Funny letter in the H&H...

If you read the BRC rule book you will see that there are restrictions in place to prevent that happening, so that the BRC novice champs (85cms / 2'9" at champs) does genuinely cater for the non-affiliated horse & rider
I think the guy who wrote the letter in H & H was commenting that a lot of venues are being granted B. E. events that wouldn't have been five years ago, as B. E. (along with the BSJA & their 75cm ' amateur classes') seek to broaden the base of their pyramid. If you look on the competition riders forum there are always members aasking for opinions on various venues as to the difficulty of the XC, nothing has changed except that there is now a wider gap between B.E. 'great for first timers' & 'demanding'.
 
I turned up to the RC area HT this year in March on my Novice horse thinking oh its only 1m open he will be fine. But blimey it was tough! It was without doubt in all the years I have been riding the most technical course I have ever done with a skinny then one stride to corner as an example. I saw horses I know competing at Novice struggling. To compete at rural riders you must be doing well at 2*. Its a nightmare for us though as we struggle to get teams up together as 99% of the RC will not even try doing the open stuff. At PC I was doing area and on my 5 yo went round the Novice at Longleat as again I kind of thought oh well its PC it will only be small! So I agree with that letter.
 
I agree usually that RC Opens aren't as challenging as BE novices. However I do both, and to be honest there is a RC open course near me which rivals most BE novices Ive done! Ive only found ONE BE novice worse than it!

And at the RC Horse trial champs - a lot of people said the open XC course included some fences from the BE intermediate they run there.......

I think it very much depends on the course!!
 
He wasn't talking about my area, that's for sure. However the majority of posters on this threadseem to think that their local RC events are as tough as BE, and can't argue with that as haven't seen them.
Personally, I wish that there wasn't such a gap in my area between the 2'9 and 3'3, OK it is six inches but also in terms of complexity. My elderly horse never really was able to cope at RC open ie 3'3 level where a typical fence was a double of trakheners with three strides between, but the 2'9 class XC was so straightforward that it was a dressage competition. What's wrong with perhaps one safe, filled in corner, or perhaps a skinny as the second part of a combination, even in the RC novice or 2'9 comp.
Fiona
 
Ive just walked a "novice" riding club event, and would prob much rather be doing some of the Intro/pre novice tracks ive ridden round. Bigger, but less questions asked.
 
With all due respect the riding club 3'3" /1m is RC open & is designed to cater for the more confident / experienced rding club members. It is therefore not meant to be suitable for novice horses even though its 'only' 3'3".
That being said the combination fence you describe sounds more like an 'event' type fence than a 'hunter trial', (yes there is supposed to be a difference!), so perhaps a word with your club representative to bring the matter of course suitability with regard to the hunter trials up at the area meeting?
 
Some really good discussion here and some well made points. When I upgraded my RC course to BE, I did so for a number of reasons.

The most important was that BE are the subject matter experts and their input from end to end has been excellent - Health and Safety (don't knock it), jump design and technology, current standards, distances, jumping efforts etc - all really important.

My old course had been there for, in parts, 10 years and ws becoming a bit tired - so it was time to rebuild, and why not get with the programme.

Underlying the decision was that if I have expert input the chances of an accident are much reduced, and I can't ignore the advantage of having to stand up in court, if it ever came to that, against Mssrs Sue, Grabbitt & Runne of 'if you can make it sound like someone elses fault, we'll get you loadsa moneyyyyyy' fame, and having the best defence possible on my side.

But seriously, and to return to the subject, I used to have PC and RC at heights from 1'6 (a very short little class for kids) through to 3'3, and much of what I included had to be removed to accommodate BE. No jumping into water!!! Even my 2'3 had a little pop-over to get into the water. My 3'3 had a pallisade followed by two big steps down and another two steps out...all gone!!

Do I think one is easier/better than the other? I don't actually care - I am just grateful that I now have a course designed by experts, studied in detail before each event by H&S, and the fact that there are fewer jumping efforts and easier water actually gives the RC rider on unaffiliated days a better ride.

An unexpected side-effect was that a number of my 2'3 long termers have now moved up a level to 2'6 or Intro (unaff) probably because my old 2'9 was too demanding for them but now irt is achievable.

Final thought - never knock the amateurs - my utmost respect goes to those local riders who work hard during the week to earn their crust and turn up at three or four events a year to do their best and I see my job as putting a smile on their face as they pass the finish - that's my reward - and I don't care at what height or level they compete - good for them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top