Do you like technical courses at BE(90) and BE(100) level?

[Tangaroo]

I quite agree. I compete at intro and have no desire to move up. My horse has a dirty stop when faced with bigger show jumps but he is awesome XC, so i really like the bigger and more technical XC but nearly pass out if the SJ s are up to height! I think i will probably start doing pre novice hunter trials that way i get to do some more challenging XC without having to SJ

 

[VRIN]

I vote for more straightforward courses at BE90 - with the intention to be encouraging. It was introduced to be 'intro' which I assume to be an 'introduction'. If this stayed straight forward and people were looking for more of a challenge they may be encouraged to move 'up'!

Whilst I accept what people say about doing your homework and lots of unaff. Firstly a competition and schooling (even over the BE track) are very different environments for a horse. As to unaff, it very much depends on where you are in the country ... In the north west there are not many options and those there are can be trappy.

 

[Golden_Match_II]

I like a technical XC course.

Not many are that technical at BE90, and that annoys me, because then it relies even more on your dressage score, and I think that there should be a big challenge over fences. My pony excelled in XC, and so benefited when XC played a huge part, because her dressage was only average.

I admit finding Aldon XC at BE90 hard, as it was my first one, but I may well have bigged that up in my head!

My youngster excells best in XC, too, so I appreciate a tough XC course on him too.

I voted yes

 

[zero]

I personaly think that at intro it should be very straight forward to encourage both horse and rider to go forward to the fence. At PN there should be a small amount of technical questions asked so that horses and riders are having to think a little bit more and have more control and be aware of straightness but should still be very inviting and encourage forward riding, so yes put in a skinny or two but always have a black flag at them for the people/ horses who arent ready.

 

[coedcae]

[ QUOTE ]
I put no, i'd rather they were straight forward and the reason being is I think these courses should give horses confidence and not give them the opportunity to run out, stop, get scared. I remember doing several pre novice courses when I just started out and there wasn't even a skinny or a corner, now you get doubles of skinnies AND corners at Intro (BE90)!! Yes the work should be done at home to prepare horses for this but you were more likely to come out and compete on a green baby at pre novice height 10 years ago than you are now.

Once you feel ready to move up to Novice level, the emphasis should be on the training at home to get your horses prepared for combinations, skinnies, corners etc.

The lower levels USED to be aimed at the young horses starting out, now we have a wider spectrum of competitors I think they are more aimed at the Amateur, wanting to do something more technical yet only staying at the lower levels as they are not as ambitious.

This is just my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Couldnt agree more or have written it better

I worry about young horses coming out and never getting the chance to get bold and forward going xc.
I love a bold, galloping course which you can attack not SJing over solid fences

 

[Chloe_GHE]

Are we forgetting that if you want simple and encouraging xc there is always BE80T?....

 

[Safina]

I think that most PN courses could do with a few more black flag routes so that the opportunity presents itself to those who want technical bits but for those not ready or don't want to jump lots of skinnys/combos on a course they can pick and choose what suits them and their horse.

What do people think of pre-novice plus? Do that provide the adequate middle-step before Novice?

 

[Safina]

sorry, my post above contains some shocking grammar!

 

[ajn1610]

I think things would be easier if the description in the BE mag was more accurate.... A more accurate description of the course is what's needed so that riders can gradually move their horses up the grades without having a huge gap in education resulting in an accident.


I agree with this, I would want a straight forward encouraging course for a first time that would let me jump out of a rhythm and leave me and the horse with a nice 'feel' as opposed to a hooky, trappy course with lots of skinnies and fences with short/poor approaches etc. but obviously someone ready to move up a level will be looking for a more testing track. There is a place for both types of courses but the course descriptions need to indicate in a clear definitive way which is which. I'm not sure who writes course descriptions but some of them aren't particularly helpful. Perhaps a rating system from riders feed back would be the most useful assessment?
e.g.
This is suitable as a first run at this level
strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, strongly disagree.
etc
It could be done anonymously via a drop box when people went to get dressage sheets and then the results could be displayed on the event info next year.

 

[worMy]

i personally think intro is very straightforward, and PN is also very accessible for anyone. i am not only saying this because i have an XC machine, i have done BE intro on another much less talented horse.

i think if you are a horse/rider thinking that intro is too technical, then plain and simple that horse/rider is not ready for BE, and should train more or do unaff stuff untill they are ready. or do BE 80. thats what its there for.

i personally also think it would make the sport much less 'safe' if intro and PN were made even easier, just think about how many people would move up to novice just because they did well at PN. THAT would cause horrific problems.

just my two cents

 

[AandK]

[ QUOTE ]
I put 'more straightforward' but want to caveat that with a "I actually like some of the more technical questions but would like to be made aware of them when choosing which course to run at..." if that makes sense? I think there is quite a lot of variation at Intro and PN level now - it would be nice for there to be clear labelling on what was a good straightforward 'old fashioned' course, and what was a good one to do before a step up. That way riders can choose the right course for theirs and their horses level of training.

[/ QUOTE ]
^^^^what they said

 

[rising_promise]

[ QUOTE ]


i think if you are a horse/rider thinking that intro is too technical, then plain and simple that horse/rider is not ready for BE, and should train more or do unaff stuff untill they are ready.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you can't train for competition atmosphere without being at a competition.

I see where you're coming from but all the unaff's I've been to recently (hunter trials and ODE's) have been 20 times worse than BE technicality wise.

Took my baby to her first ODE a month ago, entered the 3ft 'Intro' class and was shocked to see several skinnies, including an angled double of them not numbered separatley.

Similarly, we went to a PC hunter trial last week and in the 3ft class there was, what can only be classed as a BE Novice/ Intermediate skinny coming out of the water- not just my opinion either, a local eventer was there with her daughter and said she would worry about jumping it on her experienced Novice horse.

Unaff is not what it used to be either because they are trying to make it far more difficult than it ever used to be.

 

[henryhorn]

I think straightforward BE90 courses and more difficulty at 100, plus a star rating for difficulty would help.
I've been amazed at the difference in courses we have been to, some are frankly mostly Novice type fences, others not really worse than the BE90.
How on earth can what last year was an Intermediate fence suddenly appear in BE100 this year? Admittedly it was a fairly straightforward fence but surely that can't be right?
Most people don't start their young horses doing BE but local hunter trials/riding clubs/XC schooling days etc, so BE90 is well within their horse's capabilities.
My daughter has competed un=aff before now over what turned out to be a BE Intermediate course yet was the Open in a HT. If you look hard enough it's possible to gain experience over well built courses before you spend all that money going affilliated.
One of the very worst courses I've ever seen wasa tiddly 1' 9" we went to for a horse's first outing. It was horrendous and warrented a trot round the entire way.
At least with BE you do get well built fences and the distances at the lower levels are OK.

 

[AandK]

QR - perhaps encouraging the course builders to build more black flag alternatives in courses would help? this would allow the more experienced combinations to take the quick/technical route and the less experienced combinations/baby horses could take the longer/straightforward route..

 

[Jul]

I haven't voted as, like a few above, I think there's a place for both.

Before I moved from Intro to PN, I was pleased to be able to ride round courses like Mattingley because all PN was going to be was a slightly bigger and slightly more technical version of that, so I felt ready for it. So from that point of view I like the more technical courses. Also I find it hard to imagine now that I will ever get beyond PN due to my lack of confidence jumping bigger fences (not helped by all this negative stuff I've been hearing lately!), so for me it's fun to have that 'mini-badminton' experience at a height I'm confident with.

However, like ajn1610 I now have a younger horse to compete and I would rather not start her off round a course with something like I saw at MK this year, ie a flower box fence a few strides before the water, positioned so the horse is going to see the water before they take off. By all means put a fence AFTER the water (which I've seen lots at Intro) but before is a different question entirely.

I really agree with Chloe_GHE and have harped on about it for ages now, re there being more information available about what we might find on an Intro or PN course (or indeed all higher levels).
As someone else suggested above, how hard would it be to make available a list of what sort of trickier fences we might find so that we don't have to pay our £fortune to enter and only find out on the day or day before that there's a fence in there which is our nemesis. Words in the course description like 'educational' and 'inviting' tell us absolutely nothing. However, a listing on the website before ballot date (by which time they MUST know pretty much what the course will entail, surely?) would be extremely helpful with info like: "The course will be approx 1200m long and includes a water with a step in. The course will include a corner (with alternative), trakehner (no alternative), a rail-ditch-rail combination (with alternative) etc etc....."

(I turned up at Holdenby last year to discover there was no water. That wasn't mentioned anywhere on the schedule or course description. I think that's pants!)

Black flag alternatives are another option, but firstly course-designers don't always agree with us, (or each other!), on which fences might need them, and also they often involve turning back on yourself and then back again which is extra twisting about I'd really rather not do on my young horse at the start of her eventing career.

Have read your letter btw Kerilli, and I think it's very well written with lots of excellent points. I hope you get a good response.

 

[Saratoga]

I think it depends on what your idea of 'technical' is. There must be questions at every level, to educate the horse and possibly prepare them for the levels above in the future, but i think some courses are getting stupid technical....almost being aimed at 'pony' type horses who can chip in anywhere. There are so many trappy type combinations at certain level now that all it seems to do is confuse the horses and make them back off/the riders back off and ride in a negative way. Courses should be built for forward confident riding on whatever horse you are sat on, not overchecking and setting up on a big bold horse coming into a trappy little combo just in case they read it wrong and end up with 20pens.

Slightly 'off topic', but the other thing that has come to mind reading the above is all the filled in corners now...does anyone else think that people should learn to ride corners properly rather than being held in to the right spot with flowerpots and allsorts?

Edited to add - also agree with those mentioning black flag alternatives....by all means include the more 'technical' things, but give those with baby/inexperienced horses a different route.

 

[worMy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


i think if you are a horse/rider thinking that intro is too technical, then plain and simple that horse/rider is not ready for BE, and should train more or do unaff stuff untill they are ready.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you can't train for competition atmosphere without being at a competition.

I see where you're coming from but all the unaff's I've been to recently (hunter trials and ODE's) have been 20 times worse than BE technicality wise.

Took my baby to her first ODE a month ago, entered the 3ft 'Intro' class and was shocked to see several skinnies, including an angled double of them not numbered separatley.

Similarly, we went to a PC hunter trial last week and in the 3ft class there was, what can only be classed as a BE Novice/ Intermediate skinny coming out of the water- not just my opinion either, a local eventer was there with her daughter and said she would worry about jumping it on her experienced Novice horse.

Unaff is not what it used to be either because they are trying to make it far more difficult than it ever used to be.

[/ QUOTE ]


well maybe dont enter in a 3ft class to begin with
do smaller stuff which will deff be less technical, and then move up

i see where you are coming from though!

i think its a very difficult issue and its never going to satisy everyone!

 

[OneInAMillion]

The problem is if they are too easy you can get a false image of how good you are and then move up a level and it can all go horribly wrong

 

[ester]

am not sure that is fair wormy, I don't do BE but have done plenty of 2'6-2'9 hunter trials and help my mum at the equivalent one days which is classed as the 'novice' normally

Doing these I pretty much always have to jump at least one skinny, often on top of a mound, a double, ditch/coffin combination, that bloody water ditch at pontispool which my pone thinks is fine but mums doesn't! and have jumped corners etc in the past too. so they are not always that straight forward even at the lower heights. I am not sure what exactly referred to as 'technical' but they put plenty in the smaller heights unaff too. Mum walked the BE 80T at stockland lovell and was surprised that they had dressed the fences by filling in a lot of the gaps!

 

[IncaCola]

Hi Kerilli. This is obviously follows on from one of the main points in your excellent letter to BE. I thought your points were well thought out and valid and I agree with you. When PN was first introduced it was actually not much smaller than Novice, but v straight forward. So some of the let up fences would be shared with the Novice course (hedges, pheasant feeders, logs etc) and then there would only be a couple of combinations and very easy water complexes. There was always an alternative at any narrow question or spooky fence. These were ideal for youngsters starting out before progressing to Novice and the bigger fence encouraged bold riding. For amateur riders they were the next progression from open unaffiliated classes and so you didn't get as many inexperienced riders or ponies competing. I would love the BE100 courses to go back to that a bit and always have alternatives at every question as that would be the most beneficial way to train a youngster before going up the grades to increased technicality.

However I understand times have changed and we need to cater for the large number of people with horses who never want to progress further than BE100 and enjoy jumping technical fences at low heights. Utilising alternatives at all combinations and skinnies would be one way to do this with perhaps the option of jumping a larger straight forward fence or a much smaller combination/skinny etc would be one way to approach this. A more radical solution would be to leave BE90 and 100 as they are and introduce a new class that is like the old PN big but straight forward; they could even call it PN again! The current step from BE100 to Novice is large because there is so much difference between a 1m solid fence and one at 1m10 and todays riders are just not use to riding big straight forward fences anymore. Then riders/horses looking to upgrade to Novice would be able to hone their skills riding larger fences at PN and more technical fences at BE100. A great idea but would it be financially viable for organisers....

 

[worMy]

[ QUOTE ]
am not sure that is fair wormy

[/ QUOTE ]


what have i done now?????????!!!!!!!!

i was just saying that generally smaller classes are less technical,, and i think that is fair to say...

and those 2'6''-2'9'' classes have to have something in them,,,they can't just be 20ft wide rails the whole way round if you get what im saying..?

i really wasnt trying to say anything controversial.
i think i shud just stop saying anything full stop

 

[ester]

lol, don't panic, not getting at you I do know what you mean but the courses I have walked/done seem rarely to be less technical at unaff in the smaller classes than say the 3' ones tis just the jump height which seems to alter. not sure if I am making sense now! spose smaller fences are inherently less technical though I might just be struggling with the term technical. Oh dear am not doing well should go home really!

*whispers* I actually like the smaller courses unaff to be more technical as pone can't jump much bigger but still makes it a challenge.

 

[worMy]

ah touche,,no i totally get what you're saying!

well, you clearly no much more about these levels than me

listen to her....(she knows what shes talking about---whereas i am going to find a cave somewhere.....)

 

[star]

as someone who is thinking of trying BE i would like a good description of each course or a rating system of some kind so i know which ones to choose that will be suitable for us just starting out. We schooled at Mattingley on Monday and chose to jump a lot of the PN fences in preference to some of the Intro ones, but I wouldn't have entered the PN with that ski jump as we'd definitely have got eliminated as not something he's come across yet. Things like the sunken road followed by skinny or the roll top, water, crocodile sequence in the PN are not a problem for us, but the pig in the Intro probably would have been. I'd just like to know what sort of questions are going to be there so I know if it's worth entering. With dressage if you go for the lower numbered tests you know you're gonna get a more straightforward test than the higher numbered ones which are more of a step up to the next level. Could something similar be done to rate the XC course at BE? I wouldn't say technical or big and straightforward really fusses me but there are certain jumps we're a bit more sticky with so I'd like to know if they're on the course in advance. I know you dont get that with unaff but then I dont plan on doing much unaff as I entered a 2ft6 and bits were harder than an Intro with step into water etc!

 

[worMy]

joing eventing world wide--then u can look at the course photos for every event!

 

[ajn1610]

It is not just technicality, height or style of individual fences though it is the 'feel' of the course as a whole. The experience the horse and rider has going round it.

There isn't much unaffiliated around us but I've completed successfully over what's available and we've jumped everything at Somerford/Smallwood. So we are well prepared and on paper we are more than ready for BE but nothing truly replicates affiliated competition. Unaff courses don't usually have the space or finance to build much and familiarity breeds contempt at training venues.

The first Intro I went to was well presented and the more difficult fences were tiny BUT I withdrew because the whole feel of the course was hooky and it wasn't riding well. I probably would have got round but that is not the point. I'm not just considering a clear round, I am trying to produce a horse that is going to enjoy cross country and lock on and take me to a fence. How can you do that if you are having to Show jump 50% of the course? I completed the Unaffiliated Intro at Aston le Walls last year and it rode bueatifully. It was in places up to height, so you had nice galloping fences like hedge, brush and trackenher (sp?). There were a few combination 2/3 where you had to set up as there was a bending line or turn but there was plenty of room in front of the fence for the horse to 'read' the question. There was a corner but with an alternative. That to me is a fair Intro, a good mix of fence styles 80 - 90% of which you could meet and jump from your stride, a couple of more accurate things you needed to come back for. It wasn't over dressed and I finished feeling as if we'd had a good experience and the horse had actually enjoyed jumping round it. That is IMO what cross country at this level should be. The fact they have had to introduce a BE80 T class is evidence in its self that they've over complicated the lower levels, this was what Intro was supposed to do, and before that Pre Novice! So what's next 70cm?

As I've said above there is room for both styles of course and that seems to be the general consensus here but it is currently impossible to know what you going get till you arrive. That is the issue which needs addressing.

 

[I_A_P]

i put more straightfo3ward but im not sure tbh!
i don't like the idea of necessarily grading them as it starts to get complicated!

I like having the options cross country to go a different route if need be and therefore if it is your first BE100 for example you might like to go the longer routes to get round but as you are more confident then ry the harder routes!

 

[Bubblegum]

I put more straightforward...but that's because we are bringing on our own young horses..rather than riding more experienced ones.
I fully accept that if you have an experienced horse and just want to jump BE 90 / 100 courses..then a mini-Badminton is what you are looking for.
I would like to see a 'scales of training' type of effect at lower levels. Where you are penalised for jumping the easy route...by a longer, time consuming route...not too twisty though....suitable for younger horses. Then those riding competively can go for the more technical route..and be happy too. I am not convinced that BE 90 & 100 courses make good enough use of black flag alternatives for those of us that are schooling our young horses round.

 

[chester1234]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Talavera, was there really an angled bounce on the Nov course at BM? as in, you HAD to take it angled to do both elements, it wasn't by choice to angle it?
if so, i am truly shocked. i thought course designers had learnt their lesson with this particular fence...

[/ QUOTE ]

If it was last years Burnham then no, you didnt have to jump them on an angle- they were just slightly offset to allow you to jump them seperately but you could bounce down straight. They were really nice little rounded roll tops

[/ QUOTE ]

QR Boss, however last year they were 7/ 8 so numbered separately. This year were an A / B element, which encouraged you to ride it as a bounce more, and the made the black flag route rather difficult. They also had big roll top first, then little one

 

[Fiona]

I voted more straightforward.

I know we are EI rather than BE, but already at PN this year we have had a log into water, and skinny triple brushes all over the place.

This is fine for one of ours (who is experienced at that level), but the other (hoping to move up from intro) would be a nightmare.