Rising 3 year ridden at BEF show.

Fiona said:
I backed my mare when she was in the autumn of her three year old year, at about 3 and 7 months, and she's a TB bred to mature quickly...

That's early enough in my opinion, had she been a big rangy horse rather than a small compact one I may have waited longer.

I agree with A A about the motives behind this instance though...

Fiona
Click to expand...

Well, good for you. I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of top sportshorses competing today were broken at three. Hobby riders can do what they feel is best, getting all hysterical because a professional has chosen to start their young horses at a younger age is just plain silly IMO. Nobody is making it compulsory....
 
I think it's really arrogant to produce such immature horses and claim it's fine. It's not. There is a huge amount of evidence to show that it's not and a huge amount of prematurely unsound (mentally & physically) horses to back this up.

I also think it's ignorant to assume its fine because of who the owners & producers are; that similar approaches are employed on the continent is also a flawed argument.

I find it really sad that people truly believe that this is ok, either because a) professionals do it or b) they've got anecdotal evidence from their own experience that a horse they produced from a young age was, in their opinion, fine and appeared to stay what they consider 'sound' to a good age.

Lovely horses - would have been perfectly adequate to see them shown in hand or on the lunge.
 
I hate all the hypocrisy that surrounds this argument . For all those that have for years moaned that British breeding is not up to the European standards well there is staring you in the face the reason why.

The Europeans have always worked on a system that penalises weakness in the breed basically if it breaks you eat it and move on however us Brits dont have the stomach for that. Nobody is being forced to start their horses early but chances are if you buy an import it will have been backed and brought on from 2.5 yo its the system and works for them
 
Willow1306 said:
I think it's really arrogant to produce such immature horses and claim it's fine. It's not. There is a huge amount of evidence to show that it's not and a huge amount of prematurely unsound (mentally & physically) horses to back this up.

I also think it's ignorant to assume its fine because of who the owners & producers are; that similar approaches are employed on the continent is also a flawed argument.

I find it really sad that people truly believe that this is ok, either because a) professionals do it or b) they've got anecdotal evidence from their own experience that a horse they produced from a young age was, in their opinion, fine and appeared to stay what they consider 'sound' to a good age.

Lovely horses - would have been perfectly adequate to see them shown in hand or on the lunge.
Click to expand...
Thats fine its your own opinion.
What is the point in keeping an unsound horse thats not up to the work till its ten its better to find out at 3yo stage. If you go onto the continent they dont seem to suffer so much with lame v6,7,8 yos like we do in the UK and thats my observations.
 
Willow1306 said:
I think it's really arrogant to produce such immature horses and claim it's fine. It's not. There is a huge amount of evidence to show that it's not and a huge amount of prematurely unsound (mentally & physically) horses to back this up.

I also think it's ignorant to assume its fine because of who the owners & producers are; that similar approaches are employed on the continent is also a flawed argument.

I find it really sad that people truly believe that this is ok, either because a) professionals do it or b) they've got anecdotal evidence from their own experience that a horse they produced from a young age was, in their opinion, fine and appeared to stay what they consider 'sound' to a good age.

Lovely horses - would have been perfectly adequate to see them shown in hand or on the lunge.
Click to expand...

Hmm...do you have any proof, I mean actual statistical proof, of this? I've bred/broken/produced over 200 warmblood horses over more than 30 years, 99% broken at 3, never had a major problem, many have gone on to compete at top level in dressage into their teens. I hear people talking about all the carnage that will ensue if horses are not left until they are, what? Six? before being sat on, but is it really better to have horses that are so green at 6/7/8 that they can't trot a circle and have no balance or muscles to carry a rider. Everything depends on HOW the horse is produced, less on when: waiting is not necessarily better if the person doing the training is not able to ride the horse well enough to help it.
 
I've not got H+H paper version recently but presumably most weeks they're reporting on flat racing 2 and 3YOs?
How is a short trot and canter in the horses natural balance at rising 3, so technically 3, colts only, even comparable let alone something to get outraged about. Is it because 'horsey' people can relate (or like to think they can) to elite dressage more than they can racing? I'm not saying I agree with it, I've not really thought it over yet, just pointing out that H+H reports younger horses doing harder work weekly!
 
I have yet to see any scientific evidence that shows starting horses young breaks them. Instead everyone talks about the growth plates not closing etc but where is the evidence that these need to be closed for a horse to be ridden? Can someone provide a link to this? I have read a lot from Hilary Clayton, she is a vet and highly respected, there is over 300 scientific works of hers that have been published. She promotes starting horses in gentle work at a young age, her book Conditioning Sport Horses actually talks about starting horses at 2 years of age.
 
Of course its for commercialism. I know its a bit of a controversial subject for some but a lot of these young horses end up having hocks, fetlocks and backs steroid injected by the time they are 10 (I know a top Dr rider does theirs at 4 as a matter of course). I know another event rider who drills their 2/3yr olds to see if they break or not...if they don't then they don't get shot. Its a dog eat dog world up there and the longer I'm in the horsey world the more I dislike watching top competition:( I personally dont think horses are ready to be backed till they are 7 looking at it from a skeletal development point of view...however surely if the muscles are developed from a slightly younger stage it helps hold correct bone structure? I know I read a study that racehorses that were ran as 2yr olds had a higher bone density? I dont back mine till they're 3.5/4. I dont agree with anything being sat on till its 3. There aren't that many competition horses now that make it to any age sound. I know someone brought up that valegero was backed early but look at the soundness issues behind closed doors with him. I also think that horses are put to injury because we're breeding many with massive flicky front movement with nothing behind (eg totilas) and then riding them in a way that only emphasis it...but that isn't going to change until judges change unfortunately...and I'm rambling off on a tangent.
 
Irish hunters were always highly prized this side of the water a lot of those celebrated their 3rd birthday hunting in Ireland yet the majority went on for many years never sick or sorry
 
Can people possibly stop using words like hysterical and outraged, pretty please? I don't see anyone getting either hysterical or outraged on this thread and for me it's spoiling a good discussion.
 
popsdosh said:
Irish hunters were always highly prized this side of the water a lot of those celebrated their 3rd birthday hunting in Ireland yet the majority went on for many years never sick or sorry
Click to expand...
Hmmph. Wouldn't ever buy Irish again, after having my lovely Irish bred maxicob pts age 8 riddled with arthritis. Started too early.
 
As others have said, not too much of a fuss if only ridden lightly.
On another note, I saw an american girl on instagram riding and training hard for barrel racing on a young looking horse. Somebody in the comments had asked how old he was and her answer was "2 next month".
 
It seems to be very much because of the grading system (oldenberg in his case, performance test in April as he hits 3). I did read Lynne's list of facts several of which were not facts at all, and would be very much up for debate in scientific circles at least, and I have to say it didn't make it sit any more comfortable for me.

I actually found the timeline she gave a bit confusing as to what had happened when with regards to backing, I'd be interested if someone read it better than me/is licensing under saddle?
'Secondly, they were licensed in September and started preparation in June. Conditioning is hand walking, loose schooling and then lunging. Our Oldenburg licensing was the beginning of November and after that these youngsters are fit through gradual conditioning. From backing they are ridden three or four times a week for 20 minutes. '

I find it really difficult to call horses 3 just because we have hit January because I don't think their bodies know ooh we have hit january so I'm 3 now, when actually they are only say 2 2/3 (he was an april foal iirc) So when people say the horse is 3 not 2 just because he is closer to 3 I don't really get it myself, maybe we should stick to 32 months?! I am therefore curious whether all these other horses we say were broken at 3, were they, or was it 2.5. Because if they were broken at 3 and have been fine that to me is different and not necessarily supportive of the argument to break them at 2.5. If when we say they were broken at 3, to mean 1st Jan then yes perhaps they can be used to support that argument but I think there is a big difference between those two ages. Rising 3 always seems a bit of a get out clause to avoid saying 2.

And whatever lynn says I am a reasons not emotion sort of gal ;), I also don't always dig the 'this person is experienced enough to know' they shouldn't be challenged argument but again that comes from the science side.
 
Last edited:
ester said:
I also don't always dig the 'this person is experienced enough to know' they shouldn't be challenged argument but again that comes from the science side.
Click to expand...

Well, since you're of a scientific bent, you will appreciate that "experience" means "has done it a lot" and presumably has noted the results, whereas I rather think a lot of the people who are squawking about the dire consequences of riding horses before they are 4/5/6 or whatever may not have done it at all...Challenging something is fine, but having a solid reason based on facts would be more useful than just going on emotion.
 
Cortez said:
They are not two, they are probably 3 months shy of being three year olds.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but a horse three months shy of being three is two: saying they're not two is plainly incorrect. They haven't been alive for three years, so whether January the first has passed or not they do not have the physicality of a three year old.

As to the original post, we're outraged about overworked youngsters in the racing and travelling communities (rightly so in my opinion), so why not now? Because it's done under the veneer of a more respectable pursuit, perhaps?
 
JJS said:
I'm sorry, but a horse three months shy of being three is two: saying they're not two is plainly incorrect. They haven't been alive for three years, so whether January the first has passed or not they do not have the physicality of a three year old.

As to the original post, we're outraged about overworked youngsters in the racing and travelling communities (rightly so in my opinion), so why not now? Because it's done under the veneer of a more respectable pursuit, perhaps?
Click to expand...

What makes you think the horses shown are overworked? They look babyish and unbalanced, being tactfully ridden and helped by their riders but certainly not under any form of strain. Physically you could not say they are anything but very well grown and that is all that matters, not the calendar. Some rising three year olds are not ready to start work; these obviously are.
 
Cortez said:
Well, since you're of a scientific bent, you will appreciate that "experience" means "has done it a lot" and presumably has noted the results, whereas I rather think a lot of the people who are squawking about the dire consequences of riding horses before they are 4/5/6 or whatever may not have done it at all...Challenging something is fine, but having a solid reason based on facts would be more useful than just going on emotion.
Click to expand...

Yes of course experience means done a lot, it doesn't always mean that results have been noted, or if they have been noted they have been noted in any sort of meaningful way IMO. Plenty of people with lots of experience who just keep doing the same thing regardless of the results they produce.

I do think some of the squawking is unhelpful, people declaring their 6yo is still in the field is certainly somewhat the other extreme. I also particularly liked the person asking why people weren't ranting about FGM and war ;).

The trouble also comes when people choose the facts/science to suit them, when usually especially with something as complicated as a whole horse you can easily find science to support both arguments usually and it can be shown to be good for some bits of the horse and bad for others. It isn't a perfect science and there isn't a perfect answer but I do struggle to see that as a whole it is beneficial that they start before their actual 3rd birthday other than beneficial for grading.
 
Cortez said:
What makes you think the horses shown are overworked? They look babyish and unbalanced, being tactfully ridden and helped by their riders but certainly not under any form of strain.
Click to expand...

I'll be honest: in my opinion, any horse being ridden at two is being overworked. The weight of a rider and tack on such immature skeletons does not sit well with me. And no, I'm not a believer of the 'all horses should sit in a field until they're six' mentality, but the line has to be drawn somewhere; to me, two is not nor should be that point. The fact that Europeans do it differently and are more successful as producers does not mean that they're right and the British way is wrong - it could as easily indicate different priorities and principles as anything else.
 
Last edited:
So hopefully all you people who want to wait till 6 or 7 to even back a horse are prepared to pay the breeder for the all extra years keeping it until that age? ie £2000 will not cover breeding, keeping for 7 years and then backing and producing to be safe on its own/in company, over jumps etc etc.
 
sport horse said:
So hopefully all you people who want to wait till 6 or 7 to even back a horse are prepared to pay the breeder for the all extra years keeping it until that age? ie £2000 will not cover breeding, keeping for 7 years and then backing and producing to be safe on its own/in company, over jumps etc etc.
Click to expand...
Personally would not buy one of this type of horse regardless of it being backed at 2 or 4/5. And costing £200 or £20000!
However, I do agree with your sentiment and that applies whatever the type of horse and if buying direct from the breeder.
 
ester said:
I actually found the timeline she gave a bit confusing as to what had happened when with regards to backing, I'd be interested if someone read it better than me/is licensing under saddle?
'Secondly, they were licensed in September and started preparation in June. Conditioning is hand walking, loose schooling and then lunging. Our Oldenburg licensing was the beginning of November and after that these youngsters are fit through gradual conditioning. From backing they are ridden three or four times a week for 20 minutes. '
Click to expand...
at the licensing normally on the first day they are seen in hand on the hard surface for conformation and walk/trot. then are seen on the lunge in the arena. second day is in the arena they are trotted round in hand turned loose and run round a figure 8 so that their paces balance and canter can be seen and jumpers will loose jump then they will come back at the end and will go round in the walk ring and be declared licensed (or not). normally there is an auction the day after the licensing and those that are for sale will be sold with a ceremony before the auction to award the premiums and the champion/reserve champions. not all are for sale and some will only be sold if theh have been licensed others only if they are not licenced. if you look on youtube there will be videos. this will give you an idea of the first day https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gztY_xbtAHw and this is the second day for the dressage horses https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29pT0P6bj_E
the reason they will start the walking out in june is because they are selected on various days and places around the country to go to the licensing and that is in the summer. then the ones who are selected will start to be prepared for the actual licensing. Its worth going for a few days and watching it and the auction afterwards
 
Last edited:
ester said:
Yes of course experience means done a lot, it doesn't always mean that results have been noted, or if they have been noted they have been noted in any sort of meaningful way IMO. Plenty of people with lots of experience who just keep doing the same thing regardless of the results they produce.

I do think some of the squawking is unhelpful, people declaring their 6yo is still in the field is certainly somewhat the other extreme. I also particularly liked the person asking why people weren't ranting about FGM and war ;).

The trouble also comes when people choose the facts/science to suit them, when usually especially with something as complicated as a whole horse you can easily find science to support both arguments usually and it can be shown to be good for some bits of the horse and bad for others. It isn't a perfect science and there isn't a perfect answer but I do struggle to see that as a whole it is beneficial that they start before their actual 3rd birthday other than beneficial for grading.
Click to expand...

What makes 3yo an arbitrary date when its ok to back a horse as horses are individuals . The way the continental system has worked for all time is early maturing horses have always come to the top as the grading system promotes that because slower maturing horses cannot be graded. Its the same issue you get in schools that older children within a cohort will always have a developmental advantage. So the grading system will always benefit the more mature and forward within a cohort for future breeding. I have bred horses that have been backed and ridden from 2.5 to over 4 every one is individual . The other thing to put in the mix those going forward for grading are colts which always tend to be more forward and better developed.
I am surprised Lynn is getting such a hard time but then she doesnt always help herself as the dressage horses seem to have been singled out. There was at least one if not two SJ 3yos that were jumping which although they would need to be(for their grading) rather surprised me there.
 
Why are they "obviously" ready to start work? We can't tell from this video what the horse has been doing before or how long that process has taken, or would it mean that a 9 month old must be ready for work as they are being driven without any fuss.
 
Last edited:
Licensing is not done under saddle for 2 year olds. It usually happens late in the 2 year old year and it qualifies a stallion to go forward to performance testing. As already explained, they lunge and free school over 2 days in front of the licensing judges. The new performance testing system in Germany means a 3 year old does a 14 day test under saddle and then will do a further longer test in the future. There are quite strict rules to ensure horse is over 3 when doing the performance tests under saddle, so doesn't just assume all are 3 at 1st of January. The old system required horses to do a 100 day performance test which many felt was very hard on the young horses hence new system is improvement.

The reason some British studs will produce stallions in a similar fashion to the Europeans is so their stallions can go to Europe and be evaluated alongside the selected European stallions. Isn't that how British breeding moves forward? By producing top horses that can compete alongside their European counterparts and perform equally as well if not better? Then being made available to British breeders from their British base instead of the complicated and frustrating process of getting semen from top stallions abroad? (Who also will have been through the same system of ridden at young age for Stallion testing) Woodlander had great success in 2016 with a number of stallion performing very highly in the performance tests in Germany, something few other British breeders have ever achieved. The young stallions at Bury farm are being produced to also performance test in Europe having been licenced by the relevant German studbooks and thus need to be under saddle and prepared before they ship out to Germany.

For anyone interested there is informative reading about the stallion performance testing to be found here. https://www.hengstleistungspruefung...60/HLP-Rules_ab_2016_(Beschluss_Mai_2015).pdf
 
TheMule said:
I think there's a huge difference between backing a horse in the summer as a 3yr old and backing it in the winter as a 2 year old.
There was uproar about it last year as well but the stud chose to do it again. They have their hardcore supporters but I think they are narrow-minded to publicly state that they know best and anyone expressing a different point of view is wrong. I don't really understand what they stand to gain?
Click to expand...


I agree with you. Sorry, but no one will ever convince me that it is acceptable to ride a horse as a rising 3 year old. All i see is an immature baby.
If i had backed Nico in the December before he was 3, he would have been 2 yrs and 7 months, how can that be right?
These people are meant to be experts, so why do they not know that horses mature at 7 or 8 years? I backed my first pony when he was 3, but he was almost 4 I would never ride a 2 year old, and do not agree with other people doing it. I have seen so many horses with problems in later life because they did too much too young. Look at all the soundness problems my horsey hero Red Rum had.
A local riding school was using 3 yr old for lessons, these horses were pts in their early teens because of the health problems it caused.
 
sport horse said:
So hopefully all you people who want to wait till 6 or 7 to even back a horse are prepared to pay the breeder for the all extra years keeping it until that age? ie £2000 will not cover breeding, keeping for 7 years and then backing and producing to be safe on its own/in company, over jumps etc etc.
Click to expand...

Actually I much prefer to buy mine as yearlings and run them on at my own expense until they are ready to start. Far easier than inheriting someone else's mistakes.
 
KittenInTheTree said:
Actually I much prefer to buy mine as yearlings and run them on at my own expense until they are ready to start. Far easier than inheriting someone else's mistakes.
Click to expand...

Sadly many dont ! At least you are well aware of the cost involved in getting them to that stage many think they live on fresh air and never need a vet and on fly grazing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top