should affiliated competition be so accessible?

[diggerbez]

i think that the main affiliated societies (i'm thinking BE,BD and BS here) have been trying very hard to make affiliated competition more accessible... through smaller classes (BE80 and intro level shows for BS and walk/trot tests) and day tickets and things. Do you think this is a good thing or should affiliated, by its very nature, be more difficult?

i can't quite make my own mind up on the issue. i sort of think with BD that it doesn't really matter- after all there isn't really a safety issue involved with it- but BE i sometimes wonder if making it more accessible means making it less safe? i went on a course walk with a BE accred trainer who is known for 'speaking his mind' and being very honest and he was basically saying that at BE you are "playing with the big boys" and if you were scared of jumping a 90cm log then you should be at RC. some of the appalling riding at BE80 and BE90 makes me think that he has a point. when i did norton disney BE90 at the end of the season there was a fence that was causing complete panic in the collecting ring- it was an up to height/width table but it was also a bit skinny as well so had the illusion of being bigger (and was a bit gappy underneath). it also needed careful riding off a turn...now it jumped beautifully but i saw loads of people ride it badly. now i know that i am not an amazing rider, by ANY stretch of the imagination... but i feel i am ready for the challenges provided by a good intro/ pre nov course to make me a better rider...
so what do you think? (by the way not having a dig at people with young horses who use the smaller/easier classes as a nice way of introducing baby horses to comps- am thinking about novice riders more- isn't this what RC is for?)

 

[measles]

I completely agree that the level of riding at lower level BS and BE can be variable but I think that by making these classes available novice riders have an opportunity to compete and develop in a safe environment. I believe it still to be the case that the standard of going and coursebuilding an unaffiliated events can be very varyable but at BS and BE this is not the case. Certainly when I was a child that is why my parents joined BS and I began jumping affiliated and I see nothing to say things have changed significantly.

 

[MegaBeast]

totally agree - years ago BE Novice was the starting point for eventing and Foxhunter for SJ. I actually don't see a problem with this and because 90cm is within the realms of what most peeople think is jumpable you do get people going affiliated long before they or the horse are ready. There's a big difference between 90cm local RC unaffiliated courses and 90cm affiliated which some people don't grasp until too late. Given that unaffil generally goes up to 1m then I see no problem with affiliated starting at a higher level.

There's also the question of cost. To compete affiliated has become incredibly cheap compared with 20 years back and more and more people affiliate now for the status and it's become "the norm" rather than something to work at and aspire towards.

 

[Hullabaloo]

There's also the question of cost. To compete affiliated has become incredibly cheap compared with 20 years back and more and more people affiliate now for the status and it's become "the norm" rather than something to work at and aspire towards.

I would imagine its income from large numbers of people affiliating at lower levels that keeps costs reasonable for everyone. At the end of the day BE, BS and BD are businesses and they need income to survive. If they can get that income from running lower levels of classes then of course they are going to do it. That will help them keep costs reasonable for the bigger classes which get fewer entries.

For most of us this is our hobby and its about having fun, not status. Friends who compete at the lower end of BE do it because they know the course will be built to a standard, not for the snob value.

I don't get the chance to compete often enough to make the cost of affiliating worthwhile, but its good to know that it is an option for me should that change.

 

[Hels_Bells]

Some really good points here and an interesting debate. My first thought on seeing the title was "of course it should be" because there are very few decent unaffiliated events at larger heights etc (talking more ODE/BE rather than SJ/DR from my point of view). I don't see many unaff events of Pre Nov height that are as well put together and frankly safe as they are at affiliated events and also I would love to be able to do some Novice height unaff events but you just don't get them. (Well not round my neck of the woods)

However, when you are thinking more BE80 and BE90 height, I agree, they are mostly there to make more money for the sport (which we all benefit from btw) and whilst it's nice that people who don't feel comfortable at bigger levels can take part, I think safety is a huge concern when it comes to people who are actually scared or unsure they are capable of jumping obstacles of that height as they are realistically of the size that any competent rider should be more than happy taking on.

However, from a horse's perspective under a competent rider I think the lower levels can be hugely beneficial. I started off doing BE90 on my horse because he was underconfident and had never really done much XC (past life as a SJer), now he is confident we have been able to move up through the grades and if I felt he had the scope I would not shun the idea of taking him to advanced level. Though I have never ridden at that level before myself and could be seen therefore as incompetent at that level, my trainer who is hugely experienced feels we have the potential. This sport is at the end of the day all about pushing your boundaries/comfort zone - you can't say that the big guns never ever feel just a tiny bit nervy about certain fences at 4* etc!??!!? For example at Kentucky there seemed to be a bit of unease about the hop on hop off island in the water as it was something that hadn't really been seen before (I have to say I though it looked wicked fun and would love to have a go at something like that - but maybe on a smaller scale - and am looking forward to seeing them translated down the levels as is usually the case!)

I guess everyone has to start somewhere, but BE etc need to very careful of trying to make more money at the risk of people's safety. Maybe some sort of affiliated "entry test" could be put in place!!??

 

[kez1001]

i think they is a safety issue in affiliated and unaffiliated. I did the very few local ODE in my area with my girl but tbh the open classes were often very dodgy built and i didnt think would give her confidence the way a well built intro would. So for that reason the first and last event (unfortunatley she was PTS after a horrible accident at home) i did with her was a BE 80. The course was lovely and inviting, she found it all too easy and could have done the intro but her SJ was always her weak phase so the oppurtunity to step up at a well run event meant hers and mine confidence was built so that i felt our next outing could have been an intro.

Same with unaff SJ, some scary course building and i hate waiting around all day to jump 2ft 6 (ok not really a reason but every show i go to the classes under 70cm take up over half the day, not a critisism i know people have to learn) whereas at BS intros i could take her in for a play at 70cm then happily wait to do the next two as just simply much better run shows.

The cost issues for each orgaisation mean that the lower levels are definately helpful at keeping the costs down for all. But the main reason for affiliating is the standard of facilities/courses is just nothing compared to unaff. the unaff xc in my area is terrible the few good ones we used to have around 7 years ago simply couldnt keep goin due to funding issues.

 

[xspiralx]

I think there is a valid argument for having affiliated competition starting at 90cm.

The reason being that a lot of unaff things top out at around 3ft. Sometimes they'll go up to 3ft3, 3ft6, but its harder to find.

I think it makes sense to have the lowest affiliated level around equal with the upper levels of unaff competition, so that when people choose to affiliate they don't have to take a step up in height straight away, but can start at a level they're already comfortable with.

There is also the argument for simply having properly build courses, and plenty of options. Lots of people may not want to jump much bigger than 1m but like being able to go out week after week and jump good courses.

I think below 90cm it does get a little pointless - but I don't see that it really has any damaging effect. Surely affiliated competition being cheaper and more accessible is good for everyone, and means more money into the sport which means it will continue to grow and thrive.

 

[diggerbez]

interesting ideas people- like i said, i'm not entirely sure what i think about the whole thing. i do definitely agree that it will partly depend on what you have in your area for unaffiliated people (especially ODE/HT type comps) I'm quite lucky that where i live (lancashire) within a 2 hour drive there are lots of excellent comps and courses for the unaffiliated rider (Eland lodge for e.g.- runs Hunter Trials and unafil courses at PN and maybe even easy Novice level)- so there is ample opportunity to get yourself 'ready' for affil. so with my older horse i did a lot of unafil before i stepped up to BE intro. With my baby horse i did 2 unafils and then felt happy to take him BE but thats because i had done BE before...
would also agree that most people do affiliated because often a better standard (of courses, judges, surfaces etc) rather than as a 'status' thing... but yet i still have a nagging feeling in my head that it being so open and accessible allows complete muppets to think "oh its ok i'll give it a go" without thinking that there could be a genuine safety issue...

 

[Santa_Claus]

a novice rider is just at risk unaffil as affil if not more so due to lower levels of medical cover and course building standards at unaffiliated. And personally I would far rather see these riders doing a BE 90 than an unaffil 90 as they are more likely to be pulled up for their standard of riding. and in the unwanted event that an accident did happen the necessary qualified persons to look after them would also be in attendance.

The only way you will ensure that the level of riding is satisfactory at a level is to introduce a european scheme of rider qualifications/exams which you must pass before you are allowed to compete. The likelyhood of that happening though?! Highly unlikely in my opinion! And if you did unless you covered all standards of competition (which lets face it will never happen in the UK) it would force the worst riders back down to unaffiliated where there is not the adequate support structure to protect them from serious injury and help develop/improve their riding skills.

 

[diggerbez]

a novice rider is just at risk unaffil as affil if not more so due to lower levels of medical cover and course building standards at unaffiliated. And personally I would far rather see these riders doing a BE 90 than an unaffil 90 as they are more likely to be pulled up for their standard of riding. and in the unwanted event that an accident did happen the necessary qualified persons to look after them would also be in attendance.

The only way you will ensure that the level of riding is satisfactory at a level is to introduce a european scheme of rider qualifications/exams which you must pass before you are allowed to compete. The likelyhood of that happening though?! Highly unlikely in my opinion! And if you did unless you covered all standards of competition (which lets face it will never happen in the UK) it would force the worst riders back down to unaffiliated where there is not the adequate support structure to protect them from serious injury and help develop/improve their riding skills.

that is a very good point...hadn't really thought of it that way! i guess its partly because i rarely go to unafil events so most of my witnessing of horrendous riding is at Afill...maybe if i went and watched unafil i'd see even worse!! (god i sound terribly big headed here i realise- i know that i am useless but i like to think that i am mostly safe! )

 

[Santa_Claus]

also to add those who are lucky to have several BE standard unaffiliated comps do they also happen to run BE at those venues by any chance? IF BE didn't run BE80-BE100 classes then those courses most likely wouldn't exist

I know its the case round me, the only courses I would even consider taking Fleur round (either BE or unafil) are those that have been built specifically for BE. There are numerous other XC venues in the area but I am yet to find one which is not of questionnable building standards!

 

[wellsat]

Lots of people have already said this but to add my weight behind it, I'm not particularly good but plan on joining BE next year because the courses are better built. If I go BE I know that the SJ course will be well designed with no stupid angles that only the show secretary's 13hh pony can get round and that the xc will be safe with good take offs and landings. I'd rather not affiliate, it'd be much cheaper not to but I do feel that its worth paying for safety and rideability.

 

[Gleeful Imp]

This is a very interesting debate. From my perspective as a genuine RC competitor the chance to aim for affiliated is about upping my game. I've recently joined BD becuase of the better judging, the chance to qualify for championships and things like the prize money and HH coverage make it feel special. I know to be successful at affiliated I have to take it more seriously and it has helped me focus more on my goals. But I took some persuading I was good enough!

But, I would never dream of either BS or BE, because I am just not up to it. I can happily jump an 85cms unaff SJ/workers course but I know I've reached my limit - my guts limit! So its Trailblazers workers for us as its within our capabilities.

I guess what I'm saying is that to affiliate for me is an ambition, not an expectation - something to work hard to be able to achieve.

 

[MegaBeast]

I guess what I'm saying is that to affiliate for me is an ambition, not an expectation - something to work hard to be able to achieve.

Nail and head - I think for many now that affil is an expectation rather than something to work towards.

It's interesting that people won't affil BD until they're confident of getting a decent score because they worry they're not good enough and will embarress themselves yet that worry doesn't seem to carry over to BE or BS in the same way.

 

[DarkHorseB]

I think it should be available to all as it does offer a more structured way to progress.
I did my first BE90 this year having never done an unaffiliated event as we have very few still run around here and those that do the ground and fences look so dodgy I would feel far safer doing an affiliated event.
To be honest you see some shocking riding at all levels affiliated and unaffiliated and I suppose it is only snob value that some would say they should not be riding at affiliated level. i.e the sort of people that perceive they have achieved something by going affiliated and others less capable should not be "allowed" to join that elite group!!
To be honest I cannot really see the point in BS starting below British Novice level as there are plenty more unaffiliated show centres that run Trailblazers classes to cater for that level but if there is a market for it fair enough.
I think the sad thing is that the people that are the most shocking riders you see out and about don't even think they need to improve I mean I see plenty of very good riders out there who doubt themslves and their ability far more! I have ridden all my life and SJ'd above Foxhunter level but I am constantly having lessons and training and striving to learn and improve. I heard of someone recently who bought a horse to event and literally could not do rising trot First off the horse was to be ridden by a professional rider then next I heard they had it back and were riding it themselves. Poor horse has had its confidence completely wrecked. I would like to think affiliated competitions did more to prevent dangerous combinations taking part but alas have seen a few this year who definitely should not have been competing purely on a safety point of view.

 

[Santa_Claus]

ah but MB you can look/be awful technique wise but still do relatively well at BS or BE, as afterall doesn't matter how you get over the fence ultimately as if you clear it you clear it, whereas BD if you're awful it shows and you come last and get written comments back from a judge stating as such (although normally in a constructive manner).

It doesn't help in my opinion that BS for example there are some really criminally bad riders style wise from the ideal who jump all the way up to international level and do very well. Some are very good riders who are just unpretty/unconventional and don't affect the horse others well lets just say I wouldn't let them ride my horse. But as this is seen as acceptable some grassroots riders think it is as well and can't see that their faults are more than just a lack of style but are also potentially dangerous.

 

[*hic*]

My two pennorth: I think that it's good that affiliated competition has become more accessible but in the case of eventing in particular more needs to be done to ensure that newcomers are riding at an appropriate level.

Having seen some appalling riding at several levels but some truly appalling riding at BE80 (T) and BE90 I think that those riders who have not ridden at a particular level at all or in the past, say, five years, should be "mentored" as at BE80(T) so that if there are concerns about their riding they are not allowed to continue.

So, for someone like me I would start BE80(T) and be watched to make sure I'm safe, then when I went to 90 I'd be required to enter a (T) section and be monitored but having been allowed to run once and finish the course safely I'd be allowed to enter any other BE90 (other than YR ones!). On moving up to BE 100 the same would apply, equally when one goes on to Novice and above. I am purely talking about the rider here, it has nothing to do with the horse! You could of course say that for those who wanted to romp straight in at Novice they could just do a Novice (T) section but in all cases the "monitor" has the right to pull the rider at any stage, discuss with them what is causing concern, review their riding and then make a decision as to whether they are safe for the next stage.

This is partly as a result of watching, a few years ago, someone I knew was having their first go at Novice. I was surprised as her record at BE100 is decidedly ropy. She just managed to get through the SJ and was clearly having problems in the XC warmup. She scared those of us watching the first few fences of the XC and sure enough it all came to a very sticky end resulting in a considerable delay on course - although no serious injury to horse or rider, thank goodness. IMHO had she been in a (T) section with someone who had a printout of her previous form watching it's doubtful she'd have been allowed to go XC, had she been allowed but told that any sign of problems and she would be pulled up then the fall would probably not have happened.

 

[kerilli]

Interesting debate. The trouble is, BE(80) is smaller than RC and PC stuff now, I was told, so a lot of riders will do BE(80) and (90) instead of learning their craft at unaff.
I have seen some utterly abysmal riding at BE, riders I wouldn't send out on a hack off the leadrein tbh, they're so unbalanced. Danger to themselves, basically. Do they have no idea at all of the risks?! Poor horses too.
It's funny, I did BSJA first, then evented (starting at Novice, back then), but when I wanted to do BD some years later I didn't dare, it wasn't until I went with a friend and realised they weren't all fantastic that I dared register, I was far more worried about looking a total prat at BD than at the other two. Weird.
I can see why the affiliated organisations have widened their base BUT i do think it's devalued it rather. It used to be something to aspire to. Maybe now the higher levels are something to aspire to instead, which is good for the organisations, anyway. I'd love to see the figures, whether we have more horses reaching Int and Adv than we used to before PN, Intro and Training levels.
I know some venues run hunter trials around the same courses as their BE ones but struggle for entries, people really seem to want the kudos of having "Evented". So, it's not all about the quality of the courses. But some unaff courses used to be downright dangerous, I tend to avoid them now unless I know the course already, but I remember going to one many years ago that had been made out of junk, one fence was a long skinny radiator (yes, metal, with no wood along the top or anything) hanging between two uprights!

 

[Farma]

As someone who has competed low ended affiliated in all spheres my reasons are:
BD: I had gotten to the point where i was consitantly in the top 3 placings at unaff and felt I had nowehere else to go other than BD - when I did my marks dropped and I had a whole new tree to climb and new goals which i wanted.
BS: Purely because I wanted up to height courses - the 90cm unaff comps near me are nowhere near 90cm and if you do want to do 1m there is nothing - the only choice is BS.
BE: I had done a few open ODE's but there are only 2 venues within reach which only enabled me to do up to 3 comps per year - i felt my horse was more than capable and was schooling cross country at a good level. The hunter trials locally are made of rubbish and are aimed at beginners - several I have been to have been frankly dangerous - the ground is rubbish and the jumps literally are made of rubbish so I felt for a decent course BE was the way forward and BE90 is a very nice way of getting started.

Its very easy to stay at unaff and have a very very distorted view of your capabilities - for me going to aff comps only drives me to try and be as good a rider as some of the amazing pro's I see when Im out - that can only be a good thing. If you stick at unaff and are doing well alot of people feel they have no more learning to do.

 

[pinktiger]

i think that most horses and combinations can manage 90 cm,and i think thats a really good starting block and foundation for many young horses and rider combo's. Its a very forgiving height and for those wishing to be confident in the course builders and courses its a good way to ensure a good standard of course!! My personal opinion is that Bs 80 and BE 80 are not necessary and if i couldnt jump round a 90 course i wouldnt affiliate my horse!

i would just like to add that my experience with unaff ODE is that on a few occasions ive been left gobsmacked at what they have put in the xc, for example they seem to measure the fences and not take into account that 4 skinnies(one on a dog leg) in a row all just under 3ft would not usually be in an intro!!!! I think with BE at the intro level is you always know what your gonna get and generally what is expected of you and your horse, unaff i think its a bit more of a lottery!!!


I do also think that the 90 cm - 100 in all BE and BS fund the upper levels and quite often are the biggest classes (speaks for iteslf really)!!!

 

[JessPickle]

I do agree that so many people seem to do it just to say they have, so will affiliate far too quickly. For example so many people on youtube will have there name as BSJA Showjumper Sam Smith (made up name!) why they have to put that on every occastion I don't understand. I know people who would make such a fuss about going BSJA'ing! they'd then get eliminated but still look there nose down any success people may have at unaffiliated competitions!

I have only ever ridden unaffiliated, and wouldn't ever affiliate at mine and Pickle's current standard, so for me it is still very much an ambition!

 

[mystiandsunny]

Dunno about BE, but BD no safety issue (as OP mentioned) and more consistent judging so good for competitor. BS is just better all-round. The distances are actually right, it rides nicely in a good rhythm, and the horse can jump with confidence. I would rather pay membership to jump a well-built, safe 70cm course that gives me and my horse a good experience and gives us the confidence to go higher.

 

[3DE]

BD - surely the less good riders simply won't get placed? If they do then obviously they are good enough

BSJA - hmmm kinda on the fence with this one lol

BE - Safety, safety, safety. Some see BE100 and think 'it's only a meter, it's only prenovice'

This is a pre-novice fence, also the easy option! I think that you shouldn't be able to jump fences like this on a day ticket Oh and that horse is 17h3 to give you an idea of scale...

 

[redmerl]

I would agree that riders are more likley to be pulled up BE than unaff. I would rather folk pay BE for their BE80 class and receive instruction and feedback to be safer later on and learn their craft under the watchfull eye of BE then unaff with no assistance.

I am sure BE appreciate the entry fees generated by lower levels. Also people at lower levels are generating interest at the bigger venues, again paying to watch at Burley, Bramham ect which can only be positive.

 

[Jane_Lou]

We joined BD before BE, we did this as he was consistantly winning at unaf comeptitions and we wanted to aim higher in terms of standard. We joined BE after 2 years of unaf eventing both pc and RC. There was at this stage very few unaf ODE's in our area, 2 RC, 1 PC and the 3DE at Milton Keynes. We had done all of those, being consistantly placed. The first time we walked a BE90 course we went pale as we realised how much more technical/bigger it was than anything we had met at unaf competition even though we had been competing (supposedly) at the same height. (he jumped clear by the way!)

It was interesting this year as a couple of people on our yard asked K and I to help them as they wanted to start eventing and did a few unaf 80cm ODE's, I was shocked to see the standard of riding at these, the amount of people E in the sj that were allowed to go XC, people trotting round the XC, multiple refusals and being allowed to continue. I saw one girl in the XC warm up remove the flags that dolled off an oversized warn up fence and jump this fence over and over, until the horse was dripping and quite distressed, I spoke to a steward about this (as did a number of people) but nothing was done about it. At one event one of the girls was placed 4th with a fence down and a stop xc as only 3 went clear XC. Had these events been BE80's these people would have received guidance, not been allowed to run XC or stopped on course and some of the dangerous riding that we witnessed would have been stopped.

 

[lauraandjack]

Jane Lou, it's interesting to hear some actual examples of the "bad riding" that so frequently gets talked about in here. I was going to post asking people to give some specific examples of it, but you beat me to it!

I only compete unaffiliated (and will always stay that way I'm sure!), and I will confess that I haven't done a lot in the last few years until recently, but I've yet to see anyone who is truly appalling. (Maybe I am just so bad I don't notice?!)

Anyone care to furnish me with some more tales of what they consider bad/dangerous riding?

 

[DarkHorseB]

BD - surely the less good riders simply won't get placed? If they do then obviously they are good enough

BSJA - hmmm kinda on the fence with this one lol

BE - Safety, safety, safety. Some see BE100 and think 'it's only a meter, it's only prenovice'

This is a pre-novice fence, also the easy option! I think that you shouldn't be able to jump fences like this on a day ticket Oh and that horse is 17h3 to give you an idea of scale...

Eeek that looks a serious fence and from it I cannot make out the groundline you are going to land on at all also what is the rope/ wire that seems to be running round the fence?
Where was this one at (so I can avoid it LOL!)

 

[diggerbez]

but i bet from the takeoff side it looks fine... agree tho re. where to land- suspect its just clever angles from the photog to make fence look scarier

 

[3DE]

Eeek that looks a serious fence and from it I cannot make out the groundline you are going to land on at all also what is the rope/ wire that seems to be running round the fence?
Where was this one at (so I can avoid it LOL!)

Ha ha it's not me it's my best friend - not sure what the wire thingy is. It's in Ireland so don't worry too much

This is Bradwall - what was PN!

And the SJ in the same class

Tis all bigger than you think

 

[3DE]

but i bet from the takeoff side it looks fine... agree tho re. where to land- suspect its just clever angles from the photog to make fence look scarier

Photographer was amateur me - it was a scary jump. I'm 5ft and the fence was way higher than my head on the drop side. This was the alternative route, the straight route was a drop off a bridge!

Oh the white wire is the tape sectioning us off from the course, it's closer to the camera...