Past & Present cross country jumping - the Box vs. the Spot

Katy,

I agree completely with what you have said with "... my eye and my timing are just not consistent enough to ride to the exact same place in front of a fence all the time. But horses who I bring along are frequently jumping out of a variety of distances and angles and approaches and I think they learn "how to deal" because of my imperfections, and I think they become smarter and more clever jumpers because of that". This statement points to the essence of teamwork between horse and rider. Both horse and rider bring their skills and their imperfections to a jump. An effective or winning combination is part similarity and part complementary.

I believe the best matches are when the horse and the rider share a similar skill set. For example, they both have the skill to get through a messy situation. That combination of horse and rider with the same skills can safely go into some pretty scary stuff together knowing that when the "s**t hits the fan" they will be partners using the same methodology to solve the unknowns in the situation. Converse to similarity in a horse rider pair, that same partnership usually is complementary when it comes to something else, perhaps in courage or boldness for example.  With a horse I rode named Sprite, I was the one with the courage and she was the one with caution, while we shared the same set of skills in how we liked to jump, we were complementary in boldness.  With Riley, he and I also had the same skill set of problem solving in jumping, but in that relationship he had more courage than I and I was therefore the careful one. With both horses we shared the same similarity and the same complementaryness, but the complementary part with each was different.

The way I read what you have written is that you do best with horses who trust their eye and timing. You let them grow in this skill and as a result they take you into a jump with a "variety of distances and angles and approaches". That I suspect allows you to see and think farther ahead of the jump, and therefore as the complement to their eye and timing, the horse experiences trust in the landing that you will supply the next direction on what is needed. I imagine regarding similarity that you may do best with horses when you both share a certain physicality in your method with the horses you ride. For example, you might  prefer to share a "feel" for how much shoulder power vs. haunches power in an extended or galloping approach to a cross country jump. And you do best in the complementary aspect around strategy in the jumps.

These are all guesses on my part (and I apologize for using so many words in doing so). I offer this in order to create a context for discussion about todays riders vs. the old style military riders. What you describe is old style, which gives me some comfort that you ride a cross country course with a greater degree of safety than many young riders I see today.

I have a question. You get around more than I do these days. Do you see these careful precise riders that Wofford talks about? I do, but I operate down on the Beginner Novice to Training level. There I see a lot of Morris method riders using stadium methodology on the cross country courses. You asked, "Which came first, show-jumpy cross country courses or show-jumpy cross country riders?" My answer for America would be the riders came first thanks to George Morris. His influence on our riding cannot be underestimated. I watched the military trained riders retire and die off and the Morris trained riders filled their places in the American horse world. It's why, for example, the US Pony Club broke off from the US British Horse Society Pony Club. The shift or transition in the early the 80s was dramatic.

As for the course designer's observation, " they (today's riders) have too little respect for fences that LOOK benign but are not. He thinks there needs to be a better balance between a fence that is intimidating to a rider - requiring them to pay attention - but more easily read by a horse". Absolutely. I think this is because most of today's riders have little respect for what a horse can do. They came up through Hunter Seat Equitation, not rough and tumble fox hunting. They have never really had the butt saved by a horse, so they think it's always up to them and they are over confident for lack of challenging experiences.

The best way to teach these riders respect for fences and how a horse can overcome the intimidation better in some jumps better than a rider is to put them over an Italian bank.

For those of you who have never ridden one, the other side looks much like the side shown in the above picture. The horse must take off on an up slope and land on a down slope, which they cannot see. These banks intimidate/humble/teach over confident riders.  

Italian banks were an essential jump for a cavalry horse, as was a slide. The above picture is of an earth fort rampart. The peak has been flattened with time, but when cavalrymen charged up it's slopes and into the fort, it was not flat at the top and probably had logs or other barriers at the peak to protect defending soldiers. Horses manage them exceptionally well. Riders not so well at first.

Thank you for posting Katy.

Maritza, thank you for the link. My take on this article is it is a mix of common sense and a desire to make things simpler for horses. Here are my highlights of the article.

Wayne Copping:
"I believe that we need to tighten up the range of distances offered to a set number and then design within that framework the courses, technical challenges and combinations. The use of a half-stride distance is not in the best interest of the sport and only results in an open frame, flat jump or a chip to a fence with the ultimate consequence."

This makes is easier for the horses but in fox hunting, where cross country riding still has a natural context, this would be an impossible luxury. It moves Cross Country in the direction of Stadium.

"Intervals between obstacles: The use of fences at regular intervals throughout the course is also an aspect of design that needs to be addressed. When horses are fresh we can go longer intervals between efforts, but I have found that keeping up a regular rhythm of tests in the halfway to end of a course keeps the horses “switched on” and more alert."

Same comment as above. A good Staff hunt horse will stay "switched on" for an hour's chase because it's what they do, sometimes several times a week.

"Brushes: There seems to be a proliferation of brush fences on courses nowadays"

Yes, there are. They have their place but anything that is overused is annoying. Still I am not sure why he singles out this type of fence. Another expert singled out tables. A fence is a fence and the reason they have survived for decades is tradition and because horses can jump them.


Combinations: The principal design of a combination should be that the question asked at one element should prepare the horse for the next element, both in terms of shape required over the fence and the correct striding to be able to jump out confidently and with a good picture. In many instances this is not done, and combinations of obstacle types are being used that don’t compliment the question asked."

Once again, this idea moves the competition away from the randomness of nature toward the "leading" kinds of combinations found in principle in Stadium.

"We now need to regulate what works together and produces the results the sport requires. Similarly, combinations either lettered or numbered should be restricted to a certain ratio for each level; this will also give the opportunity to open courses out more and allow for a more even speed around course. As fences would be coming at more regular intervals, the horses would remain better focused and alert... There is also the thought that a combination should not be used before fence 4 or in the last two fences on course in a CCI. This allows for a proper start and end to each course."

Same comment as above.

"Oxers are a perfectly legitimate style of fence and one that should be encouraged to be used. The problem is using them in the right context so they achieve the result we are after as course designers."

Much of what he says is common sense. I am left wondering if the newer younger course designers who have come up only eventing and not hunting have lost the once assumed common common sense course designers had. My unwavering belief is today's instructors have a lesser concept of what a horse can do and therefore maybe courses are not so much designed for that innate ability of the horses as from some abstract idea of what Cross Country riding means.

"Narrow Fences: The thinking is also now that some types of obstacles are just too narrow and are having an effect on a horse’s confidence and approach to a fence. I have seen many times the effect of the overuse of this type of fence and the subsequent spoiling of a horse’s career as a result."

I agree, too many skinny jumps today. This points to the more intellectual as opposed to natural, context of Cross Country today. In nature, such as in hunting, skinny jumps are typically and option. When moving fast through the woods, for example, there is always more than one route. Maybe what he should be saying is if a designer wants to use a lot of skinny jumps, he/she should place them with options.

"Do we need to continue using fences that have been identified as hazardous, are high risk and are of questionable benefit to the sport? Should we use a coffin fence only with broad jumpable width and not bring other factors into play? Should we not continue to use a bounce down into a sunken road, a bounce into water or a bounce out of water without severe regulation on how they can be designed and built? These are all high risk fences, and does the reward pay well enough?"

Again, this is a common sense question. All these jumps can be made safe, but when overused and made to be "tricky", which they like to call "technical" today, they become nonsensical.

"Measurement of obstacles for spreads: ..."

He has a very well thought out geometry that reflects how a horse can move and jump. What he doesn't have is the element of "banking". Banking is when a jump with a wide top can be literally ridden on top of buy a horse. Back in the day, when all horses that did natural cross country as well as cross country courses, the horses knew that the rider would not put them to a table type jump unless they could bank it, meaning jump up on it, move across it somehow and jump down off it. This provides the horse with options for their preferences and abilityies. You don't see jumps that are broad at the top that can be banked anymore.