PDA

View Full Version : 3rd level double/ qualifications info from Janet Brown-Foy



flyracing
Dec. 15, 2007, 08:02 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(I posted this on the eventing forum first as they were worried about ULR being able to do 3rd/4th without sacrificing great time/money away from their events schedules (harder is some areas than others ;)).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRry1KLvJ2U

What this link for a good idea of what Brown thinks the proposal will look like. Its very informative (includes double bridle at 3rd level and qualifications info) She stated "10 points" to move up (means you can move up with two weekends if you score in the upper sixties).

This set of videos is also a very interesting to watch! Thanks so much to the poster! Look at their other videos, its training (A) through FEI (S).

J-Lu
Dec. 15, 2007, 08:46 PM
Two thoughts on the video:

1. When I was in college, I was preparing for a career in science. That is different than preparing for my hobby. But more importantly, lets not forget that a "C" is a passing grade, Janet, and no one was held back a grade for getting a C. They advanced to the next level. Why does she think that the system of standards for dressage should be higher than for college? :D Or higher than the previous USDF medal system? Or the previous GAIG/USDF Qualifying system?

2. Only two weekends of showing if you score in the high 60's at third level? Piece of cake, right? :lol:

DennisM
Dec. 15, 2007, 11:53 PM
I wholeheartedly agree with J-Lu. In addition, I'm completely unconvinced that there is sufficient "problem" to be solved by imposing qualifying points. A review of published scores from recognized shows indicates that almost NO one is scoring at below "satisfactory" levels currently. USDF/USEF (e.g., TDs, Judges, show managers) should dismiss problem riders from shows, not burden the rest of us unnecessarily. The national organizations can't keep up with their recordkeeping requirements now and won't be able to handle the extra burden. Rules like this will drive AAs and Juniors out of the national organizations by imposing time/cost/other bureaucratic requirements, will hurt trainers and breeders who sell trained horses that AA buyers and Juniors won't be able to show, will encourage over-showing, long-hauling and stressed horses, will hold back talented riders and horses, and is "un-American" in that it would create a dressage "class system" that is totally contrary to the ethic of open opportunity that this country stands for. And for those of us AAs or Juniors with busy professional lives or school obligations who only manage to show 2 or 3 times per year, Janet's idea of 10 points would likely take us between 3 and 5 years to accumulate, because even the professional riders rarely score 69%+. Does this woman realize how ridiculous it sounds when she says she intends to impose a requirement that would apply to every rider that is tougher than for championship classes and medals? When a 5 is "sufficient" and a 6 is "satisfactory," scores in that range ought to indicate that one is not harming the horse when riding or executing the movements. If they don't, the organization has a judging problem, not a competitor problem.

dressage72
Dec. 16, 2007, 12:46 AM
I really don't have much to say about the rule changes, but THANK YOU for the links to these videos!

WOW! Very informative and I love to watch the rides!

:D

YankeeLawyer
Dec. 16, 2007, 07:24 AM
I wholeheartedly agree with J-Lu. In addition, I'm completely unconvinced that there is sufficient "problem" to be solved by imposing qualifying points. A review of published scores from recognized shows indicates that almost NO one is scoring at below "satisfactory" levels currently. USDF/USEF (e.g., TDs, Judges, show managers) should dismiss problem riders from shows, not burden the rest of us unnecessarily. The national organizations can't keep up with their recordkeeping requirements now and won't be able to handle the extra burden. Rules like this will drive AAs and Juniors out of the national organizations by imposing time/cost/other bureaucratic requirements, will hurt trainers and breeders who sell trained horses that AA buyers and Juniors won't be able to show, will encourage over-showing, long-hauling and stressed horses, will hold back talented riders and horses, and is "un-American" in that it would create a dressage "class system" that is totally contrary to the ethic of open opportunity that this country stands for. And for those of us AAs or Juniors with busy professional lives or school obligations who only manage to show 2 or 3 times per year, Janet's idea of 10 points would likely take us between 3 and 5 years to accumulate, because even the professional riders rarely score 69%+. Does this woman realize how ridiculous it sounds when she says she intends to impose a requirement that would apply to every rider that is tougher than for championship classes and medals? When a 5 is "sufficient" and a 6 is "satisfactory," scores in that range ought to indicate that one is not harming the horse when riding or executing the movements. If they don't, the organization has a judging problem, not a competitor problem.

GREAT post.

Daydream Believer
Dec. 16, 2007, 09:14 AM
I think they are failing to take a lot into consideration. Just a few are that not everyone has unlimited time and funds to campaign a horse and that the grading system is weighted towards people with higher quality horses and can reward that more than just good riding. It defeats the purpose of what they are trying to do.

Why not just give the judge the authority to blow the whistle on someone who is "abusing" the double bridle or riding so badly that it is abusive to the horse or a horse that is acting up so bad that they could injure themselves or someone else? God knows I've watched riders with such poor control of their bodies that they spurred the horses in the sides every step during sitting trot. We've all watched people at all levels who had no business being out there and we've all seen horses that were so bad as to be dangerous.

In eventing, a technical delegate has the ability to stop any rider and eliminate them on the spot for dangerous or "abusive" riding. Give the dressage judges that authority as well.

I'd much rather see a system in place on judging the riders than just using the total scores of a test. Make it so that you have to score at least a 6 in collective marks as a rider to move up in several tests or something much simpler than this scoring system.

patch work farm
Dec. 16, 2007, 10:02 AM
The video is the same one that was first linked to the other post and whether it is 10 points or 20 points, I agree with Dennis-it is "un American". Most of the AA riders are doing this for fun, it is their hobby and an outlet for their otherwise stressed and busy lives so the point of inflicting this PENALTY is for what reason?!! I agree that if a judge sees someone abusing the double, they have the right to either eliminate that person or give them low scores, for the rest of us to suffer is ridiculous for what we pay the USDF/USEF to be members!

By every thread and every posting I have seen to date, it is obvious to me that this is not a popular decision for many reasons:

1)USEF and USDF cannot even get/keep our scores correct now (see other thread).
2)THIS RULE IS STILL NOT THE RESOLUTION FOR DOUBLE BRIDLE ABUSE!!!!!!!!!!
3)It will unfairly hold riders back due to not enough shows in their area or they will over extend themselves and their horses by attending too many shows to chase their points.
4)Many individuals that used to volunteer their time have said they will cut that, hmm, who will be helping out at these shows if that happens?
5)Schooling shows will be overwhelmed!

Frankly, I am now at a time/age that if they put this rule through, I will speak with my feet and not pay them another dime. As a rider, I pay to compete in dressage classes, as a breeder, I am generally showing my young horses(not only do we have to pay entry fees, but these youngsters must have a lifetime number for qualifying for year end awards-add these costs up), might not add up to enough impact just myself, but if everyone were to do this, they would eventually be broke! How many times have we paid to have a new logo, new stationary, etc. for USEF to change their name?!

Again, since I am a "Participating Member" (which I am told I HAVE to be) why am I not participating in a vote on this rule? Somehow I feel like I am not participating here.

AllWeatherGal
Dec. 16, 2007, 10:07 AM
Why not just give the judge the authority to blow the whistle on someone who is "abusing" the double bridle or riding so badly that it is abusive to the horse or a horse that is acting up so bad that they could injure themselves or someone else? ....

In eventing, a technical delegate has the ability to stop any rider and eliminate them on the spot for dangerous or "abusive" riding. Give the dressage judges that authority as well.


Judges have it. They are loathe to use the authority because it really makes a mess of schedules. So, if they think the ride isn't downright dangerous or absolutely abusive, they often choose not to stop the ride, but alert the TD of the competitor's number to watch for the rest of the show (especially in eventing, they want the TD to know about potential problems before the pair get on the X-C) and make very sure the competitor understands the problem through not just scores, but direct comments on the test sheet.

Judges are absolutely required to stop a test if there is any sight of blood. At all.

If there is any doubt, the judge holds the rider and calls for a TD to make final determination. The TD may allow the rider to return to the arena and re-ride or decide to eliminate.

This rule seems to me about "clearing out the top" not truly the safety of competitors and good treatment of horses. More bad stuff happens in the warmup, anyway, at any level.

I agree with DennisM's post.

carolprudm
Dec. 16, 2007, 10:57 AM
DayDream Believer brought up a good point. How many times do we see riders abusing spurs with their floppy legs?

rebecca yount
Dec. 16, 2007, 11:32 AM
I had already posted this link on another thread at least a week ago.

This clinic where the films were made took place in New Jersey in October. Therefore the proposed "standards" that were passed out at the USDF convention in Florida at the end of November/first of December post-date this film.

Since this film was made and since the convention, much has transpired re people talking about the proposed rule change and standards. Things are not the same as they were when the film was made.

The film was interesting in that it showed that this proposal and "standards" were being discussed with a small group way back in October. My point was that we never heard about it right before the USDF convention where lots more people had a chance to talk about it. If we had been kept more informed we could have sent our delegates to the convention with MUCH more feedback for the members of the USEF Dressage Committee, most or all of whom were at the USDF convention.

So while the film was interesting, it's old news. It does provide, to me, further evidence that this is about the double bridle and abusive riding, at least to Janet.

Again, I say--empower judges and protect them when they call it as they see it. They are afraid to use the rule re abusive riding, or to give riders below a 5 or 6, for fear of retribution, complaints to USEF, and not getting promoted or asked back to judge. I have that in writing.

rebecca yount
Dec. 16, 2007, 11:34 AM
PS

God help me if I have to ride in front of some of the people I've bugged by my stance and actions regarding this proposal!! I'm not implying that they would judge me unfairly but I am sure they won't cut me any slack, either. Not that I, or anyone, deserves it...

FriesianX
Dec. 16, 2007, 12:26 PM
Two thoughts on the video:

1. When I was in college, I was preparing for a career in science. That is different than preparing for my hobby. But more importantly, lets not forget that a "C" is a passing grade, Janet, and no one was held back a grade for getting a C. They advanced to the next level. Why does she think that the system of standards for dressage should be higher than for college? :D Or higher than the previous USDF medal system? Or the previous GAIG/USDF Qualifying system?

2. Only two weekends of showing if you score in the high 60's at third level? Piece of cake, right? :lol:

In my college, "C" gpa got you kicked out of most of the good schools - you could scrape by in general ed or communications, but if you wanted to be in Business or Engineering or many of the Science fields, you needed at least a C+ to stay in the school. I don't think we can compare college to dressage.

What I hope does happen is the rules committee pays attention to what is going on in the dressage community, and they realize perhaps this proposal won't really work? I also hope they rethink the double at 3rd level and simply get RID OF IT. I personally am not opposed to a system that requires you hit certain score requirements before you move up the ranks - but I realize, reading the posts here, maybe 20 points is WAY TOO MUCH. And USEF is not ready to handle the paperwork! Janet's original estimate of 10 points seems much more reasonable. But USEF needs an infrastructure in place to process and analyze scores before they implement such a requirement.

The two big California GMOs are doing a pretty hard campaign w/ their membership - hopefully other regional GMOs are also getting into the fray. Make your voices heard by contacting the Rules Committee. In writing...

dq140
Dec. 16, 2007, 01:30 PM
[QUOTE=J-Lu;2870648]Two thoughts on the video:

But more importantly, lets not forget that a "C" is a passing grade, Janet, and no one was held back a grade for getting a C. They advanced to the next level. Why does she think that the system of standards for dressage should be higher than for college? :



Because the college professors don't have to grade you in the same ole test, weekend after weekend, after you've graduated!

dq140
Dec. 16, 2007, 02:00 PM
In another of those videos, I was astounded to hear Janet Foy (and steffen agreeing with her) that if the horse doesn't stretch his frame in the lenghten trot she doesn't care and gives a good score. Where is dressagae headed with these people making these decisions? It is no different than the horse who is trained correctly to keep his balance on a stretchie circle!!! Then in the next breath she says she wants the training correct before the riders move up the levels. If you don't have enough self carriage to let the horse stretch down in the lenthened trot, by God, you shouldn't move up to any kind of level from that!! As well, in my mind, any "GOOD RIDER" as she calls them, should be able to ride a GP test in the snaffle BRIDLE. What a bunch of baloney these two clowns are!!!

Elegante E
Dec. 16, 2007, 02:11 PM
C is a passing grade. In college, they impose rules on grades to limit the number of people in the program. So saying you must have a C+ to stay in the program isn't because a C means one is incompetent, it's because they only have a certain number of slots available for the program and this culls the herd.

So, are they saying they want to limit the number of riders?

dq140
Dec. 16, 2007, 02:21 PM
C is a passing grade. In college, they impose rules on grades to limit the number of people in the program. So saying you must have a C+ to stay in the program isn't because a C means one is incompetent, it's because they only have a certain number of slots available for the program and this culls the herd.

So, are they saying they want to limit the number of riders?

That won't happen for long as the USDF, show managers, and the dressage clubs will lose too much money

merrygoround
Dec. 16, 2007, 02:24 PM
Instead of forcing riders to make the scores, before moving up, I suggest they feed the judges some starch. :) :) We have all witnessed riders who had absolutely no business riding First, much less Third or Fourth, in the arena attempting to perform. I realize they never got good scores, but how many judges sent them from the arena?

As said before, there are many good ammie riders, living in areas where recognized shows are hard to come by. It costs them a fortune to show each time. Even if they make all their "good" scores in one w/e. That can put them out of a move up for month, or a year.

dq140
Dec. 16, 2007, 02:40 PM
I'm on a rampage now! And while we're at it, lets make up a class for GP riders, snaffle bridle only, who can't move up to a rated GP test or international shows until they score over 60%. That would settle things right up!!! Maybe it would get rid of some of these people who are now setting the stage for dressage!!

jcotton
Dec. 16, 2007, 03:02 PM
The whole problem of this mess starts with the major error of allowing the double bridle at 3rd level. Take the double of 3rd level and still leave the snaffle as an option for 4th level.

Then go back basics of the rider performance awards, don't move up until you have cmpetitively competed at "x" level with 4 or more scores of 60% or higher (not necessaily winning the class but in the top end of the class) to move onto the next level on that particular horse.

AllWeatherGal
Dec. 16, 2007, 03:12 PM
Again, I say--empower judges and protect them when they call it as they see it. They are afraid to use the rule re abusive riding, or to give riders below a 5 or 6, for fear of retribution, complaints to USEF, and not getting promoted or asked back to judge. I have that in writing.

Afraid or unwilling ... yes, I agree that complaints are a huge issue, especially since the USEF doesn't have a strong history of supporting its officials from the first-hand accounts I've heard. And of course, not being asked back is very influential.

To TDs as well as to judges.

I don't know how to "fix" that.

Hazelnut
Dec. 16, 2007, 03:27 PM
The whole problem of this mess starts with the major error of allowing the double bridle at 3rd level. Take the double of 3rd level and still leave the snaffle as an option for 4th level.

Then go back basics of the rider performance awards, don't move up until you have cmpetitively competed at "x" level with 4 or more scores of 60% or higher (not necessaily winning the class but in the top end of the class) to move onto the next level on that particular horse.

I think what you suggest is a realistic plan...If I have to get 20 points; while I'm working, I won't have the time and when I retire I won't have the $$.

Whisper
Dec. 16, 2007, 09:56 PM
Make it so that you have to score at least a 6 in collective marks as a rider to move up in several tests or something much simpler than this scoring system.

I agree, if the problem is poor riding, give riders the scores they deserve. If there needs to be a qualification to move up, use the rider score for 2 or 3 tests.

Plus, the rule change doesn't even involve any set criteria, it just says that the USEF Dressage committee can make whatever rules it likes, or change them at any time. Presumably they won't make it as stupid and arbitrary as allowing only riders whose last names begin with A-M, or who are between 20 and 30 years old, but there's nothing which prevents it. It's far too open-ended and nebulous.

tollertwins
Dec. 16, 2007, 10:05 PM
Quote: User the rider scores for 2 or 3 tests :Quote

Really....seems to me that the 'bigger moving' breeds do better at the levels where extensions are emphasized. Some other breeds (esp the more baroque ones) don't really hit their stride till more collection is introduced.

Whisper
Dec. 16, 2007, 10:28 PM
:yes: I've heard of several horses who scored *much* better at 3rd than at 2nd.

Dressage Art
Dec. 16, 2007, 11:12 PM
:yes: I've heard of several horses who scored *much* better at 3rd than at 2nd.

3rd is easier for many horses if they have flying changes.

dray
Dec. 17, 2007, 08:09 AM
She has a nice view from the Ivory Tower, I guess.

There are lots of Doctors, Dentists, Veterinarians, PhDs, COTH members who function superiorly in their jobs....who made Cs in good schools. That upper 60s thing really chapped me as well.

Agree w/ DressageArt and Whisper...some horses are not "on" until you get to asking more complex questions of them, require more collection, etc.

As in my politics...I want LESS government, not MORE with more emphasis on judges and TDs exercising the power and responsibility they have to pull abusive riders without the organization assuming we are ALL abusive.

Donna Ray
Carson Farm
www.carson-farm.com

rebecca yount
Dec. 17, 2007, 08:25 AM
Here's something interesting.

Yesterday I was cleaning out old magazines and doing my once-annual coffee table dusting. I came across an issue of USDF Connection magazine from August 2007. In it, there's an article by Lois Yukins (very good dressage judge, imo) entitled "Do You Have What It Takes to Be a Judge?".

Lois Yukins is an FEI "I" judge and she chairs the USDF Judge's Committee and is vice-chair of the USDF "L" Education Program Committee. Among other things, Lois said:

"Character. A dressage judge must be a person of character--one who adheres to the standards that uphold the purpose of evaluating a test. A good judge commits to preserve, protect, and uphold the principles of training. Doing so requires time, incentive, and even courage."

Later on, she says:

"They must be able to give scores based on what they believe, not on how they have been treated in the past. There is no room for personal agendas in dressage judging. Judges need to be strong in their beliefs and willing to eliminate a horse if necessary. The judge must be an honest advocate for the horse."

An also:

"A career as a dressage judge should not be about money, although it is amazingly expensive to acquire and maintain a judge's license and to move up through the levels. Some judges seem to try to please by awarding high scores, either from a desire for more jobs or from a wish not to disappoint competitors. A judge's integrity must be so solid that truth's can be told. Honesty is not always easy."


YOU GO, LOIS!!!!

Now, how does this fit with judges being reluctant to award less than a 5 or 6 for fear of not being asked back or not being promoted? Hmmmm?

I think I need to send an email about this to Lois, who is I think, not on the USEF Dressage Committee.

SillyHorse
Dec. 17, 2007, 08:46 AM
She has a nice view from the Ivory Tower, I guess.

There are lots of Doctors, Dentists, Veterinarians, PhDs, COTH members who function superiorly in their jobs....who made Cs in good schools. That upper 60s thing really chapped me as well.
I don't follow you. In what school is a 68% a good mark, or even a C? In my high school, 68% was a failing mark. Today, in most schools 70% gets you a C; 68% would be a D.

So to compare a grading system to the 1 - 10 judging system used in dressage just doesn't work. The construcs are different. 65% in school is failing or just squeaking by; 65% in dressage is "satisfactory (and a half)," which is generally what a C+ means.

AllWeatherGal
Dec. 17, 2007, 10:26 AM
Among other things, Lois said:

"Character. A dressage judge must be a person of character--one who adheres to the standards that uphold the purpose of evaluating a test. A good judge commits to preserve, protect, and uphold the principles of training. Doing so requires time, incentive, and even courage."

Later on, she says:

"They must be able to give scores based on what they believe, not on how they have been treated in the past. There is no room for personal agendas in dressage judging. Judges need to be strong in their beliefs and willing to eliminate a horse if necessary. The judge must be an honest advocate for the horse."

An also:

"A career as a dressage judge should not be about money, although it is amazingly expensive to acquire and maintain a judge's license and to move up through the levels. Some judges seem to try to please by awarding high scores, either from a desire for more jobs or from a wish not to disappoint competitors. A judge's integrity must be so solid that truth's can be told. Honesty is not always easy."

YOU GO, LOIS!!!!

Now, how does this fit with judges being reluctant to award less than a 5 or 6 for fear of not being asked back or not being promoted? Hmmmm?

I think I need to send an email about this to Lois, who is I think, not on the USEF Dressage Committee.

Lois is indeed a heroic woman, both personally and professionally. I'm actually riding today because of Lois. She is a stern warrior and also an incredibly insightful and kind woman who nurtures and develops character in others.

It's not like the members of USDF/USEF organizations don't know about the pressures ... but where is the incentive?

Lois and her peers are FEI judges with international judging opportunities. Fair enough, they don't get paid for their work in Europe. but they have a much wider market and ... well, frankly, a different scope than the "r" judge whose jobs are more limited.

Having said THAT, I don't mean to point a finger at any particular license level. I'm just saying that fewer lower level judges are hired for far-away jobs. If they want to work, they have to keep the local managements happy. If the management wants high-scoring rides, then they're kind of stuck. And, oh, few "r" and "R" judges have the opportunity to regularly work on a panel, a collaboritive effort that I think really helps judges stay "tuned up" and have the support of their peers.

In addition, my experience (sitting with lots and lots of different judges, and in fact, during one season what must have amounted to half the USDF "L" education committee!!) has been that most judges are just sympathetic. They aren't sitting at C to kill a rider who is trying hard but just doesn't quite have it all together. They'll give a 6 instead of a 5 if it's a choice. Especially judges with a lot of FEI under their belts ... they see a bigger picture than most of us, and would rather keep someone riding with a smile (even if tentative) than ruin a perfectly good hobby with scores that really aren't going to make a difference to the larger world of dressage. I'm talking about the people at the bottom of classes, not those clearly separated to the top, championships, a bright and brilliant future.

millerra
Dec. 17, 2007, 11:44 AM
Regarding grading in colleges vs dressage tests - it's the average score that matters - not the actual percentage. Many professors will write an exam so that the average fits what they expect the average student to achieve. If you a really good student, you will get an A and, every once in a while, some one will get a 100%. How many 100% do you see on a dressage test? An 80% would be a phenomenal score in the dressage arena yet get you a B in college (on average) and perhaps in the top 75% of the class.

So w/ dressage, an average score is in the mid 60s. That would be C work. Passing, but not outrageously stupendous.

slc2
Dec. 17, 2007, 08:38 PM
while i have been sick i went over show results at a number of recognized dressage horse shows.

Scores just aren't that high. I read so many statements here about what an amateur's score should be and what they are, that I decided to figure out what they really are. And that's not what they are. They just aren't that high. It's often said 'people score' and 'people should score' and I don't see that having any relationship to what really ever happens. If it never happens, saying it should is a nice dream but not a realistic expectation or goal, and not a valid basis to structure one's showing or training on.

Dressage tests are not scored like a class in school. The results are not calculated the same way, and it makes absolutely no sense to say, 'since when is 68% a good dressage score, because it wasn't a good test result in high school, so it can't be a good dressage score'. That makes no sense. I read it all the time here. It isn't logical.

In school, a 75% is viewed as not a very good grade. In my house, an 80% is not viewed as a good grade, neither is an 85%. Yet with an 85% on a school test, a student may still have a very solid mastery of the subject the test is on. A 75% is a really unusual score to get on a dressage test. Most people would think it indicated a mastery of that level and a very good score. At my house, a 75% is a very good dressage score, and a very BAD school grade.

They are not meant to be the same. They aren't derived the same way. They can't be compared. There is no reason they SHOULD be the same numbers or percentages. It seems like 'Satisfactory' is the new 'Shitty'. Except it isn't.

Dressage tests performances are 'good' or 'better' depending on what sort of level of mastery the student shows. A score in and of itself, one score, does not give a clear indication of degree of mastery.

A student can lose points for having a very limited horse with poor gaits, for some sort of transient problem, for having an off day, or because of plain old can't sit, can't steer and can't bend because he don't know how or for some not so easy to determine combination thereof. The test score doesn't indicate where the score came from or how, but only what it was.

UT
Dec. 17, 2007, 10:16 PM
contact your regional representatives to USEF. This is very important. They need to hear from us. The vote, I believe, is on Jan 8th, 2008
give your opinion, calmly and professionaly. We have a better chance to be heard.

Touchstone Farm
Dec. 17, 2007, 10:41 PM
It's interesting to me to read that many of you think the judges aren't hard enough/score, that they're too easy. Please let me know what shows you guys go to because I want to start going to THOSE shows! I just don't see it. Occasionally someone may get an easier score; at other times, someone might get dinged more than they deserved...but I just don't see overly generous scoring as rampant...

J-Lu
Dec. 17, 2007, 11:00 PM
It's interesting to me to read that many of you think the judges aren't hard enough/score, that they're too easy. Please let me know what shows you guys go to because I want to start going to THOSE shows! I just don't see it. Occasionally someone may get an easier score; at other times, someone might get dinged more than they deserved...but I just don't see overly generous scoring as rampant...
:)
I think the argument (if I remember correctly) is that judges complain about having to judge some number of riders putting in bad rides. However, they don't often score these riders low because they do not want to be known as a judge that gives terribly low scores (they'll lose judging jobs). Hence the qualifying system. Some argue that if judges regularly gave bad riders bad scores with reflective comments, it would be incentive for those people to stay home and train more before showing again. And a qualifying system wouldn't be necessary. I don't think anyone is saying that judges are overly generous as a whole. I think.

BTW, I think we all agree that it is rediculous to compare dressage tests to college. That was Janey Foy Brown's analogy (to those who didn't watch the clip).

Whisper
Dec. 18, 2007, 12:40 AM
I agree that considering only 90% or above to be good, 80% or above to be decent, and 70% or above to be passing isn't particularly realistic for dressage! I suppose you can compare it a tough professor who grades on a curve. The score range equivalent is more like <55% F, 55-60% D, 60-63% C, 64-68% B, >68% A, from what I've seen.

ideayoda
Dec. 18, 2007, 07:32 AM
The scores are NOT the same as Cs/Bs/As. They are merely word meanings, which is different from school. And where there is medium levels of collection (3rd/4th) there should be the option of full bridles, and lightness is lateral flexability.

It is the judges which need to be clear that poor use of ANY tack/aid/etc will be met with very low scores (ie insufficient).

Whisper
Dec. 18, 2007, 09:54 AM
I know they aren't the same in meaning at all. I was just saying that for those who are making the analogy to grades, a curve would fit reality better than a strict >90% =A, etc.

NotaDQinMD
Dec. 18, 2007, 11:44 AM
This is my first chance to comment on this topic...

If I want to spend my hard-earned money on entering a test at a level I'm not ready for, let the shows take my money and let the judges do their job! I've had my share of below-average performances and I have received scores that reflect that! The point was made, and I took those constructive comments home and use them to my benefit. This is America - if I want to spend $ and get a score in the 40s, I should be allowed to. If we think adding qualifications is somehow going cut down on abusive and/or poor riding, that's crazy... the potentially poor training and riding goes on at home.... the show is just the test! I believe we are better off allowing judges to have a chance to comment on poor riding and training and possibly have an impact and make a point to a rider who may be pushing a horse too hard or incorrectly at home!

I see a lot of AA dressage people switching to eventing or sticking only to schooling shows... I think this is just another situation that will drive people from competing at recognized shows. Trish

ClaraLuisa
Dec. 18, 2007, 12:23 PM
Agree with NotaDQ. I'm one of those AAs who will run out of lifetime to move up under the proposed rule change, primarily due to cost issues. And judging under the current system has "worked" for me, I think.
I've had some OK tests with OK scores...and I've gotten brutally, humiliatingly, correctly pounded when appropriate. At third. In a double. And yes, it made me go home and say OMG, what have I been doing wrong...and how far back do I need to go to fix it?
I think that was the point.
It wasn't a pleasant experience, but it was instructive, and it ensured that our work was much better when the old mare and I tried again at that level.

Eclectic Horseman
Dec. 18, 2007, 03:42 PM
I think that it is purely a short sighted revenue enhancement program.

We have been reading on this board and other places how folks are retreating to schooling shows because of the high cost of showing (fees, fees everywhere a fee). So because of reduced revenues due to people not showing at the recognized shows, they feel they need to do something to get people showing in the recognized shows again.

I think that it will result in FEWER people showing in the recognized shows, and then they will have to come up with a new way to increase revenue.

If they really cared about the riding, they would do more to promote affordable equestrian education. :sigh:

dq140
Dec. 18, 2007, 06:50 PM
The scores are NOT the same as Cs/Bs/As. They are merely word meanings, which is different from school. And where there is medium levels of collection (3rd/4th) there should be the option of full bridles, and lightness is lateral flexability.

It is the judges which need to be clear that poor use of ANY tack/aid/etc will be met with very low scores (ie insufficient).

If you need the double bridle to get lightness in lateral flexability, you're training/teaching has not been correct in the snaffle bridle. You should not need the double for any of your training/teaching all the way to GP if your training is pure (other than for a more polished look in the show arena at FEI.) This whole problem stems from allowing the use of the double in the lower levels. So many riders/instructors use it as a crutch bypassing the long process of correct training!

eurofoal
Dec. 18, 2007, 10:12 PM
while i have been sick i went over show results at a number of recognized dressage horse shows.

Scores just aren't that high. I read so many statements here about what an amateur's score should be and what they are, that I decided to figure out what they really are. And that's not what they are. They just aren't that high. It's often said 'people score' and 'people should score' and I don't see that having any relationship to what really ever happens. If it never happens, saying it should is a nice dream but not a realistic expectation or goal, and not a valid basis to structure one's showing or training on.

.

So, SLC, what were the scores? Let's get a little reality check going here.

This has been a pet peeve of mine, too.... all these people saying we should be scoring in the high 60's or 70's... come on guys... look this stuff up. At the Las Vegas World Cup, our best riders still score in the mid-60's. There's no such thing as 100% in this sport, in fact, my non-horsey husband just commented, when I was bummed over a "5" score on something, that "Aren't you happy with a 6?" I explained that yes, I'm happy with a six, thrilled with a 7, and on cloud nine with an 8. I've never gotten a 9, and I'm not sure if I personally know any AA who has. A 5 is disappointing, a 4 is time for tears. So, essentially,. my scores hover between 5's and 7's, with the occasional 4 to notice or 8 to celebrate.

Hidden Pond Farm
Dec. 18, 2007, 10:30 PM
I want to second everyone who suggests to contact the committee/USEF regional reps. No matter what side you're on, it's important that the membership is properly represented at the meeting when this is voted on.

I had a friend suggest that instead of scores, why not work out "moving up" around the placings in a qualifying class situation. Or even better--going along with the whole "pass a test" analogy, riders could perform the highest level of a test (2-4 for basic, 4-3 medium etc.,) under a panel of judges. If the panel agrees to pass the rider with a minimum score (60%?) the rider can move up to the next level.

And just a nod to those sitting in the Ivory Tower....If you pass your test with high scores, you could graduate cum laude or sum cum laude. Riders could earn a pin or something.

Anyway, I'm working on my own letter suggesting something like this. I'm not opposed to the idea of setting a standard to move up. But DennisM summed up how I feel about the current proposal the best--TDs and judges simply need to step up to the plate. It's no excuse to say they can't because they won't be invited back. For them to shut out the folks paying the bills instead--and let me add most of us are there trying to do it correctly--well they're really not addressing the problem and in the end shows will be cancelled and they won't get invited anyway.

ltw
Dec. 18, 2007, 10:48 PM
The first show of the season opened in Wellington. The results are posted on Dressage Daily. I went and looked at the scores with this thread in mind. I figured if the people in Wellington are the creme de la creme meaning they have the time, money, trainers, ability to go to Florida for the winter and train year round that should be the highest scoring group to set a standard. It does not represent the rest of the typical dressage riders in this country but it does give a reality check when considering the new Performance Standard rules.

I would encourage all of you to look at those scores. They are not that high and there are not many scores above 65%. That tells me that Janet Brown-Foy's statements about being able to earn the points in two weekends assuming high scores is unrealistic even for the people that can afford to show in Wellington in the winter.

I would be interested in hearing others thoughts after they review the scores.

eurofoal
Dec. 18, 2007, 11:07 PM
And just a nod to those sitting in the Ivory Tower....If you pass your test with high scores, you could graduate cum laude or sum cum laude. Riders could earn a pin or something.


. But DennisM summed up how I feel about the current proposal the best--TDs and judges simply need to step up to the plate. It's no excuse to say they can't because they won't be invited back. For them to shut out the folks paying the bills instead--and let me add most of us are there trying to do it correctly--well they're really not addressing the problem and in the end shows will be cancelled and they won't get invited anyway.


I would also have to say, if you're going to suddenly step up the issuing of 4's through 1's, then you equally need to step up the issuing of 7's through 10's, or the whole thing pretty much loses relevancy. I guess I believe in more of a bell curve approach than what we have now, since even our best riders don't get many "very good" rides/scores/movements.

I really respect a judge who can give me a 3 and an 8 in the same test (yes, this has happened)... THAT's what shows me that the judge is actually judging my ride. To sum up any rider as a 55 or 60 or 70%, before the test is ridden, is doing a dis-service to all of us. If my riding sucks that day, give me a low score, but if I nailed something, let the score show that, too.

The judges that I have shown under that give me super low scores across the board are usually pretty low scoring overall. In one show, out of, what, maybe 40 or so rides, only 1 ride made over 65%, and 2 or 3 more over 60%... I guess that means that the vast majority of us pretty much sucked, in his opinion. So, in that show, I pretty much sucked along with the rest of the group. Reminds me of that old saying "I've been kicked out of better places than this!" Now, when my very next show, just a couple of weeks later, yields scores 10-15% higher, did I really suddenly become such a better rider? Did the rest of the 40 or 50 riders, also, when so many more ( 8 or 10) of them had scores in the 60's? Methinks not...

But, some of you guys are pretty much saying that the low scores are always deserved and the high scores (If you can really call 60 or better a high score) mean the judge is too generous. I still say there's no judge out there handing out 7's like candy at Easter. If so, pleeeezeee tell me where to find such a person! If there were such a person, far more people would be scoring in the high 60's and 70's, and the numbers just aren't there to support it.

And, I agree with Hidden Pond, send in those letters, what ever your position on the issue. Rebecca Yount is collecting letters to deliver straight to the Ivory Tower. She got one from me. There's also a thread with a link to the proposal and the comments page.

rebecca yount
Dec. 19, 2007, 06:33 AM
Just so everyone knows, after an initial few emails in reply to ones I sent, the responses from the USEF Dressage Committee seem to be tapering off. I know the members of the committee are busy and it IS the holiday season.

I encourage everyone who is interested to keep sending emails to all members of the committee, regularly, including links to all the threads on all bulletin boards regarding this subject. Paste comments from threads into the emails. It is probably important to let TPTB how the discussions are evolving and make them aware of new points (some very good ones, IMO) that are being raised. ry