1. J. Williams, M. Perlo and D. Marlin
a preliminary analysis of factors that result in faults in amateur (90-120cm) showjumping
J. Williams, M. Perlo and D. Marlin
Performance analysis (PA) involves the systematic observation and analysis of factors identified to enhance performance in a specific sport to improve athlete decision-making (Williams, 2015).
PA is commonplace in human sports, yet despite potential competitive advantages, its application in equestrianism, including showjumping, has to date been minimal.
It is commonly believed by riders and trainers that faults in showjumping are not random, but are associated with particular types and / or locations of fences.

2. Reminder! Performance analysis in equestrian sport
Reliability of historic & anecdotal training practices used for the horse are increasingly being questioned (Williams, 2013; Ely et al., 2010; McGreevy & McLean, 2010)
Need for objective, evidence-based practice in horse (and rider) training (Williams, 2013; Randle & Waran, 2017)
Follow on from Nations Cup work
Who? Need recognise different priorities in different stakeholders
Focus: Horse? Rider? Horse & Rider? Leisure, amateur or elite sport?
Leisure = wellbeing?
Elite = performance / success / more economic focus + health etc
Minimal improvement in equine performance over last Century despite better vet care. Nutrition etc
Eg biggest improvement in racing came when jockeys shortened their stirrups = faster times (Pfau et al., 2009)

3. Research question
Do the same factors affect success (scoring faults) in elite SJ apply in amateur level SJ?
Hypothesis:
There will be a difference in key factors which affect performance in amateur SJ

4. Speed and technical difficulty (related distances)
Accredited competition  horses and riders
Series of different show categories  prize money and level
Selected Senior shows  amateur status
90cm
British Novice
95cm Open
100cm
Discovery
105cm
Open
110cm Newcomers
115m Open
120cm
Foxhunter
Speed and technical difficulty (related distances)

5. Defining amateur riders
What did we expect to be different in these riders?
Experience: tactics
Experience: position
Novice horses
Rider status and experience will impact on performance of H-R partnership
Amateur defined as above novice levels (Williams and Tabor, 2018)
Here, amateur defined as >90cm as BS hold club classes (70-90cm)
Understanding impact of rider experience is key determinant of training to improve performance
(& equine welfare?)
Discuss novice rider – in image

6. Venue: Hartpury Equestrian Centre
Mention uniqueness / consistent venue / consistent course designer
- warm up in different arena / walk over to this one

7. Method
1 weekend (3 day) show  all rounds (n=11; height range:90cm to 120cm
All classes video recorded
Notational analysis: 1 consistent, experienced observer
5 height categories: 1: <95cm, 2: cm, 3: 110cm, 4: 115cm and 5: 120cm
Frequency analysis: distribution of faults
Univariable analysis  MV model building (P<0.05)

8. Variables Jumping effort number (incremental),
Fence type (e.g. upright, oxer)
approach line (straight vs. not- straight)
canter lead (correct or not)
total penalty score
distribution of faults for every quarter of the course
Not time (due to technical issues!)

9. British Showjumping: 90 to 120cm
4055 jumping efforts faults: 91.8% (n=3721), faults: 8.2% (n=334) FAULTS canter lead: incorrect x 6 (P=0.0001) fence type: uprights 98% more than oxers (P=0.002) class level: 100/105cm 7.8 times more likely to have faults than 90/95cm ROC predictability: 97%
canter lead: incorrect 6 x more likely (P=0.0001) fence type: uprights 98% more likely than oxers (P=0.002) class level: 100/105cm 7.8 x more likely than 90/95cm

10. Impact of class height
<95cm: an incorrect canter lead was 4.9 times more likely to result in faults (P=0.0001)
In cm classes jumping efforts 3, 6, 9, 14 (uprights) and 13 (oxer/combination) and in 110cm classes jumping efforts 1 (oxer) and 2 (upright) all increased the risk of scoring faults (P<0.03) compared to the final fence (ref category)
No factors were found to be significantly associated with scoring faults for 115cm and 120cm (P>0.05) – which was a shock!

11. Discussion
Approach was not influential but correct canter lead was – why?
Uprights vs. oxers – jumping style (Walker et al., 2018)
More faults at higher class heights than lower – why?
Influence of rider and role of rider education / training?
Need remember performance is multifactorial – this is just a start!

12. Conclusions
Differences exist between elite and amateur level SJ tactics and performance
Need to consider limitations: 1 venue, Rx effect of combinations, obscured viewing due to video and 1 observer
But, a greater understanding of what these differences are can inform training
SUCCESS & IMPROVED HORSE WELLBEING
INCREASED SCOPE FOR NOTATIONAL ANALYSIS + QUANTITATIVE STATS TECHNIQUES
ID FACTORS INFLUENCE PERFORMANCE & INFORM TRAINING
THE FUTURE

13. Thank you for listening
Any questions?