Paul Graham of BE's comment in H&H today about lower-level not being dangerous...

I think it is all too easy to get hung up on stuff like this - fact is we all learn through making mistakes, and I'd rather make one and learn from it over a fence 1m high or smaller than anything bigger! Maybe poor Paul said 'without it being as dangerous' and H&H edited it for word count?!
 
Disagree with the statement about unaff ODEs dying off if anything they are increasing just had a chat with two BE organisers - one who said BE is getting very cross about it as they run unaff and another who said they cannot make BE pay so running unaff to subsidise it this year. I think looking at my website will tell you that unaff is huge and mainly round courses that run BE.

Secondly I think the danger is not in riders position as I think its even more basic than that in that they have no idea about anything. I watch intro through my fingers as I cannot bare to watch. Last year at Bickenhall I was standing with Henryhorn and SC and we were grimmacing. I am no brilliant rider myself but understanding rhythm, balance and how to ride different types of fences seems to be completely lacking.
 
I do agree that people learn by their mistakes definitly and maybe the poor guys words have been taken out of context.

However I would not like to be making my mistakes BE. Of course mistakes will happen but id like to minimise that! Also the entry fee's are so expensive!! Why waste the cost of going if your not 100% prepared? Id rather make the mistakes at a 2ft6 £18 hunter trial.

When I told my mum I was thinking of taking Jt to an event (and im talking the 80cm one!!) she said I was only to do it if I was 100% commited, confident and prepared.

She told me that when she started eventing (eons ago!!) that for a pre novice she was jumping double clears Newcomer BSJA and getting regularly placed, she was competing and winning 3ft6 hunter trials and schooling over intermediate BE fences. She usually came top 5.

She told me of one time when her horse stopped at a fence on the XC course of an event. She couldnt figure out why and it bothered her. So herself and my dad boxed up the horse and drove the 2.5hours (5hr round journey) the weekend after back to the event venue to school over it. She said it took her 10 attempts to get the horse over it and she was almost in tears and she couldnt understand why he didnt like that particular fence. She did it though and kept jumping it untill he was flawless over it and then they came home.

She asked me if I was willing to give that commitment and said anything less than I shouldnt event as its too dangerous.

Ha ha at least I know where I get my perfectionist tendancies!
 
I think this has been taken out of context. Official stats show that in unseated rider (USR) falls, 1% result in death/serious injury (no deaths that I could find in this category), in horse falls this increases to 7%, whilst in rotational falls the figure is 33%. The vast majority of USR falls occur at lower levels, the majority of rotational at Novice and above. These are recorded stats over 9 years. Based on this I think you could say that the statistical risk of death/serious injury is lower at the lower levels and I suspect this is the point the guy was trying (perhaps badly) to make. Of course as soon as you get on a horse (or near) you put yourself in danger, but at least at BE events thee is good paramedic/medical back up if it does go t*ts up
 
every single XC lesson i;ve ever had (i started XC about 6 years ago) i;ve been told to shorten my stirrups. have been told that it makes me more able to move around and stay in balance than if my stirrups were too long... :confused: i'm confuzzled now :eek:

i do think its worrying that some people really don't see 90cm as potentially dangerous. no its not huge BUT its big enough, especially if its involving anything slightly unusual. i'm not the best rider in the world (by far) but some of the riding at the lower levels is truly horrendous. i know a girl who wants to do an intro but her horse (some kind of trotter) can't even canter properly...but someone is filling her head with ideas like that...now i'm all for challenging yourself but try it out at 2ft RC first where you can trot and pop much more safely :eek:

siennamum said:
I think the issue has to do with balance. If you have short stirrups and don't have your heel under your hips, you are behind the movement. If the horses front end goes you will follow it, instead of being thrown off over it's head/shoulders.

The reason most people have their lower legs forward is for security, they have been drilled into believing that your lower leg can't be too far forward or too fixed. Prior to the Barcelona Olympics, and a new style of riding led by the Australians/Kiwis I don't remember this obsession. Since then, it's been drilled into people to never get ahead of the horse or let your lower leg go back, cause you'll fall off too easily. Sure if you do you may fall off on a drop, but you are less likely to be still in the plate when the horse hits the ground.

Now everyone rides like they are sitting in an armchair.
Click to expand...
 
I was actually embarrassed the other week as Isleham, at the standard of some of the riding around the lower levels on the xc. Riders chatting saying they had not bothered getting their horses fit as first run of the season they dont need to be, horses carrying so much weight (and I admit fully to taking pictures of two that I could not believe the riders seriously thought about going xc as sooo fat), they were physically unable to do the job asked of them. One conversation overheard, girl at her first event asking another rider "how fast do I have to go to make the time, dont worry I will just go flat out, as sure to make it then!!!!" Clueless riders and clueless horses accidents just waiting to happen.

I think with the small heights that BE and BS have now gone down to, anybody with a horse and the money can basically affiliate and enter a show. Years ago there was much prestige that you had reached "the level" where you were good enough to affiliate i.e. Novice for eventing and Newcomers for SJ. I knew very few "professional" riders that would ever take a young horse out in an intro class, most will start at pre-novice or novice, as you teach the horse their job at home, a show is an extension of that. The only good news is that BE has got so expensive that people are going back to unaffiliated and learning through the lower level courses due to costs.

I truly dont believe there is any difference at making a mistake at 2' than 4' it can be fatal for both horse and rider, people need to learn to ride, becoming a working pupil (which seems to be a thing of the past) in whatever discipline they choose and learn your trade from people that have done it for years, and work your way up learning as you go has long gone. Nowadays, so many people call themselves professional SJ or eventers and have done nothing, apart from scrape round low level courses with a wing and a pray on a decent horse that has been honest enough to help them out everystep of the way. I think the standard has fallen terribly in the last 10 years, accidents have increased and riding and horsemanship has deteriorated. People no longer have anything to strive for, no reason to learn and improve as any old idiot can now affilaite and pray your horse is far cleverer than you are.

Just look through the results far more falls and refusuals, problems on course in the 100s and under than Novice and above speaks for itself. Do your homework and then compete not compete and do your homework on the course on a wing and a prayer. We would never have dreamt of taken a horse out years ago the way people do today with no preparation or correct schooling and months and months of training.

I dont compete eventing, I have one good horse that is with a rider to compete for me as I am useless so am looking at it from a spectator/owner point of view and these are my thoughts.
 
Can I just say as an outsider with an interest, that I agree with that completely, Scally.
I can appreciate BE needs the financial input from the total novices you see nowadays but don't they have some responsibility to ensure that people are of a sufficient standard to take part too? You can't take your A test before you take your D, so why should the step up to affiliated be any different? Somehow, they should be tested for competence in riding and horse preparation before they are ever allowed to run affiliated and then checked on while competing to be sure they are up to scratch; if they're not, their affiliation should be pulled until they satisfy requirements. Quite how that can be done, I don't know but it does deserve further thought - which I'm sure, you lot on here, will be able to thrash out! It's just getting BE to take responsibility for this mess that they started by lowering their standards.
 
I agree in part to what you are saying however as some-one who is aiming to complete BE this year with only 1 BE80 class in my local area this would push me into Intro if I wanted to continue to complete under rules and I am well aware that as a partnership my horse and I are not ready for Intro. Many unaff competitions are poorly designed, managed and run with competitor who flash around the course like a high speed train surely this is just as dangerous.

Maybe the answer is more lower level classes and a staged approach to moving up the ranks ie not allowed to compete in PN until completed 7 intro rounds will encourage riders to gain real experience before moving up a class?
 
scally said:
I knew very few "professional" riders that would ever take a young horse out in an intro class, most will start at pre-novice or novice, as you teach the horse their job at home, a show is an extension of that.
Click to expand...

The reason pros don't go out at intro is because they are restricted from doing so by BE rules. You only have to look at the section lists for ALW unaff intro to realise it has nothing to do with them thinking you should only start a horse at PN and above. Off the top of my head at the last ALW unaff pros in the intro included Bill Levett, Dicky Waygood, Bumble Thomas, Georgie Davis... I could go on!

Also a greater number of falls is a totally meaningless stat given more people event. That's only worth looking at if you look at number of falls as a proportion of the number of starters.
 
Siennamum

I would have to disagree with you here, i dont ride in a blocky saddle, but i certainly like to ride short across country, it gives you far more stability than reaching for longer stirrups. You can balance and brace yourself far more effectively.

I think far more people have trouble because there riding to long.
 
MFH9 said:
Can I just say as an outsider with an interest, that I agree with that completely, Scally.
I can appreciate BE needs the financial input from the total novices you see nowadays but don't they have some responsibility to ensure that people are of a sufficient standard to take part too? You can't take your A test before you take your D, so why should the step up to affiliated be any different? Somehow, they should be tested for competence in riding and horse preparation before they are ever allowed to run affiliated and then checked on while competing to be sure they are up to scratch; if they're not, their affiliation should be pulled until they satisfy requirements. Quite how that can be done, I don't know but it does deserve further thought - which I'm sure, you lot on here, will be able to thrash out! It's just getting BE to take responsibility for this mess that they started by lowering their standards.
Click to expand...

BE have what I think is a pretty good system in place already - and they do act on it. Dressage judges can (and will) send 'notes of concern' across with score sheets so people get watched in the SJ, and SJ judges will alert the TA if there is someone whom they think shouldn't run XC. I've seen several people, one of whom jumped clear in the SJ, get pulled up by the TA and not allowed to run XC because of their standard of riding.

There are lots of things I think BE do wrong, but this actually isn't one of them! I think people need to take a bit more personal responsibility on this one rather than expecting the governing body to nanny them and do all the risk assessing/ability assessing for them. In fact the very fact we have to SJ before we go XC and have a CR rule if you get too many faults does show BE take this seriously.
 
I have to say i very much agree with SC.

Having done a lot of events at intro and PN over last few years i have seen this system in place and working quite a few times.

I also think that people have to take responsibility for themselves and their own safety - there is only so much that BE can do. There are many, many of us at lower levels who, whilst being far from Pippa Funnel, are competent at the level at which we compete and work hard with training to remain so.
 
SpottedCat said:
In fact the very fact we have to SJ before we go XC and have a CR rule if you get too many faults does show BE take this seriously.
Click to expand...

And there's nothing more entertaining standing next to someone who has just been CR'd in the showjumping as they try to plead with the BE steward to let them go XC because the horse (which has just stopped/ploughed through/cat leapt enough SJs that they've notched up a cricket score) is 'really safe XC, he just doesn't like poles' ;):eek:

Further to another point - I have been surprised this season just how many pros ARE running in intros HC. There were 4 in my section at Oasby and another 3 or 4 at Draycott. If they think that they need to do this, when they've no chance of a prize yet the result will be immortalised on the horse's record, then perhaps the rest of us should be listening too? :confused:
 
diggerbez said:
every single XC lesson i;ve ever had (i started XC about 6 years ago) i;ve been told to shorten my stirrups. have been told that it makes me more able to move around and stay in balance than if my stirrups were too long... :confused: i'm confuzzled now :eek:

i do think its worrying that some people really don't see 90cm as potentially dangerous. no its not huge BUT its big enough, especially if its involving anything slightly unusual. i'm not the best rider in the world (by far) but some of the riding at the lower levels is truly horrendous. i know a girl who wants to do an intro but her horse (some kind of trotter) can't even canter properly...but someone is filling her head with ideas like that...now i'm all for challenging yourself but try it out at 2ft RC first where you can trot and pop much more safely :eek:
Click to expand...

My issue isn't with short stirrups, NH jockeys have short stirrups. It's with short stirrups (or any length stirrups) when the lower leg is wedged 4/5 inches in front of the body. It's common. The rider should be able to land on his/her feet & not fall over if the horse disappears, you can only do this if your heel is in a line with your hips & shoulders.
 
ah right that makes sense now :rolleyes: thanks :)
FWIW i've had a fair few trainers XC (i'm a clinic addict!) and never ever been told to put my leg forwards, always underneath :)
 
I find this a really interesting debate. When I first starting eventing, it was on a borrowed horse that wasn't easy. I had no idea of the real skills required and the level I needed to be at prior to doing a BE event. Back then though they had just introduced PN, and that was big enough for a first time eventer!

I think one of the main problems today is money. Those with money buy an expensive horse and think that is all they need to do - they enter an event, hang on, get round, get placed and think they are brilliant riders. That only works for so long. They either move up to a level they can't ride at, and fall off/ have an accident, or they buy a new inexperienced horse and end up either scaring the horse, scaring themselves, or both. I know someone who competed at Novice, the horse was a superstar, but the rider had no idea of his capabilities - put him on something else and he would have been on the floor at the first mistake.

Those who don't have money economise by not doing the training as thoroughly as they should. I know people who have barely gone xc schooling (maybe once, with a friend!) and then go out to do an Intro. Trouble is, if they get round they think they are a great rider. Later, perhaps when the fences get bigger, they discover they are not. I know so many people who go off to an event having done no preparation.

I am definitely with the old school of thought - Newcomers and Novice being the "professional" levels. I have jumped round both and know how tough it is with a horse that isn't a "pushbutton" ride.

Knowing what I do now, I think the real answer is to say that every rider must attend a BE training day and be specifically signed off for a level before progressing to the next. For those who have competed at that level before on a different horse, there should just be one "sign off" which allows you to compete up to the same level you did before (allowing the partnership to be seen and assessed by a BE coach). Obviously more experienced riders would pass a point where they would no longer need any sign off.

I would be very happy to have a coach see me and tell me if I am ready to compete at a certain level or not and if I am not, I can get further training, which hopefully would make me safer.

Riders who have hardly ridden xc seem less equipped to deal with the fast moving environment - from the point of view that if the horse jumps sideways, spooks at the flowers, changes pace coming into a fence, there is less time to react, and they are often unseated, and also these riders are unable to assess the ground conditions and ride accordingly. You see people these days galloping down slippery steep hills, or through boggy ground on an unbalanced horse, or going too slowly into a big spread.

The main problem is that as a rider you don't realise how under-trained you were until you are more experienced!!

I think we are storing up problems for the future by introducing the lower level classes.
 
Why is it storing up problems for the future by having lower level classes? It's not like these classes didn't exist before, they were simply run unaffiliated.

I'm also completely unconvinced this is all a 'new' phenomenon - I am sure there has always been bad riding, but people couldn't video/photograph it, put it on the internet, chunter about it with complete strangers on a forum, look up someone's record at the click of a mouse etc. It's easy to convince yourself that this is all a product of the fact that today people have more disposable income and so buy a horse and go BE without training - I'm not certain it is, I think underprepared people always went and did daft things, it's just BE didn't cater for them so they did it at unaff events.
 
Completely agree SC. I've seen some shocking riding at RC events over the years, but when I went to watch Horse Trials it was a different league. Now it's all muddled in together. I'm glad that BE run lower level events - I always aspired to event and the lower level classes allow me to do that. I also think that it is good that the riders that need help/training are now being 'exposed' and BE are addressing safety and training as one of their priorities. Back in the day - these riders got round (or in some cases didn't) an RC event and carried on in their own little world thinking nothing much was wrong - which in my opinion was the real problem.
 
Strange how people read things differently. I thought he was making a valid point. I took it to mean ambitious riding by a novice over a course at this level,not being dangerous.I took "ambitious " riding to be the subject of his comments,and as refering to riding at a competetive pace on a competetive line. I didnt take the comment to have any relevance to the inherent dangers of all equestrian sports. It would be insanely dangerous for a novice to ride boldly round a big course if they cant place their horse with pinpoint accuracy and control pace and impulsion. That same rider could get away with mistakes and inaccuracy round a smaller course yet still take the more ambitious lines through combinations etc.So on that basis I thought he was right.
 
SpottedCat said:
Why is it storing up problems for the future by having lower level classes? It's not like these classes didn't exist before, they were simply run unaffiliated.

I'm also completely unconvinced this is all a 'new' phenomenon - I am sure there has always been bad riding, but people couldn't video/photograph it, put it on the internet, chunter about it with complete strangers on a forum, look up someone's record at the click of a mouse etc. It's easy to convince yourself that this is all a product of the fact that today people have more disposable income and so buy a horse and go BE without training - I'm not certain it is, I think underprepared people always went and did daft things, it's just BE didn't cater for them so they did it at unaff events.
Click to expand...

Completely agree with this! Wind back the clock 10 years and imagine the standard of riding at RC 2'6-3'3 type of events. It's no different to what you are seeing at BE80/BE90/BE100 now - it's just that BE has become more acessible to more people and the standard of riding is far easier to critique these lesser experienced riders. BE take a lot of flack at times, sometimes deservedly, but on the same note they do appear to be trying to take the sport forwards.
 
And at least these people are, in the main, riding over well built courses on safe enough ground with sensible distances and questions set consistently without the odd random fence thrown in which is way too easy/difficult and with good medical cover on site. That can only be a good thing when looking at less experienced riders.
 
We actualy ran an unaff event at the college I went to, there were some nice riders there but some of them really should have got a few lessons in before thinking about doing a ODE. The year I helped run it there were so many falls xc that they changed it the year after so those who were eliminated in dressage or sj couldn't go HC xc any more. A little unfair perhaps if people had paid but it was too dangerous. There were people who could not sit a trot or get a resonably balanced canter (I don't expect grand prix here but motorbiking arround head in the air totaly out of control....) in the dressage expecting to go xc. People comming into the water on the xc who's horses clearly had know idea what to do and were refusing 50 yards out.

Training is something to be done at home not incompetition in an unfamiliar place where nerves are going to add to the stress.
 
i completely agree with Scally, bravo!
i don't think it is BE's job to police riders any more than they do, it has to come down to Rider Responsibility. it would cost a fortune to have to have a training/assessment day for every new rider to the sport, or every rider on a new horse. i would be insulted if i was told i needed an assessment before being allowed to compete a new horse - that's what MY brain is for, thanks!
i was told of a rider who had 6 runs at PN, all E in sj or xc, so entered an N. E'd in the sj.
this makes me boggle. WHAT kind of person thinks, in all seriousness, "we can't get round a PN, so let's go for bigger, more technical fences?!?!?!" Yeah, that was going to work. Surely this person had an OH, or parent, or sibling, or trainer, or friend, with an atom of common sense? Maybe not, because it looks as if the horse was the brightest one of the lot!
i think SC is right, you did see bad riding when we all had to start at N, but you don't get away with riding badly at N for long (unless you are on an absolute saint) so those people tended to get E'd, or have a fall, or have a few near misses, and really not enjoy themselves, and bottle it... for good, at that level. I knew quite a few who did just that, and went back to doing other things that were more fun and less terrifying. no shame in that. the difference now is that there's the Kudos of "i'm an Eventer, doing BE you know" coupled with 80 and 90cm tracks... and anyone can convince themselves that they can get over those. No danger, right. Full circle back to Paul Graham's comment...
 
I love how yet again it's turned into a 'oh-you're-criticising-the-lower-level-riders-again' thread. :rolleyes:

It's not an attack on the standard of riding at the levels, it's a comment on a poorly worded phrase from someone in BE. All K is questioning [and I will put my head above the parapet here and say that actually I pointed this out to K but wasn't brave enough [for the top point] to do the post myself] is how someone can suggest that making mistakes at a fixed fence can be deemed as 'not dangerous.' I seem to think there was a gentleman killed in a PN-equiv in Belgium recently, who [the article suggested] was well respected? He made an error at a PN equivalent fence and paid the price. A fixed fence is dangerous because it is fixed. Showjumps can be dangerous, yes I will agree.

It's not about the standard of riding, it's about the comment.
 
Mike007 said:
Strange how people read things differently. I thought he was making a valid point. I took it to mean ambitious riding by a novice over a course at this level,not being dangerous.I took "ambitious " riding to be the subject of his comments,and as refering to riding at a competetive pace on a competetive line. I didnt take the comment to have any relevance to the inherent dangers of all equestrian sports. It would be insanely dangerous for a novice to ride boldly round a big course if they cant place their horse with pinpoint accuracy and control pace and impulsion. That same rider could get away with mistakes and inaccuracy round a smaller course yet still take the more ambitious lines through combinations etc.So on that basis I thought he was right.
Click to expand...

Sorry Mike, i disagree. riding slowly and hesitantly (non ambitiously) round a small course could easily be more disastrous than riding boldly round a bigger one, it depends hugely on the individual horse.
he says it allows people "to make a mistake without being dangerous". this just isn't true with fixed fences (even with sjs sometimes).
it is possible to ride safely round a big course even if you aren't pinpoint-accurate (the fact that i'm still here is testament to that!) Everyone misses sometimes, some more often than others... a good horse, a trained, thinking athlete who loves its job, covers for the less-than-perfect rider and keeps him/her safe.
but the fences, however small, still have an inherent danger.
 
QR- saying small fixed fences aren't dangerous is just plain silly.
if he was to say they aren't as dangerous as big fixed fences i'd agree.

and fwiw, i pulled my 5yro up last year at the BE at Stafford in her first event as she was totally bewildered and had chested into fence 3 like she hadn't even seen it.
if she had had a bit more momentum we likely would have had a rotational at a 3ft fence.

i was totally stupid for even allowing us to get as far as fence 3 when she went so suddenly green but it really highlighted for me that even tiny fences have the potential to cause a big accident.
 
I think we are actualy in agreement Yes riding hesitantly,is dangerous.(slow is a relative term ,there is a time and place for slow). The smaller courses encourage riders to take the more ambitious routes and gain experience.Generaly up to about 1m a horse can get itself out of trouble.Keep getting it wrong at bigger stuff and any sane horse will hand in his resignation.I still think he is talking about riding dangerously rather than the fact that there are dangers in this sport.
 
RE: PG's comment and the OP, I agree with millitiger;

millitiger said:
QR- saying small fixed fences aren't dangerous is just plain silly.
if he was to say they aren't as dangerous as big fixed fences i'd agree
Click to expand...

Seems daft to suggest there is no danger, but although there may be more falls, this is balanced out by the fact that there are more runs at lower levels (so as a percentage this would be interesting to see) and also the outcome is likely to be (although, of course, no guarantees and freak accidents can happen at any height) less severe an outcome than the same mistake at a bigger fence.

RE: Unsafe riding and what BE do about it, I agree with SC;

SpottedCat said:
There are lots of things I think BE do wrong, but this actually isn't one of them! I think people need to take a bit more personal responsibility on this one rather than expecting the governing body to nanny them and do all the risk assessing/ability assessing for them. In fact the very fact we have to SJ before we go XC and have a CR rule if you get too many faults does show BE take this seriously.
Click to expand...

As a new-to-the-sport, low level rider, I have done all I can to learn about what is expected of me/my horse when I do go to a BE event. Last year I did my first BE90 and in the run up to this I did;

- A XC lesson with Sarah Houlden (has ridden on British teams), our first time jumping XC fences.
- An unaff 2'6" HT (clear, 1min over OT as wasn't pushing for speed, just stayed in a nice rythymn as a happy clear was more important to me than a fast, hairy, possible run-out. This was our first ever competitive XC.) We finished 6th even with the time pens! :)
- Another XC training day with a registered instructor.
- Another unaff 2'6" HT, another clear, this time faster as more confident in our abilities. Came 2nd. :D
- XC lesson with David Gatherer over BE fences at Scone Palace, jumped mostly BE90 fences.
- Unaff Pick-A-Fence competition, did mostly 3ft fences at this. One issue with very skinny pimple fence.
- XC lesson with David Gatherer over BE fences at Oatridge, jumped mostly BE100 fences with a few Novice fences also (although this course known for being on small side! ;) ) Asked David if he thought we'd be fine for a BE90 and he said absolutely- he would have been happy with us going BE100 having watched us!
- XC lesson with David Gatherer over BE fences at Hopetoun, jumped mostly BE100 fences.
- Unaff PC ODE, 3ft class. Clear SJ, one run out XC at very nasty, wide ditch with running water through it in the middle of a very dark forest! Absolutely exusable from my horse esp as we'd had to walk 99% of the forest section due to awful ground conditions!

Only then did we go to our first BE90 full of confidence and came home with a double clear (with time penalties, again, wanting the nice clear not a fast 20pen!) and plenty of work to do on the dressage! ;)

Our next (and last of the year) BE we had another double clear and even though our dressage was still not great (and is realistically never going to be) we came 4th. :D

So I am very happy that I put all the time/money/effort into training and making sure we were as prepared as possible. I know I am never going to be a pro rider or even the best of the amateurs, but I want me and my horse to be safe and have fun. I would hate to go out and make a fool of myself by riding so badly that I was either stopped or commented about (but I would apply this to any public riding or competition, unaff or BE!).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top