Jumping question again; take off point for uprights and spreads...

PapaFrita

PapaFrita

Well-Known Member
Joined
25 August 2005
Messages
25,923
Location
Argggggentina at the moment
pilar-larcade.com
Right, I've never really given it much thought
blush.gif
HOWEVER, I read in one of my old mags today that for a 1m upright one should be taking off 1m from the fence and landing same distance away. Fair enough.
For a 1m parallel, the take off distance was 1m + 1/2 the width of the spread, so if the width was 1m, then the take off point would be 1.5m before the fence and one would be landing the same distance away over the other side. OK, I buy that.
For ascending spreads, the take off point was the same distance as the height of the lowest (first) pole. Also fine.
Article goes on to explain that these distances change when fences get significantly bigger.
If this is true, can we please go back to that very confusing tabe I found that made the distance for a 1 stride combination between 2 uprights 24.6-26 ft (7.5-7.9m) but between 2 spreads 24.3-25.6ft (7.4- 7.8m) Why why why?
Old mag clearly states that for the same height fence one is taking off and landing further out for a spread than an upright, so why is the distance in the combination shorter????
Anyone?
confused.gif
 
Could it be to do with whether you measure from the front pole or the back pole on the spread? Can't really explain what I mean very well!
 
I think I read that article too - is it from quite a while ago? I was a bit confused when I read it because I've always been told to ride a parallel exactly the same as an upright and hence the take off would still be 1m for a 1m square parallel.
confused.gif
 
the article is wrong !

i think it was dieseldog that gave you an explaination that covered all the bases....

only thing is, ascending fences do tent to complicate things...

i will try to scan the bsja table for you & either post it here or mail it to you...
 
Wow, you guys are good if you can judge your take off point to the millimetre! I'm happy if I'm within half a stride or so!!
 
I think articles like that are very misleading and cause all sorts of stress when people try and emulate what is written.
What is described is the ideal based on the average horse with an average canter stride and average scope.
Unfortuneately the average does not exists. Factors such as scope of horse, level of training, experience of both horse and rider, lenght of stride on approach, quality of canter and level of impulsion etc all impact on where a horse takes off from and where it lands. How well a horse jumped the previous fence in a course also has an impact on how it will jump the next.

Distances between combinations are simply a guideline based on that elusive average and are generally altered by course designers depending on how many they want to catch out.

Its far better to train a horse to be able to adjust instantly than to worry over precise take off points and distances.
 
On the table it is, but if mag is correct, you're infact landing 50cms closer to the second fence if the first fence is a spread, and if the second is also a spread you're taking off 50cms further away... that takes a full metre (more than 3ft) out of your canter stride in between fences...
 
[ QUOTE ]
the article is wrong !

[/ QUOTE ]
But it had pics and everything!
tongue.gif
I

[ QUOTE ]
i think it was dieseldog that gave you an explaination that covered all the bases....

[/ QUOTE ]
Yessss, but then Puddicat also said alot of stuff that basically supported the 'jump further over a spread' theory
smile.gif


[ QUOTE ]
i will try to scan the bsja table for you & either post it here or mail it to you...

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks
smile.gif
 
I don't think the mag is right either - sort of...

In an ideal world you should take off and land the height of the middle of the fence. Which is why as the jumps get bigger you should increase the distance in combinations - but still allow for the fact that a spread in should be built slightly shorter (not a lot) than an upright in.

But think about the Puissance. It would be physically impossible for a horse to jump a puissance wall this way - it couldn't take off 2.2m in front of a fence and land 2.2m after it- which is why horses have to learn how to jump this type of fence and you get specialist puissance horse who have mastered the knack of literally climbing up and down the side of the wall without knocking it over. Look at Finbar - it has the strangest technique over a fence but it leaves it up.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Wow, you guys are good if you can judge your take off point to the millimetre!

[/ QUOTE ]
Ermmmmmmmmmmmmmmm... if I could do you think I'd be this confused??
wink.gif

[ QUOTE ]
I'm happy if I'm within half a stride or so!!

[/ QUOTE ]
See, I find that confusing too (I'm not terribly bright!) I've heard lots of people say you shouldn't try to see the distance because after all you can only be 1/2 a stride out, but 1/2 a stride a full 6ft! Seems rather alot either way.
confused.gif
 
Thank you!!

The only reason why I know this is that I once got stuck in the rain with a course builder at Wales and west at 8pm at night who seemed very desperate to explain the finer intricies of course building to me.... If he had seen me ride he would have known he was wasting his time.
 
dog, u is an artist dude !!!

well all i can think is the article got confused coz of the ascending oxer aspect...
 
Re only ever being half a stride out...my sj instructor agrees & says that if you've got a good canter, you'll be fine. If I'm a bit far away I can judge it beautifully & push on the perfect amount, but if I'm a bit close I sit there like a lemon & literally don't know what to do. Particularly rubbish to parallels off a corner. I either keep checking til I've pulled the horse up or shut my eyes & hope.
 
I think the magazine is at least unhelpful because as I think we established in your previous post - in most cases you would choose to take off closer to a spread than an upright. I posted the simulations below in answer to your pervious post but they illustrate the point so here they are again. These aren't sketches, they are computer simulations that correspond to actual jumps. So the distances are real distances. The fences are a bit low but the overal result wouldn't change if I made them higher!

Jumpingdiagrams.jpg


So the idea is it shows two strategies for jumping a spread of the same height as the upright shown in Fig A. Fig C shows what happens if you keep the same approach speed and jump higher - you have to take off and land close to the fence. Fig B shows what happens if you just speed up - you take off and land further away. Note that by increasing take off angle by a few degrees in Fig. B you can clear a wider spread than by increasing speed by 3m/s (or 6.7 mph).

smile.gif
 
Ooooooops sorry, last sentence should have said

"...by increasing take off angle by a few degrees in Fig. C you can clear a wider spread than by increasing speed by 3m/s (or 6.7 mph) as in Fig. B."

(Really enjoyed this thread by the way... thanks
smile.gif
)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top