what is on the packet.
Add to this that there is no clear line of action; what do the evaluators do in such an instance? Publicly de-frock a Pseudo pony whilst simultaneously handing it an award? I feel this is a nasty woolly inclusion and bound to cause trouble for people like myself, aiming for the larger pony; even more so for people who produce one accidentally.
I also feel that this would increase the temptation to use animals of disparate size; one horse parent, one pony parent; to produce a foal that meets the evaluators expectations; there is huge debate over whether this is desireable; I would not wish to do it personally and in itself it produces animals that may breed unevenly, making the likelihood of height "misfits" all the greater in the future.
Perhaps this is risky or a misuse of the Futurity as I understand it is about the animals themselves viewed as potential competition horses; not about their background breeding.
Am I right in thinking that the animals forward are evaluated in their own right, on their own strengths and weaknesses?
If so, this concerns me.
[ QUOTE ]
(v) sports ponies will be expected (not required) to have at least one parent of 148 cm or less as well as being expected / projected to mature at 148 cm or less with evaluators being given general guidelines on how this is indicated according to age/breeding etc
[/ QUOTE ]
This will affect me as I am particularly looking to breed up-to-height teenage eventing ponies / jumping ponies and at the 14.2 mark it becomes difficult to predict whether you are going to get a small horse or a big pony. I have previously (accidentally) bred a 14.2.hh pony from a 16.1 mare covered by a 15.1hh stallion. (I was hoping for nearer 16hh in this instance).
Viewed as breeding stock and not for her own competitive worth it would be reasonable to judge this pony in terms of her larger forbears; yet viewed as a competition prospect in her own right, she was clearly a pony; her ancestors' height was irrelevant.
If I presented this pony as a youngster today, what would happen.
She would fully meet the requirements of entry. In terms of height (and competitive future) she was a pony.
She would correspondingly NOT meet the requirements of entry as a horse.
She would certainly NOT comply with the evaluator's expectations; not only were her parents not ponies but a perusal of her pedigree would show that she came from a long line of horses on both sides; NO ponies.
Any judgement of her pedigree, rather than a judgement of the animal itself, suggests that the futurity is not doing as it claims in terms of judging the animal in front of it. I am not saying this is necessarily wrong- but its not what is on the packet.
Add to this that there is no clear line of action; what do the evaluators do in such an instance? Publicly de-frock a Pseudo pony whilst simultaneously handing it an award? I feel this is a nasty woolly inclusion and bound to cause trouble for people like myself, aiming for the larger pony; even more so for people who produce one accidentally.
I also feel that this would increase the temptation to use animals of disparate size; one horse parent, one pony parent; to produce a foal that meets the evaluators expectations; there is huge debate over whether this is desireable; I would not wish to do it personally and in itself it produces animals that may breed unevenly, making the likelihood of height "misfits" all the greater in the future.
treena
Well-Known Member
the bef only grades the horses/ponies/foals &youngstock on there "POTENTIAL". so just cos your animal comes out with a first or elite premium, does not make it a top class horse. only a potential first class horse. what you missed is that these first and elite horses, given the top class training and nurturing, could potentially be international horses. the small number of horse that end up in the hands of professionals get the very best in education and training.... and thats whats makes them top horses. the bef only serves to give us a view into there potential.... there are no guarantees
Carsmore
Well-Known Member
I have the same concerns with this issue having "accidentally" bred a sportspony. When I asked about this at SPPS grading last month i was told, quite rightly so, that horses take longer to reach their adult height while ponies mature quicker. However, does this mean that a foal with both parents at 14.2 will mature quicker than one with 15hh parents? I can understand the difference with 13.2s and 16.2s but surely theres a bit of a grey area with the up to height ones?
This is the 1st time Ive done anything like this so its been a learning curve for me. I entered my pony originally in the eventer and showjumping sections. As I couldnt decide which one she fitted better. Even though its very likely that she will be an up to height pony. I took her primarly too see what they thought of her and to check that I wasnt just looking at her with rose tinted glasses I was changed on the advice of the evaluators to Sportspony. They evaluated her in both disciplines. she scored elite in both but kept one "for reference only" Had I known more about the proceedure I would have entered her as Sportspony to start with but as I say, its a learning curve.
I was wondering if the evaluators had to know the height of both parents and if this would result in the pony/horse being scored differently?
This is the 1st time Ive done anything like this so its been a learning curve for me. I entered my pony originally in the eventer and showjumping sections. As I couldnt decide which one she fitted better. Even though its very likely that she will be an up to height pony. I took her primarly too see what they thought of her and to check that I wasnt just looking at her with rose tinted glasses I was changed on the advice of the evaluators to Sportspony. They evaluated her in both disciplines. she scored elite in both but kept one "for reference only" Had I known more about the proceedure I would have entered her as Sportspony to start with but as I say, its a learning curve.
I was wondering if the evaluators had to know the height of both parents and if this would result in the pony/horse being scored differently?
puc
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
the bef only grades the horses/ponies/foals &youngstock on there "POTENTIAL". so just cos your animal comes out with a first or elite premium, does not make it a top class horse. only a potential first class horse. what you missed is that these first and elite horses, given the top class training and nurturing, could potentially be international horses. the small number of horse that end up in the hands of professionals get the very best in education and training.... and thats whats makes them top horses. the bef only serves to give us a view into there potential.... there are no guarantees
[/ QUOTE ]
I think you are missing my point a little bit as i agree totally with the producing and potential not guaranteed etc etc but i don't think at present that 1st premium animals are all 'potential' international horses -i'm not even sure that a lot of the ones being classes as elite are either. And i'm not knocking them because the % of horses needed for that level is so small but i think we need to be realistic about what they are in order to improve to a standard where we are producing more potential international horses as although there is only a small % of riders needing these horses there there is a lack of them being breed in the uk and they need to be available if people are to buy here.
the bef only grades the horses/ponies/foals &youngstock on there "POTENTIAL". so just cos your animal comes out with a first or elite premium, does not make it a top class horse. only a potential first class horse. what you missed is that these first and elite horses, given the top class training and nurturing, could potentially be international horses. the small number of horse that end up in the hands of professionals get the very best in education and training.... and thats whats makes them top horses. the bef only serves to give us a view into there potential.... there are no guarantees
[/ QUOTE ]
I think you are missing my point a little bit as i agree totally with the producing and potential not guaranteed etc etc but i don't think at present that 1st premium animals are all 'potential' international horses -i'm not even sure that a lot of the ones being classes as elite are either. And i'm not knocking them because the % of horses needed for that level is so small but i think we need to be realistic about what they are in order to improve to a standard where we are producing more potential international horses as although there is only a small % of riders needing these horses there there is a lack of them being breed in the uk and they need to be available if people are to buy here.
Ciss
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
What is the benefit of each animal only being able to enter one discipline?
[/ QUOTE ]
Because the cirteria of each discipline are quite clearly explained in the Fact sheets it should be relatively easy to identify which one an animal is most likely to be best at (based on not only the conformational, athleticism and paces specified but also on the bloodlines / performance record of its ancestors, both immediate and more historical). In a genuine case where it is really hard to decide the evaluators will almost certainly be able to take a more detached view than the owner / breeder and give guidance if the animal has been entered in a section that is not as suited to its merits as another one would be.
From an admin point of view it does actually take almost twice as long to assess for two disciplines as it does for one becuase the marks and comments are usually different so -- bearing in mind the time pressure this extra evaluation takes -- it is far more productive for all concerned for the animal to be assessed for its best discipline, and if this is not the one that the owner originally thought it was then the reasons for this are explained when asking them if they would like to transfer.
[ QUOTE ]
Stallions can be graded as dual discipline so how would a singular discipline aid the BEF?
[/ QUOTE ]
I am not quite sure what you mean here. If you mean that stallions are required to both loose jump and loose school that is correct, but stallions from jumping lines are expected to perform much better over a fence (including both scope and shape) than a dressage one, whilst trot is not really an issue in a showjumper (whereas canter certainly is) and three good paces are an essential requirement for a dressage stallion. In fact, in many of the top studbooks the special 'jumping' sections of the studbook are now moving further and further away from the dressage section and apart from the need for some dressage lines to add more knee bend by use of Holstein jumping lines (which is why Flemmingh is so successful as a sire of dressage horses) such a cross over is becoming less and less popular and the 'dual purpose' stallion a not particulary sort after commodity in many top studbook listings.
What is the benefit of each animal only being able to enter one discipline?
[/ QUOTE ]
Because the cirteria of each discipline are quite clearly explained in the Fact sheets it should be relatively easy to identify which one an animal is most likely to be best at (based on not only the conformational, athleticism and paces specified but also on the bloodlines / performance record of its ancestors, both immediate and more historical). In a genuine case where it is really hard to decide the evaluators will almost certainly be able to take a more detached view than the owner / breeder and give guidance if the animal has been entered in a section that is not as suited to its merits as another one would be.
From an admin point of view it does actually take almost twice as long to assess for two disciplines as it does for one becuase the marks and comments are usually different so -- bearing in mind the time pressure this extra evaluation takes -- it is far more productive for all concerned for the animal to be assessed for its best discipline, and if this is not the one that the owner originally thought it was then the reasons for this are explained when asking them if they would like to transfer.
[ QUOTE ]
Stallions can be graded as dual discipline so how would a singular discipline aid the BEF?
[/ QUOTE ]
I am not quite sure what you mean here. If you mean that stallions are required to both loose jump and loose school that is correct, but stallions from jumping lines are expected to perform much better over a fence (including both scope and shape) than a dressage one, whilst trot is not really an issue in a showjumper (whereas canter certainly is) and three good paces are an essential requirement for a dressage stallion. In fact, in many of the top studbooks the special 'jumping' sections of the studbook are now moving further and further away from the dressage section and apart from the need for some dressage lines to add more knee bend by use of Holstein jumping lines (which is why Flemmingh is so successful as a sire of dressage horses) such a cross over is becoming less and less popular and the 'dual purpose' stallion a not particulary sort after commodity in many top studbook listings.
Ciss
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
I know some people who's 3 yr old colts scored incredibly well in the BEF evaluations but then when put forward for grading didn't come up to scratch. Owners were left bemused wondering why one vet would give their horse 9/10 and a few weeks later another vet is slating the horse's conformation.
[/ QUOTE ]
No idea about the vet, but if push came to shove I would prefer to back the opinion of the Futurity vets compared to some of those non-Futurity listed vets I have seen operating at some gradings <sigh>
However, one of the things that does cause confusion -- and which we do try to explain -- is that one of the key scores in stallion grading is the score for masculinity and breed type and this is not actually relevant in a competition horse (although obviously good stallion presence can certainly help to raise scores at lower level dressage with lower level judges who cannot tell the difference between true correct flexion/ softness and a cresty neck that just looks like it is flexed <sigh>
. It is therefore quite possible to score very highly in all sections of the Futurity and still not have stallion potential becuase (to quote Dr Haring) 'a stallion must always be a riding horse PLUS' the plus being the breed type and masculinity.
And of course there is also the problem that some studbooks still tend to judge potential stallions as show horses (definitely not the same thing) and have inflexible performance scores in which only horses performing to Grade A or PSG level (very dificult for a 3 year old) score more than 6/10 :-(.
[ QUOTE ]
But I absolutely love the idea of the futurities and think it's a very positive thing for British breeding
[/ QUOTE ]
Again thank you for your support.
I know some people who's 3 yr old colts scored incredibly well in the BEF evaluations but then when put forward for grading didn't come up to scratch. Owners were left bemused wondering why one vet would give their horse 9/10 and a few weeks later another vet is slating the horse's conformation.
[/ QUOTE ]
No idea about the vet, but if push came to shove I would prefer to back the opinion of the Futurity vets compared to some of those non-Futurity listed vets I have seen operating at some gradings <sigh>
However, one of the things that does cause confusion -- and which we do try to explain -- is that one of the key scores in stallion grading is the score for masculinity and breed type and this is not actually relevant in a competition horse (although obviously good stallion presence can certainly help to raise scores at lower level dressage with lower level judges who cannot tell the difference between true correct flexion/ softness and a cresty neck that just looks like it is flexed <sigh>
. It is therefore quite possible to score very highly in all sections of the Futurity and still not have stallion potential becuase (to quote Dr Haring) 'a stallion must always be a riding horse PLUS' the plus being the breed type and masculinity.And of course there is also the problem that some studbooks still tend to judge potential stallions as show horses (definitely not the same thing) and have inflexible performance scores in which only horses performing to Grade A or PSG level (very dificult for a 3 year old) score more than 6/10 :-(.
[ QUOTE ]
But I absolutely love the idea of the futurities and think it's a very positive thing for British breeding
[/ QUOTE ]
Again thank you for your support.
cruiseline
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
If so, this concerns me.
[ QUOTE ]
(v) sports ponies will be expected (not required) to have at least one parent of 148 cm or less as well as being expected / projected to mature at 148 cm or less with evaluators being given general guidelines on how this is indicated according to age/breeding etc
[/ QUOTE ]
This will affect me as I am particularly looking to breed up-to-height teenage eventing ponies / jumping ponies and at the 14.2 mark it becomes difficult to predict whether you are going to get a small horse or a big pony. I have previously (accidentally) bred a 14.2.hh pony from a 16.1 mare covered by a 15.1hh stallion. (I was hoping for nearer 16hh in this instance).
Viewed as breeding stock and not for her own competitive worth it would be reasonable to judge this pony in terms of her larger forbears; yet viewed as a competition prospect in her own right, she was clearly a pony; her ancestors' height was irrelevant.
If I presented this pony as a youngster today, what would happen.
She would fully meet the requirements of entry. In terms of height (and competitive future) she was a pony.
She would correspondingly NOT meet the requirements of entry as a horse.
She would certainly NOT comply with the evaluator's expectations; not only were her parents not ponies but a perusal of her pedigree would show that she came from a long line of horses on both sides; NO ponies.
Any judgement of her pedigree, rather than a judgement of the animal itself, suggests that the futurity is not doing as it claims in terms of judging the animal in front of it. I am not saying this is necessarily wrong- but its not what is on the packet.
Add to this that there is no clear line of action; what do the evaluators do in such an instance? Publicly de-frock a Pseudo pony whilst simultaneously handing it an award? I feel this is a nasty woolly inclusion and bound to cause trouble for people like myself, aiming for the larger pony; even more so for people who produce one accidentally.
I also feel that this would increase the temptation to use animals of disparate size; one horse parent, one pony parent; to produce a foal that meets the evaluators expectations; there is huge debate over whether this is desireable; I would not wish to do it personally and in itself it produces animals that may breed unevenly, making the likelihood of height "misfits" all the greater in the future.
[/ QUOTE ]
I fully endorse the BEF futurity program and in the last 2 years I have presented more than 16 youngsters.
However, I too am interested in this point as it directly affects my breeding program.
I would be VERY interested to hear the BEF comments on the above quoted post. The reason being, I actually presented 2 fillies at the BEF this year, both of which are out of the same dam a 16.1 DWB graded mare, by 16.1-2 WB stallions. BOTH of which were measured by my vet prior to their evaluations and both of which were under height on the day. My 3 year old was actually measured again last week by my vet and she at 3 1/2 years measures 14.1, her sister who is 2 1/3 measures 14 hands. Also if you stick to using the metric measurements 148 is in fact slightly bigger than 14.2.
So are you telling me that I would not be allowed to enter my fillies even if they measure under height, just because their parents are over 14.2. I thought that the whole concept was to judge the youngster that was in front of you, as apposed to who or what their parents are.
You will also be alienating breeders of 14.2 sports ponies, just in case the evaluators decided that in their opinion it will mature over height. Sounds like the BEF are encouraging the sports pony breeders to take a step backwards in their quest to produce the stars of the future for our junior riders of the future.
If so, this concerns me.
[ QUOTE ]
(v) sports ponies will be expected (not required) to have at least one parent of 148 cm or less as well as being expected / projected to mature at 148 cm or less with evaluators being given general guidelines on how this is indicated according to age/breeding etc
[/ QUOTE ]
This will affect me as I am particularly looking to breed up-to-height teenage eventing ponies / jumping ponies and at the 14.2 mark it becomes difficult to predict whether you are going to get a small horse or a big pony. I have previously (accidentally) bred a 14.2.hh pony from a 16.1 mare covered by a 15.1hh stallion. (I was hoping for nearer 16hh in this instance).
Viewed as breeding stock and not for her own competitive worth it would be reasonable to judge this pony in terms of her larger forbears; yet viewed as a competition prospect in her own right, she was clearly a pony; her ancestors' height was irrelevant.
If I presented this pony as a youngster today, what would happen.
She would fully meet the requirements of entry. In terms of height (and competitive future) she was a pony.
She would correspondingly NOT meet the requirements of entry as a horse.
She would certainly NOT comply with the evaluator's expectations; not only were her parents not ponies but a perusal of her pedigree would show that she came from a long line of horses on both sides; NO ponies.
Any judgement of her pedigree, rather than a judgement of the animal itself, suggests that the futurity is not doing as it claims in terms of judging the animal in front of it. I am not saying this is necessarily wrong- but its not what is on the packet.
Add to this that there is no clear line of action; what do the evaluators do in such an instance? Publicly de-frock a Pseudo pony whilst simultaneously handing it an award? I feel this is a nasty woolly inclusion and bound to cause trouble for people like myself, aiming for the larger pony; even more so for people who produce one accidentally.
I also feel that this would increase the temptation to use animals of disparate size; one horse parent, one pony parent; to produce a foal that meets the evaluators expectations; there is huge debate over whether this is desireable; I would not wish to do it personally and in itself it produces animals that may breed unevenly, making the likelihood of height "misfits" all the greater in the future.
[/ QUOTE ]
I fully endorse the BEF futurity program and in the last 2 years I have presented more than 16 youngsters.
However, I too am interested in this point as it directly affects my breeding program.
I would be VERY interested to hear the BEF comments on the above quoted post. The reason being, I actually presented 2 fillies at the BEF this year, both of which are out of the same dam a 16.1 DWB graded mare, by 16.1-2 WB stallions. BOTH of which were measured by my vet prior to their evaluations and both of which were under height on the day. My 3 year old was actually measured again last week by my vet and she at 3 1/2 years measures 14.1, her sister who is 2 1/3 measures 14 hands. Also if you stick to using the metric measurements 148 is in fact slightly bigger than 14.2.
So are you telling me that I would not be allowed to enter my fillies even if they measure under height, just because their parents are over 14.2. I thought that the whole concept was to judge the youngster that was in front of you, as apposed to who or what their parents are.
You will also be alienating breeders of 14.2 sports ponies, just in case the evaluators decided that in their opinion it will mature over height. Sounds like the BEF are encouraging the sports pony breeders to take a step backwards in their quest to produce the stars of the future for our junior riders of the future.