H&H Report This week

[FMM]

Captain Hastings (the small riding horse that won HOYS last year) has measured out for the second time. However, in the report in H&H this week, he is referred to as the small hunter champion (which was actually a horse called Kavanagh Lad which also measured out but has not been presented for remeasuring). Showing makes little sense to many people in the equestrian world, but to have the HOYS small riding horse referred to as both the small hunter champion and the small riding horse winner in the same article, leads to even more confusion.

 

[Little_Mare]

I've just read that and didn't even notice the typo - must've just inserted the correct words subconsciously as I knew he was riding horse champ and not hunter!

I do think its confusing for people - just reread it and it could make people think that hunters go in the riding horse championship or that Captain Hastings was Horse of the Year...

I'm no showing expert (certainly not for riding horses) but theoretically he would still be riding horse champ as he's not measured out of the classification just his section but if he were shown as a large riding horse would he still have won his class? Do they have slightly different specs or is it purely height?

 

[FMM]

Difficult one - I think he is very true to type for a small riding horse, although if they decide to show him as a large, then I am sure he will do well. The "spec" is the same for both small and large (apart from the height, of course!) but he is quite small to be a large. I am sure he would have done well at HOYS as a large last year, but maybe not enough to have won the class. The smalls just seem a bit neater in their way of going. Jeez - I am useless at trying to explain these things!

 

[Jo C]

Hate to pick holes but the Small Hunter was Coppenagh Lad (friend of mine) sorry!

 

[Little_Mare]

No, that makes sense to me, that was what I was trying to get across anyway! Have wondered about this since he measured out the first time - glad you brought it up!

 

[FMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Hate to pick holes but the Small Hunter was Coppenagh Lad (friend of mine) sorry!

[/ QUOTE ]

I knew it was something along those lines, but didn't have enough time to look up the name! (apologies to Debbie please!)

 

[Rambo]

[ QUOTE ]
No, that makes sense to me, that was what I was trying to get across anyway! Have wondered about this since he measured out the first time - glad you brought it up!

[/ QUOTE ]

So what we're basically saying here is that unless your 'Small' hunter / riding horse / whatever is small enough, or your 'Large' hunter / riding horse / whatever is large enough (irrelevant of the height cut-offs for each class), then you don't have a cat in hells regardless of whether or not it is put together correctly, goes correctly and is capable of doing the job for which it is intended....correctly

 

[Jo C]

I tell her when I see her next!

I know she was absolutely gutted to be measured out

but is now concentrating on the Connies and a few others.

 

[Little_Mare]

No, that they might look for something slightly different in a large riding horse to a small riding horse - as I've said, I'm no expert, I've never shown horses in my life! But from what FMM has said and from my own understanding (I may be totally wrong and I'm not saying that there aren't flaws in the judging if this is the case) a measured-out small riding horse may seem dwarfed and out of place in a large riding horse class and a small riding horse tends to go a little neater (more towards a hack's way of going?).

 

[FMM]

QR
No - it is simply that something that is only just over 15.2 will look very small in a class of 16.2 and therefore possibly out of place. However, there are some smaller RHs that do very well. It is mainly that some of them do look slightly different types and have a slightly different way of going.
Yes, in theory, it is just a size split, but of course if you have a 15.2 horse and a 16.2 horse, they are going to look quite different. the horses which are 15.2 (small) and 15.3 (large) will naturally look pretty much identical in type.

I am really sorry again for the poor explanation, and hope this helps.

 

[Little_Mare]

Thanks, think I understand now! I didn't mean for my last post to sound as if I thought they were totally different types!

It will be interesting to see how he does if he's brought out as a large riding horse this year...

 

[FMM]

Whoops - sorry LM - my reply was a QR answering the one above you!

 

[Little_Mare]

I thought it may have been but wasn't sure!

 

[Ferdinase514]

It's such a shame. T

he reports tend to give the impression of some sort of impropriety, but the horses had LHC, so surely should be considered as eligible for the classes.

 

[FMM]

This is the whole problem. Chances are if the horse was known to be well overheight they would probably have retired it on the spot. The report was odd though, as it showed that it was the JMB asking for the remeaasures which means they don't trust their own officials to do the 7 year old measurement. Very odd.

 

[measles]

Surely if they have a LHC then that should stand? Can't understand how LHC's nowadays seem to be challengable - I certainly don't recall that in years gone by.

However, I'm all for any certs being issued from now on to be done rigorously so everyone has full confidence in the system - especially the JMB who administer it!

 

[hati]

To me it just looks bad that year after year there are champions being measured out. Surely if they had been rigorously measured in the first place then this would not be such a common problem. Over here in Ireland if you want to get a measuring cert you have to attend an offical measuring (about 3 per year in each region) where a panel of vets assemble to measure your horse. You are allowed 2 tries that day if you do not get the height you require you have to go to the vet clinic within 10 days and get a laser measurement and that final.

Having competed over in the UK I found that many seemed to tower over me and I know I was on full height 153cm in the 153cm class!

 

[FMM]

In theory it should be harder now to get the measuring wrong. In the past, many horses came over from Ireland and they were whatever age the dealer wanted them to be. Hence many 3 year old show cobs were sold as 5 years old. This meant they have their life height when the were only 5 (instead of 7) and obviously grew somewhat. With passports, it should now be harder for this to happen.

In the case of Captain Hastings, I assume his breeding was probably known, and therefore there was no funny business about saying he was older than he really was. Therefore, it was just the case that the horse grew once he had gained his life height certificate at 7 years old. This is not totally impossible, and certainly not the fault of either the owner or producer. They had the horse measured at the right time and had the right certificate. If the horse was at the absolute top end of his measurement when he was measured at 158, then it is possible that he has grown 2cm. I have no idea of his breeding, but some horses I know continue growing until they are 8 years old.

If we assume that he was measured at the beginning of his 7th year for his life height (so he could easily have only been 6.5 years old), and this second measurement was at the beginning of his 9th year, then there is room for growth. Either the life height means something, or it doesn't. This half way house approach is proving pointless for everyone.

 

[druid]

And thus why Irish horses don't get life certs until they are 8...far less measuring out. Our lad just scrapped into the large WHs at his vet measuring but we know when we go up north he'll be towered over by the UK measured horses..

 

[hati]

forgot to say that in Ireland you also have to get 2 measurements after the age of 7 before you get life. So a mesurement at 7 and one at 8. So as Druid pointed out fewer horses getting measured out over here.

Captain hastings isn't the first champion to be measured out and probably won't be the last until the JMB and societies become clear on what system they wish to operate. Could end up like a system with the FEI ponies where they now measured at the competition. That would turn the whole showing system on its head (though would be completely impractical to operate at the majority of venues)

 

[FMM]

In England you also need two measurements - the earliest you have a life is 7.

There are certain issues with the FEI system - firstly, they allow about 2.5 cm for measurementon the day (which means that CH would probably have measured in!)

Now - what happens if you qualify for HOYS in June and measure in on that day. Then you do another show in September, and suddenly you measure out. Does that mean you can no longer go to HOYS. If so, then should the horse that came below you at the June show now be eligible to go to HOYS?

As soon as it relates to qualifiers then the whole system becomes more complicated, as, once a horse is qualified, it will continue showing throughout the year. Eventually the ones that measure out will just not go to HOYS as there is no point. There were 3 that measured out this year (I think) - small hunter, small riding horse and an intermediate. This is out of all the show pony classes, show hunter pony classes, cobs, hacks, workers etc etc. Hopefully next year there will be less of a problem.

 

[brighteyes]

Round here, two vets have allegedly been removed from the JMB measuring officials list, presumably for letting overheight animals have reduced measurements.

What people expect to gain is a mystery to me - oh no, it's fame and money......... The horse is too big. Sell it and get another, or shut up and try some other less vain discipline. And while you are at it, it is probably too fat, so get a bit of weight off it.

Sorry rant over.

 

[druid]

brighteyes, don't tar us all with the same brush not all show ponies are fat..mine are in hunting condition at the moment!

 

[brighteyes]

No, got carried away. Wish more people would keep horses as horses. The really, really nice ones don't need to be dolled-up and over-topped. The overheight ones are simply over height. We have a Sec B which we could starve and trim and work down to a 13.2 and he would likely clean up - but he is overheight. End of. Wouldn't swap him and don't care if he has to do other stuff! Probably has more fun as a 14 hand worker where he is VERY underheight. Can't win! Literally!

 

[druid]

Lol, mine live out 24/7 and look like muds larks until the day before a show... I believe in letting them be horses too

Mine's not one of the really nice ones..but he does enough & he isn't over height 152 in the 153cm classes!

 

[Gingernags]

[ QUOTE ]
Round here, two vets have allegedly been removed from the JMB measuring officials list, presumably for letting overheight animals have reduced measurements.

What people expect to gain is a mystery to me - oh no, it's fame and money......... The horse is too big. Sell it and get another, or shut up and try some other less vain discipline. And while you are at it, it is probably too fat, so get a bit of weight off it.

Sorry rant over.

[/ QUOTE ]

One here too, was known to ask "what height do you want it?"!!!

When I see horses in a class towering over mine (151.5 in 153 classes) that are clearly more than 1.5cms bigger, I wonder how they manage it!

Mind you, mine has had to do a 15hh and over WH with all the massive hunters as I felt wrong putting her in under 14.3 when she's 14.3 and a half...

Still got second against the biggies though!

 

[measles]

I agree strongly that all measurements should be accurate and done honestly. If that means vets who bend the rules losing JMB measuring status then so be it. I support a firm line even though we had the unfortunate experience of bringing a jumping pony over from Ireland - he had a life cert but had to be measured under JMB rules in the UK and measured out by 6mm. Half a centimetre and his jumping career at any level was over.

However, how on earth would you feel if you bought a show horse/pony or jumping pony in good faith with a LHC and then found as soon as it did well it had to go under the stick again and was measured out? Is that not grounds for sueing the JMB and it's "officials", the vets? I loath the present litigation-quick society we have at present but I would be very, very unhappy if that happened.

Life should mean life!

 

[brighteyes]

Then a vetting should include three height measurements if it is applicable.

We competed an up to height 148 and were always being asked how big it was. He was an odd looking animal who, when we sold him was exactly 148cm, but we knew it was close. I also had an overheight Connie who was subsequently measured as 148 by a (now non) JMB recognised vet. As it was only an annual cert, I expect the feeling was 'leave it to the next vet to drop the bombshell' but a blind man wearing a blindfold could have told you he was nearer 153.

The saddest thing is that an animal can be so drastically de-valued all for a few millimetres. To have your future (worth/ life/ treatment) depend on a measuring stick reading is tragic and quite sickening.