Poll: Number of BE foundation points and moving up to an open section - discuss

[charlimouse]

Just a musing shamelessly stolen from the BE forum, but thought a poll on here would be interesting.

Basically, once a horse has a certain number of BE foundation points should that horse have to compete in an open section? For example, once a horse has say over30 foundation points they would have to compete in open BE90 sections, and once a horse has over 60 foundation points they would have to compete in open BE100.

I know there has been an argument that there are not enough open sections. However surely this would increase the demand, and I cannot see for the life of me why it should be so difficult for an event that runs 6 BE100 sections over a weekend, to make 2 or 3 sections open, depending on entries?

This would stop the apparent 'pothunting' that does occur at the BE90 and 100. I am fully aware that there are many people who do not want to progress above BE100, and by putting them into an open section it means they are not forced out of their comfort zone.

Before anybody thinks this post is complaining, if BE were to adopt these rules I would have to compete in Open BE100 sections on Jem .

Anybody else have thoughts on this subject???

 

[christine48]

There aren't many open sections at 90 and100, so people would struggle to find runs. There are competitors who have no ambition to compete above these levels so why penalise them.

 

[rotters13]

Here's my two pence:

I own a 9yo Polish WB mare who this year has been placed every time out at BE100. She has 96 foundation points and to a point I would run in an open section. However, she is not 100% confident and although we have now entered a novice. To a great extent she needed (needs) runs at BE100 to keep her confidence up. I also enjoy competing at the grass levels roots! What I find 'clogs' up a lot of the placings (and Regional Final Qualifications!) are professionals. For example, it is mildly irritating when Matt Ryan beats you. I am not an Olympic Gold Medallist and whilst it feels good when you do come above them, a great deal of the time it is irritating!

So would I be open to 'open' sections? Yes as long as there were loads going on and only if they were still not open to horses with points. I don't want to be competing against Ensign or some 3* horse with a junior on! I would also still want to be able to qualify for regional finals etc. If grassroots championship at Badminton is the closest I'll get to the main event then yes please I will aim for it! I am all up for an open playing field but as long as it is still as fair as possible.

 

[sarahcma]

Perhaps it would be fairer to be horse and rider combination rather than just horse points... Then people who are genuine amateurs could still compete in the early days of a partnership but as they improve they have to move up?

 

[brushingboots]

I think a RIDER should have to move up when they have so many points themselves. This would put some pro's out of 100 sections on horses who have fewer points, then if said horse is sold, they are still able to go back. Or horse-rider combination perhaps. I do think this needs to be looked into though.

 

[DorothyJ]

I'd be in favour of something like this.

 

[rotters13]

But to a certain extent standards still have to be set. You cant just keep throwing out competitive horses until the lower standard wins! (Difficult to say politely. I do mean it without being rude!)

 

[kerilli]

I think a RIDER should have to move up when they have so many points themselves. This would put some pro's out of 100 sections on horses who have fewer points, then if said horse is sold, they are still able to go back. Or horse-rider combination perhaps. I do think this needs to be looked into though.

that's a really good idea. more Open sections definitely, and more control of which riders do which classes.
must admit i've never had a problem at all about competing against the big boys and girls, i think it's one of the very best things about our sport... and coming second in a Novice to Ginny Leng was more memorable (for me anyway) than winning one! i would really really hate to see any official segregation of abilities, Pro and Amateur splits (incredibly difficult to split fairly anyway... i mean, Heinrich Romeike is a bona fide amateur fgs!) so i think that should be steered away from...

 

[LEC]

It would be too hard to monitor riders and also I am not opposed to pros riding in BE100 classes as the majority of the time they are on youngsters.

I think there will be huge amounts of moaning about it but I think it is needed as there are never enough open classes and this will make them valid again.

 

[rotters13]

I don't mind excessively against riding against professionals but it annoys me when the Regional Final qualifications don't pass down!

 

[charlimouse]

that's a really good idea. more Open sections definitely, and more control of which riders do which classes.
must admit i've never had a problem at all about competing against the big boys and girls, i think it's one of the very best things about our sport... and coming second in a Novice to Ginny Leng was more memorable (for me anyway) than winning one! i would really really hate to see any official segregation of abilities, Pro and Amateur splits (incredibly difficult to split fairly anyway... i mean, Heinrich Romeike is a bona fide amateur fgs!) so i think that should be steered away from...

Completely agree with this. Personally I love competing against the Pros, and would hate to loose that aspect. I'll never forget when I came 4th in a Novice section and the top 5 consisted of Nicola Wilson, Oliver Townend, Ruth Edge and Matthew Wright . I think that might just be my proudest moment ever .

I do wonder if we did it on rider points we would loose this aspect? Those who have competed at advanced in the past few seasons already cannot compete in BE90, which is fair enough. However should this carry through to BE100 aswell? I'm not sure on that point.

 

[brushingboots]

They have the FP rider league at the end of the years. TBH, for me it is more about the regional quals, as it is putting the true amateur out of contention, which is what the grassroots is intended for. Perhaps this is the issue which should primarily be adressed. Again, seeing pros in my section is a big part of the sport for me also, but i do think a line has to be drawn somewhere for amateurs to be able to get a chance

 

[Lolo]

If this went ahead, surely there would be more need for open classes and so more places would run them? So you wouldn't struggle to find the runs. But by having these open sections, would you be eligible for the grassroots champs- I thought open section wins didn't get you a qualification?

I'm in 2 minds, really. Competing against the 'big boys' so to speak is something a lot of people enjoy and it's a really interesting aspect of the sport. Then you get the people who are winning the normal sections suddenly coming up against the people winning the open sections in the regional finals- will there be a big disparity in standard?

On the other hand, competing against people who've been winning since the dawn of time at BE90 and for whatever reason don't want to/ can't move up is often harder than competing against pros on babies. By saying it's the points the horse has you can sort this split out more. The question of getting runs wouldn't be an issue as more places would run open sections to cater for the increased market.

 

[kerilli]

I do wonder if we did it on rider points we would loose this aspect? Those who have competed at advanced in the past few seasons already cannot compete in BE90, which is fair enough. However should this carry through to BE100 aswell? I'm not sure on that point.

well, afaik 99.9% of Pros in a BE100 are on a young horse (I can only think of 1 or 2 exceptions ever) and intending it to go up the levels... or be sold i guess. so, it's not them who are sticking at the level for years and mopping up all the prizes on their super-dressage-pones.
it's tricky though, what do you do with someone who can win BE100s easily but has no ambition to go bigger? i thought the old 'step up to Opens when you've won 3' (is that right?) was perfectly fair.

 

[charlimouse]

well, afaik 99.9% of Pros in a BE100 are on a young horse (I can only think of 1 or 2 exceptions ever) and intending it to go up the levels... or be sold i guess. so, it's not them who are sticking at the level for years and mopping up all the prizes on their super-dressage-pones.
it's tricky though, what do you do with someone who can win BE100s easily but has no ambition to go bigger? i thought the old 'step up to Opens when you've won 3' (is that right?) was perfectly fair.

Precisely - essentially by making horses run in open sections with more than 'X' points, you would be coming back to the 3 wins (or several high placings ) ruleing, which IMO BE were mad to ever get rid of.

Lets also remember that if it was say 30 points for BE90, the horse would only get 8 points for a win, so they would have to be consistently very competitive at the level in order to have to move into the open section. Same if the BE100 was at 60 points. With 16 points for a win, it isn't like a horse hat has a couple of good runs which were a bit of a fluke will be penalised !

 

[langside]

well, afaik 99.9% of Pros in a BE100 are on a young horse (I can only think of 1 or 2 exceptions ever) and intending it to go up the levels... or be sold i guess. so, it's not them who are sticking at the level for years and mopping up all the prizes on their super-dressage-pones.
it's tricky though, what do you do with someone who can win BE100s easily but has no ambition to go bigger? i thought the old 'step up to Opens when you've won 3' (is that right?) was perfectly fair.

I think its a tricky one I've known events cancel the open section to prevent a ballot in the normal BE90/100 so without providing more open sections some will find it difficult for runs/ pushing beyond what there happy about

never been bothered about the pros i think its a privallage and often like kerilli says there on young horses who get beat by the 14hh pc been there and done it

But equally my heart sinks when you see certain combinations entered in your section after you know full well they've already won everything this and the last 4 seasons they've ever entered and come in the top 10 in the foundation points table last season

but then again if you do beat them surely its the best feeling as you know your beating the best rather than the average

 

[Lolo]

I think its a tricky one I've known events cancel the open section to prevent a ballot in the normal BE90/100 so without providing more open sections some will find it difficult for runs/ pushing beyond what there happy about

never been bothered about the pros i think its a privallage and often like kerilli says there on young horses who get beat by the 14hh pc been there and done it

But equally my heart sinks when you see certain combinations entered in your section after you know full well they've already won everything this and the last 4 seasons they've ever entered and come in the top 10 in the foundation points table last season

but then again if you do beat them surely its the best feeling as you know your beating the best rather than the average

I reckon it should be off horse points rather than rider points.

I also think that it would increase the number of open sections- in Al's section at Burnham pretty much the top 15 had 40+ foundation points, and this wasn't unusual across the board. So there would have been more open sections than normal I think, but then a fairer playing field?

 

[dieseldog]

This would cause BE a lot of work. If a horse was competing and doing well before FPs were introduced they currently have no FPs. For example one of our horses has a very good PN record, but he last competed in 2009 so has no FPs. BE would have to go back and allocate points to those horses, or let them start with zero again. Or rebaseline all horses to zero points starting next year?

Currently if you are competing in an open section you are can not qualify for grassroots - even if you and the horse are eligible.

 

[dieseldog]

I reckon it should be off horse points rather than rider points.

I also think that it would increase the number of open sections- in Al's section at Burnham pretty much the top 15 had 40+ foundation points, and this wasn't unusual across the board. So there would have been more open sections than normal I think, but then a fairer playing field?

Your sister was in the BE100 though? 40 FPs seems a reasonable amount to go BE100, that is only a few decent runs at intro.


The one thing is that eventers seem to like winning 'proper' points and I think that this makes riders to want to move out of BE100, it must be a small percentage that want to stay at BE100.

 

[diggerbez]

whilst i voted yes in the poll i actually think that they should bring back the old 3 wins and its into open sections rule... if you can win 3x PNs that is not a fluke...its difficult (even more so because of the pros- on baby horses or not!) and whilst i accept that you shouldn't be forced to move up into novice you should have to move out of normal sections....they could make the open classes qualifiers for badders grassroots as the horses with actual points in these sections wouldn't be able to qualify anyway if placed as they are not grade IV horses? i also think that they should bring in the same rule at 90...but maybe make it 5 wins and you are out...

it happens in BS and BD so not sure why eventing is deemed to be different?

 

[Lolo]

Your sister was in the BE100 though? 40 FPs seems a reasonable amount to go BE100, that is only a few decent runs at intro.


The one thing is that eventers seem to like winning 'proper' points and I think that this makes riders to want to move out of BE100, it must be a small percentage that want to stay at BE100.

Yep, she was and I realised that once I'd posted I'd got a bit muddled.

Why was the 3 wins and into an open section was binned?

 

[mil1212]

I think they do need to change it but can't say I can think of the best way. I think it's fairly unfair to allow people to just carry on winning time and time again, that is unlike any other equestrian discipline, when you get good at a level you have to move out of that 'novice' status. I assume that now also downgraded horses are competing in these sections.
I am more annoyed however, that I can carry on doing well at 90 and am not allowed to go to the grassroots, and am therefore also taking that spot from someone who could go (and I am absolutely not a pro!).
They definitely need more open 90's and 100's to make it fair though, and I can't see why there couldn't be as they should also be well subscribed.

 

[star]

i think the only big change I'd like to see would be that qualification passes down the line at BE100. So if you're not eligible for grassroots then you cant take a qualifying spot. I wouldn't want to stop the pros from competing in the 100 sections as they need to start their youngsters somewhere and often they're not the ones who are hard to beat anyway as they're on green horses. It's the people who have been winning at 90/100 for yrs and yrs who you dread finding in your section. At BD, once you've won a certain number of points you're out of that level unless you compete HC. Prevents people sticking around forever winning at Novice. I know there are plenty of people who never want to go above 100 and for safety reasons it wouldn't be safe to force them out of doing 100's but probably needs to be a point where they have to go into the Open sections. I'm not sure 60 points or 3 wins is enough though - that would be achievable in one season on a good horse which would only give you that one chance to do the grassroots which seems to be everyone's aim. Perhaps once you have achieved top 10 at Badminton you should have to go Open - that would put the cat amongst the pigeons!

 

[Chloe1]

Agree in theory but i think 30 and 60 points is quite low to be out so maybe 100.

 

[Santa_Claus]

my reason why not especially if done on rider points.

I look at a lady I met recently several years ago as a teenager and before she had kids she competed successfully at novice, she then had kids let several years go past and has recently started competing again but has confidence issues and is trying to gain her confidence at BE90 at the moment. BE100 is her 'dream'

Now she is still eligible for grassroots and has a chance of getting a qualifying result at BE90 in a normal class, with confidence and time BE100 with a 'pro light' class may also have chance of a qualifying result.

I doubt anyone would argue she doesn't have the right to compete at the GR champs but if points from 10+ years previous (ok for her they are 'real' points rather than foundation points but in 10 years the same principle could well apply) were to force her to compete in open sections against purely pros, older horses dropping several levels and as suggested 'pot hunters' then her likelyhood of getting a QR is rapidly reduced.

At BE100 a QR is hard enough as it is without making it harder. I have nothing against competing against professionals infact I positively enjoy it but I would be disheartened to be forced in to an open section to be left with the near impossible chance of getting a QR.

There is a reason BE removed the 3 wins at PN and you're out rule, to force riders out of the main section purely as they are consistently good is not IMHO fair on those who don't and probably never will have the confidence to compete at Novice.

and IF it was ever to happen 30 points is ridiculously low 'just' 2 wins at BE100 would give you 32 points!!

 

[TarrSteps]

But the suggestion isn't to move people up - agree or disagree, the decision was made to change that system for a reason - but to move them into a section where they would compete against other people in similar circumstances. I don't think it really dumbs down the competition as everyone does the same test and jumps the same jumps.

I may be biased though as this system was introduced when I was still competing. I never had a problem with pros in a section - they're just passing through and will leave as soon as they're comoetitive - but it was a bit disheartening to send kids and people new to a level in against combinations that had become virtually "professionals" at that level.

 

[be positive]

I have felt for a while that something needs to be done, horse and rider as a combination probably the most fair or horse alone with downgrading an option if it gets sold.

A local horse now has over 100 fp, it has won several 90s and 100s in 4 seasons yet there is no reason it has to progress, it has qualified for grassroots at 90 for this year and will probably do so for 100 next year.

More open sections would be a good idea also for those trying to run horses with points that for whatever reason need to drop down a level, yes they can run HC but if like the horse in my yard it is being used as a schoolmaster telling a young rider to school round to gain experience does not bring their riding on as well as a proper competitive run, we find it hard to run enough as there are not many opens, especially at 90.

 

[DarkHorseB]

I think there was nothing wrong with the 3 wins rule and have no idea why they removed it We all know how hard it is to win at BE once let alone 3 times To keep it more recent though I think it could maybe be 3 wins in the last 3 or 5 years or horse and rider combination.

I think that someone who has competed (not even completed!!) at Intermediate in last 10 years rule is rather ridiculous at the other end of the scale. A shame for someone that had a go at that level and found it not for them, or just had one great horse and now has a youngster. If they want to keep a similar rule I think should be a much shorter time scale say 3 - 5 years.

Also agree shame the 100 qualifications don't pass down if ineligible combinations in was in one section last year where the first seven placings were taken by riders not eligible which makes the 100s much harder to qualify for than the 90s.

 

[Goldenstar]

I think there was nothing wrong with the 3 wins rule and have no idea why they removed it We all know how hard it is to win at BE once let alone 3 times To keep it more recent though I think it could maybe be 3 wins in the last 3 or 5 years or horse and rider combination.

I think that someone who has competed (not even completed!!) at Intermediate in last 10 years rule is rather ridiculous at the other end of the scale. A shame for someone that had a go at that level and found it not for them, or just had one great horse and now has a youngster. If they want to keep a similar rule I think should be a much shorter time scale say 3 - 5 years.

Also agree shame the 100 qualifications don't pass down if ineligible combinations in was in one section last year where the first seven placings were taken by riders not eligible which makes the 100s much harder to qualify for than the 90s.

Personally I always felt the old three wins rule was too harsh on the talented horse on the flat that was green in its jumping .
I have been away from completing for some years now following an injury but was hoping to come back and do some 90,s and perhaps the dizzy hieghts of 100 if I can crack the jumping again .
I have no desire to go back to jumping at the higher levels again but would love if possible to have a bit of a swan song doing what I loved for fun, one of the things that made me feel it might be worth giving it a shot was that I am able to ride at 90 now and that I could stay in 100 for ever if stuff went well.
I can see no issue with the open sections as long as they where available at every competion and you got a fair crack before you got pushed up.
The present system is very flexible as people who don't want to move on you can move between 90and 100 and back again and that encouraged me to think it was worth trying.
But as you all seem to think there is an issue with pot hunting although I am not sure its the right term for it perhaps something needs sorting.
Once I would have said I would not get out of bed to ride a 90 but times change and your priories do to.its a difficult one.

 

[millitiger]

I definitely think BE need SOMETHING to move people across to open sections.

It is not about forcing them up the ladder, but across.

As the Novice cut off is 20 BE points (which is just over 3 wins), why not use the same ruling for Intros and PNs?

So 60-70 FP puts you out of normal PN sections and similar for Intro.

I say this as someone who had a horse who was running in Open PN despite never winning a BE point- he won 3 x PN but never made the step up to Novice.

I was happy with him running in Open sections as he held his own against horses with 100's of BE points and really do not see how people can defend horses with 100s of FP points still running in unrestricted sections.