Training of Horses Used for Show Jumping and Its Effect on v4

Effect of consecutive jumping efforts over several days on kinetic locomotion parameters in unridden horses – a preliminary study

There are few studies describing the training of horses used for show jumping and most only in a broad sense. Six unridden horses fitted with an accelerometric device were submitted to consecutive jumping efforts to examine the short-term effect. Horses jumped 13 obstacles away (away) from and returning (return) to their handler. On the first day, the horses jumped the obstacles once (26 jumps). The next day, the horses did the same routine twice and on the fourth day three times. The duration of the away runs was significantly longer than that of the return runs on all days. The comparison of the first exercise sessions on all exercise days showed that the stride frequency was always higher during the return runs than during the away runs and higher on days 2 and 4 than on day 1. The craniocaudal power was higher on days 2 and 4 compared to day 1 and the dorsoventral power higher on day 2 than on day 4. On exercise day 4, stride regularity decreased during the return runs, while the stride frequency increased. The dorsoventral, craniocaudal and total powers were lower during the second and third exercise sessions than during the first exercise session on this day while exercise duration did not change. These results seem to indicate an improved jumping efficiency. In conclusion, the multiple consecutive unridden jumping exercise sessions were well tolerated by the horses. The cause of the locomotion changes needs to be further examined. This exercise can be used to train horses.

An evaluation of factors affecting show jumping warm-up on subsequent show jumping performance in 1.30 m class

Show jumping causes physical and physiological stress on horses’ musculoskeletal structures, which can lead to decreased performance and injury. Appropriate warm-ups can enhance performance, decrease injury risk, as well as increase oxygen kinetics for better efficiency. Despite this, little is known for how warm-up routines affect show jumping performance. Forty-five warm-up routines of show jumpers preparing to enter the show ring were recorded and analysed. Kruskal Wallis analyses with post-hoc Mann Whitney U tests identified if the number of classes combinations completed, types of jumps attempted, warm-up duration, and time spent in each gait during the warm-up varied with rider and horse sex and age, and faults. Spearman correlations assessed if relationships occurred between warm-up duration and content, and the number of faults in the show ring, and horse age. Warm-up ranged from 3:51 to 62:46 min (median 15:09 min) and included at least two jumps (range 2-15). Walk was the most common gait, while upright fences were jumped the most. Knocking down or refusing a fence when warming up did not affect performance. Male riders jumped uprights twice as much as female riders (P<0.03) but this did not impact their performances. Jumping a class prior to the 1.30 affected warm-up, competitors spent longer on the flat before jumping in they had competed earlier in the day (P<0.05) and had fewer jump attempts if they had competed in the class just prior to the 1.30 m (P<0.007). Even though no significant differences were detected, combinations which accumulated >8 faults spent less time warming up. These results suggest warm-up tactics, riders and horses’ age and sex did not influence significantly fault accumulation in the show ring, however warm up routines were influenced by rider decision making and horse age.

Does equestrian knowledge and experience influence selection and training practices for showjumping horses?

Selection and training methods for showjumping horses are largely anecdotal, and performance analysis has been proposed as a method for scientifically improving competitive outcomes. To employ performance analysis in showjumping, an understanding of the tacit and explicit knowledge and practices of equestrians is required to identify relevant performance indicators. This study aimed to examine the knowledge and practices of equestrians with varying levels of experience (advanced and novice) for selecting horses, based on evaluation of movement, and training showjumping horses using an original questionnaire. It was hypothesised that differences would be present between advanced and novice responses. The questionnaire was composed of closed-end and follow-up open-end questions and 225 equestrians (66.7% advanced, 33.3% novice) participated. Closed-end responses from advanced and novice groups were analysed separately using Chi-Squared tests and open-end responses were subjected to thematic and content analysis. Closed-end responses showed significant within-group preferences (P<0.0001) for specific movement traits and training methods and between-group response differences <13% revealed that advanced and novice groups displayed similar preferences. Thematic analysis indicated different preferences for movement traits when selecting showjumping horses, as well as differences in the level of tacit knowledge between advanced and novice groups. Advanced equestrians placed greater emphasis on aesthetic forelimb traits than novice equestrians, who emphasised traits that they may be less capable of influencing, such as hindlimb impulsion and position of the horse at take-off. An emphasis on hindlimb movement and flatwork/non-jumping exercises for showjumping training was observed across both groups. Understanding equestrian tacit knowledge and its application is fundamental for developing research that is relevant to equestrians. Findings from this study may form a basis for research to identify relevant, objective performance indicators for performance analysis in showjumping, with the ultimate goal of improving competitive performance and welfare for equine athletes.

Comparison between specific and nonspecific tests for evaluating the physical fitness of show jumping horses

Show jumping is a century-old Olympic sport performed worldwide. However, despite the prominence of this sport, there is currently no satisfactory evaluation of the physical fitness of its horses. Our study compared two standardised exercise tests (specific and nonspecific for show jumpers) to determine the importance of a show jumping specific evaluation test. Sixteen horses were divided into two performance groups (high and low performance), and all horses performed standardised exercise tests without jumps (SET1) and with jumps (SET2). Heart rate, blood lactate, glucose, blood gas, haematological parameters, and plasma ions were measured before and after the tests, and performance indices were calculated. Both exercise tests (SET1 and SET2) resulted in changes in nearly all measured variables that were expected, based on other studies, for the duration and nature of the exercise performed. Differences between the two performance groups were observed for lactate and glucose, as well as some blood gas variables and performance indicators. These differences might have been the result of better cardiovascular and metabolic adaptation of the high performance group to the show jumping exercises. For the SET1, differences between groups were mainly noted for variables related to aerobic capacity, which suggests that this measurement is important for the evaluation of equine performance in show jumping. The SET2 was capable of detecting different horse performance levels that could not be detected by the SET1, which indicates that a specific test for show jumping (that includes jumping movements) could provide important information for the evaluation of show jumpers. Based on our findings, we recommend that the SET2 be included in future protocols for evaluating jumping horses.