Personal attacks

[halfpass]

Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 3:12 pm Post subject: Personal Attacks

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have to say that is has REALLY upset me that people who don't even know Janet Brown Foy would personally attack her. We should all use this site for discussion of issues and not for personal attacks.

I have known JBF for over 20 years and she has many students who have been with her for more than 20 years. Janet is the most honest, dedicated, hard working, fair, caring person you could ever meet in the Dressage world or any other walk of life. I could not even estimate the hours of her life she has given in volunteer positions for USDF/USEF to improve Dressage for all of us.

Janet has students with Gold Medals riding Morgans. What is elitist about that? In Janet's lesson program she has Arabians, Draft/TB crosses, Morgans, Arabian/WB crosses, Quarter Horses and, oh yes, some elitist Warmbloods. I have never known her to turn away a student wanting to learn and work hard irregardless of what breed of horse they ride -- and they all learn and improve dramatically.

In regard to some comments on her breeding program -- with only several producing mares, 20 premium foals were created. From her stallion? Two approved sons and 9 Dressage Grand Prix horses.

Let's keep the discussions to issues and stop attacking anyone. It shows a complete lack of integrity.
Kathie Davidson

[mjhco]

I second that motion. MaryJo and Shade

[SaddleFitterVA]

I didn't see most of the things written as "personal" attacks.

Of course, the tone in the quotes attributed to her did rankle me, the quotes chosen seem to make her sound quite elitist in her views of what dressage should be in the US.

The rule proposal she is championing is also not too popular, from reading various online communities, so it is never fun to be the one seen as someone who is railroading rule changes down the throat of a membership.

I've never met her, never been judged by her, and don't even know what region she is usually in, but I've only read a couple of articles that quote her, and so I've only got her public persona to go by.

[Equibrit]

Maybe people would see her differently if she was a little more guarded in her utterances!

[flshgordon]

Maybe people would see her differently if she was a little more guarded in her utterances!


Ditto :yes:

And sorry but we don't need 15 more people to come on here and defend her comments. She said what she said and we're entitled to feel about that however we choose. No one needs to tell me how I or anyone else SHOULD feel about what she has said....repeatedly....several times over the past few weeks.

I haven't personally attacked anyone. But I am deeply offended by many of her public and written comments.

[slc2]

Because someone doesn't like her comments, doesn't give them the right to call her names and say she's 'rotten' and 'the fish rots from the head first' and all the other cr** she was called here. Same for sydnor. Nasty comments about people's personal beliefs and calling them names is NOT the right way to disagree with them, no matter WHAT they said.

I think it is the subject that makes people go nuts - everything is taken as a personal insult against their horsey or their chosen and more-noble-than-thou path. Anyone who talks about appropriate horses or different types of horse is saying their horse is bad. That is just...BENT.

There comes a point when someone is a wee bit too cathected about their own horse.

[Spectrum]

This is a bit off-topic, but does Janet Foy have a website? Which stallion does she own?

[claire]

Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 3:12 pm Post subject: Personal Attacks
I have to say that is has REALLY upset me that people who don't even know Janet Brown Foy would personally attack her. We should all use this site for discussion of issues and not for personal attacks.
Kathie Davidson

Kathie,
I have closely read the threads on COTH about the USEF rule proposal and have not seen any personal attacks against Janet Brown Foy.

This rule proposal has generated much discussion and concern among the base membership as it directly effects both the members and their GMO's. As is their right.

Janet Brown Foy as a member of the USEF Dressage Committee has been quite vocal on several publications (and in e-mails) lobbying for the rule proposal and expressing her views on Dressage competition. As is HER right.

The fact that the many stated their disagreement with Janet Brown Foy's public opinions about Dressage competitions and qualifying standards does not mean they are "personally attacking" her.

I, for one, appreciate that COTH allows a format to discuss, share information and opinions about issues that directly impact us.

I also think the moderators do a great job of keeping the discussions free from personal attacks.

[flshgordon]

Because someone doesn't like her comments, doesn't give them the right to call her names and say she's 'rotten' and 'the fish rots from the head first' and all the other cr** she was called here. Same for sydnor. Nasty comments about people's personal beliefs and calling them names is NOT the right way to disagree with them, no matter WHAT they said.

I think it is the subject that makes people go nuts - everything is taken as a personal insult against their horsey or their chosen and more-noble-than-thou path. Anyone who talks about appropriate horses or different types of horse is saying their horse is bad. That is just...BENT.

There comes a point when someone is a wee bit too cathected about their own horse.

Could you please in the middle of your nonstop babbling understand for one second that ALL PEOPLE OPPOSED TO THIS ARE NOT NECESSARILY THE ONES SHE IS TALKING ABOUT??? Why can't you grasp that?

I show my own horses, they do well and at this point I do not think that I would have trouble meeting the set out qualifications for scores, nor do I own a cowpony or any other nontraditional breed. However, I still think it's a crappy system and designed (maybe not on purpose) to keep out people that probably don't need to be kept out.

Why on earth do we want someone making decisions for us who #1 exaggerates the problem to make it seem as though a huge percentage of riders are out there scoring in the 30s and #2 who seems unaccepting of anything she doesn't deem to be an acceptable dressage mount? :confused:

SLC I will absolutely NEVER understand why you always have a dissenting opinion. All you do is disagree with the majority for the sake of hearing yourself speak. No matter what the topic, the result is always the same...:no:

[canticle]

slc2, "A fish rots from the head down" is an old saying which refers to corruption and mismanagement in an organization often beginning at the very top. :yes:

[yikes123]

Could you please in the middle of your nonstop babbling understand for one second that ALL PEOPLE OPPOSED TO THIS ARE NOT NECESSARILY THE ONES SHE IS TALKING ABOUT??? Why can't you grasp that?

I show my own horses, they do well and at this point I do not think that I would have trouble meeting the set out qualifications for scores, nor do I own a cowpony or any other nontraditional breed. However, I still think it's a crappy system and designed (maybe not on purpose) to keep out people that probably don't need to be kept out.

Why on earth do we want someone making decisions for us who #1 exaggerates the problem to make it seem as though a huge percentage of riders are out there scoring in the 30s and #2 who seems unaccepting of anything she doesn't deem to be an acceptable dressage mount? :confused:

SLC I will absolutely NEVER understand why you always have a dissenting opinion. All you do is disagree with the majority for the sake of hearing yourself speak. No matter what the topic, the result is always the same...:no:


The above paragraph could not be any more true of SLC2.

As for Janet, I have only seen her judge a show and do know she scores low however that is all I know of her. As for personal attacks I do agree that they need to stop on all the BB's as I have been a victim myself. Peoples opinions will differ and that is life. People need to learn to agree to disagree instead of name calling.

[rebecca yount]

Could the person who started this thread about personal attacks please point out where on this bb there are statements which are personal attacks? Or can anyone else? I am not talking what you "feel" is there, but would like some specific examples of personally attacking statements. I do not feel that I personally made any such statements, but I AM outspoken against the proposal, for reasons which I have stated ad nauseum. Disagreeing, however, is not the same as making personal attacks. I agree that personal attacks or implications of such are not appropriate, and I have done all I could throughout this debate to keep that from happening, including trying to keep people on topic and constructive.

Now, I am going to present some information which WILL include Janet's name--see below. I have met her and have been judged by her and never thought she was anything but fair. I do have to admit, however, I am surprised by some of the comments coming from not only her (in the DressageDaily piece--where I think she may have made statements that are not supported by data--but maybe she has it and hasn't presented it yet) but by also other members of the Dressage Committee, which were completely uncalled for. I have not seen in writing terrible personal attacks against Ms. Foy or members of the DC. But if they are happening they need to stop. Please enlighten me as to where or from whom they are coming. By the way I think people should use their real names--I am and she is and so are other Dressage Committee members--oh I suppose they could be on here as alters...but anyway people tend to be more careful when they can be identified. So don't be chicken--say who you are.

Now, for the info which includes Ms. Brown-Foy's name--see below:

I did some quick math. I took the results as posted on the USDF website for all dressage competitions from 10/1/07 to present, in Region 1 (my region) and Region 5 (Janet Brown-Foy's region--since she is the one that made the comment about scores in the 30s). I think it is important to look at all results for all regions but I don't have time to do that right now.

In Region 1, there were 2260 total rides during that time period. Scores reported are as follows:

Scores in the 30s--2--0.08% of total
Scores in the 40s--37--1.6% of total
Scores in the 50s--783--34.6% of total
Scores in the 60s--1326--58.67% of total
Scores in the 70s--105--4.6% of total

Also, I did it for Region 2. In that Region, there were 465 total rides so far, with the following results:

30s--0 rides--0% of total
40s--4 rides--0.8% of total
50s--134 rides--28.8% of total
60s--300 rides--64.5% of total
70s--21 rides--4.5% of total


In Region 5, there were 773 total rides during that time period. Scores reported are as follows:

Scores in the 30s--0--0% of the total
Scores in the 40s--9--1.2% of the total
Scores in the 50s--242--31.3% of the total
Scores in the 60s--483--62.49% of the total
Scores in the 70s--27--3.4% of the total

Region 6 doesn't have any results posted yet. The other regions are done but I just made a table--see below--with the percentages of total rides in each range.

To summarize, it looks like a tiny fraction of a percent of rides for those regions for that time period score in the 30s. Most score in the 60s (by far), next comes scores in the 50s with again a tiny fraction in the 40s. Only about 4-5% of rides score in the 70s.

Much more work needs to be done in analyzing the data, like including other regions and adding data from shows as it becomes available. But it was not hard to do.

I think THIS is the kind of information that is needed, along with which judges are giving 30s, and where those scores are being found.


Here is information for other regions:

Please note that the following was done rather quickly so there may be some minor errors, which need to, obviously, be corrected before this is presented formally. But:

Okay, I had to cut out the number of rides per region in each score category, but here are the percentages, for all shows in all regions where results are posted on the USEF website (this is 10/07 through 11/07, approximately). Numbers are rounded, quickly done, and there were some rides at each show that were young horse tests so had scores like 6.4, etc. so I didn't put those in the calcs.

Editing here: I noticed that when it went on the BB it got hammered, so I'll interpret. I think examining the totals is interesting. Only 0.02% of ALL RIDES nNATIONWIDE scored in the 30s, 1.8% were in the 40s, 33.5% were in the 50s, 59.5% were in the 60s, 4.7% were in the 70s. There was one score in the 80s but it was a sport horse breed score of some kind so I didn't include it.

Many of the scores included in the below calculations were from Regional Championships. In Region 6 there were no scores reported so far. Some regions have many small shows (with 15 or 20 rides total!). Many regions have shows that only have one judge.



% of total rides in all shows in each score range
Reg 30s % 40s % 50s % 60s % 70s % Total Rides
1 0.08 1.6 34.6 58.67 4.6 2260
2 0 0.8 28.8 64.5 4.5 465
3 0 1.4 31 59.66 7.3 1490
4 0 1.9 38 54.97 4.76 713
5 0 1.2 31.3 62.49 3.4 773
6 0 0 0 0 0 0
7 0 1.3 28 65 4.8 1667
8 0 2.4 35.9 57.76 2.9 206
9 0 2.8 41.5 52.9 2.7 1351
Totals 0.02 1.8 33.5 59.5 4.7 8925

Interesting to note that in ALL regions for this time period there were only TWO (2) rides which scored in the 30s. There were 162 rides which scored in the 40s.

I haven't had time to calculate how many judges total were represented, or how many judges scored in which ranges. I can say that Janet Brown-Foy was represented at one show during this time period, and that was in Region 9. Of the 38 rides in that Region which scored in the 40s, 5 of those rides were influenced (either as a single judge or on a panel) by Ms. Brown-Foy. Also, of the 37 rides in Region 9 which scored in the 70s, Ms. Brown-Foy was involved in 7 of the rides as either a single judge or on a panel. She was not involved in either of the two rides (both of those in Region 1) which scored in the 30s. Those two rides (38.667 and 39.211) were on an Oldenburg and a Dutch Warmblood and the judges were (one for each ride) Renate Lansburgh and Janine Malone.

I haven't examined the data for the 40% range rides yet in that much detail.

But there is a LOT of information out there!

[halfpass]

[QUOTE=rebecca yount;2942084]Could the person who started this thread about personal attacks please point out where on this bb there are statements which are personal attacks? Or can anyone else? I am not talking what you "feel" is there, but would like some specific examples of personally attacking statements.

Maybe I am just thin skinned but to have to read words like the following about someone I have so much respect for, words that I know are so untrue and unfair, was very painful for me. There are others, but these words were the most disturbing.

"When you read through all three pages of the Dressage Daily article, all I have to say is that Janet Brown-Foy is the most elitist, obnoxious and stupid person I have ever had the privilege of reading.

Could the USEF and dressage leadership have a more obtuse spokesperson???

If she no longer has a breeding business it isn't difficult to understand why. She will have the recognized dressage arenas cleared out so quickly her head will spin if she is allowed to continue antagonizing people.

I was and still am against the proposed qualifying rule based on its merits but I would be against it in principle due to her ridiculous snobbery if for no other reason!"

[flshgordon]

[quote=rebecca yount;2942084]Could the person who started this thread about personal attacks please point out where on this bb there are statements which are personal attacks? Or can anyone else? I am not talking what you "feel" is there, but would like some specific examples of personally attacking statements.

Maybe I am just thin skinned but to have to read words like the following about someone I have so much respect for, words that I know are so untrue and unfair, was very painful for me. There are others, but these words were the most disturbing.

"When you read through all three pages of the Dressage Daily article, all I have to say is that Janet Brown-Foy is the most elitist, obnoxious and stupid person I have ever had the privilege of reading.

Could the USEF and dressage leadership have a more obtuse spokesperson???

If she no longer has a breeding business it isn't difficult to understand why. She will have the recognized dressage arenas cleared out so quickly her head will spin if she is allowed to continue antagonizing people.

I was and still am against the proposed qualifying rule based on its merits but I would be against it in principle due to her ridiculous snobbery if for no other reason!"

I didn't say it, but the only part of that that was uncalled for is the "obnoxious & stupid" part. The elitist part is only a fair assessment of her recent public statements.

I'm not saying she's not a nice person, but what are we supposed to think after her actions & words lately...:confused:

[rebecca yount]

I agree that the comments "obnoxious", "stupid" and "obtuse" are inappropriate and uncalled for.

I join in asking that individuals NOT make statements of that type. It is very low-class.

[canyonoak]

We have been told by Janet Brown-Foy that there is a need for a qualification system, to be modeled after the Dutch version.

Many of us have questioned why?

We have been told that a qualification system will help prevent bad riding, the "30% rides".

See Rebecca Yount's data above.

We have been told qualification will be for welfare of the horse.

We countered with the reality that the proposal obviously affects new riders/marginal riders who will then need to go to MORE shows in order to qualify, putting more stress on the horses.

We have been told all other countries have a qualification system

Well, Holland certainly does have such a system.
Holland also has roughly 14,000 dressage entries PER WEEKEND. In a country of appoximately 16 million.
Qualification is the way to keep the incredibly popular dressage shows from being over-subscribed.

I can only answer Ms. Foy by saying, when the U.S. has nearer 14,000 entries per weekend , then I too believe a qualification system will be a good idea.

[dutchmike]

Canyon Oak has a point there. I mean the USDF has 30.000 members in a nation of 300.000.000 people and 9.000.000 horses or something. It just is not logical that dressage is so unpopular in this nation.

[Equibrit]

Aaaw - come on. This is the home of instant gratification. Dressage just doesn't fit that profile.

[atr]

I don't think it is "unpopular." "Not popular yet", maybe. It's still a very young sport here. It'd be interesting to know the same statistics applied to Rodeo in both countries to compare, now wouldn't it?

I've audited a JBF clinic. She is certainly not one to sugar-coat, but a good teacher, nonetheless.

[dutchmike]

I don't think it is "unpopular." "Not popular yet", maybe. It's still a very young sport here. It'd be interesting to know the same statistics applied to Rodeo in both countries to compare, now wouldn't it?

I've audited a JBF clinic. She is certainly not one to sugar-coat, but a good teacher, nonetheless.

Yep dressage is the sport of the future in the US and it will always remain so.

Unless the USDF finds a better way to promote dressage it will stay less popular then it should be.

[Equibrit]

I'm afraid that if you try for a mass audience you end up with the lowest common denominator. The sort of "NASCAR" version of dressage. ie a "show"
http://www.noblehorsechicago.com/

[Rusty Stirrup]

You can't have it both ways. I keep reading statements by the powers that be in dressage that they want to promote the sport and then they seem to do everything they can to keep it elitist, from raising the costs to requiring qualification.

[Bellfleur]

Can we somehow get Rebecca on the dressage committee?

Does anyone know of a way to re-direct the existing USEF committees point of focus and energies to developing a larger dressage base in the US and completely drop the idea of qualifying rides?

How about a huge marketing effort to people outside our sport to make Dressage more appealing nationwide. (It has to be better than watching a bunch of guys squish each other on Monday nights. Jeez, look at the attention and money that gets thrown at those guys) If we want to copy something European then lets copy the popularity of Dressage and horse in gerneral.

How about televised programs that would show on prime time slots? With all of the 'Drama and Drama Kings and Queens", we could have create a heck of a Dressage Soap Opera. That could certainly draw a bigger audience than what we have now. Just think we could have all of the backbiting and intrigue on prime time instead of just on the boards. We could have the beautiful rides and the stunning horses (for real). Ok Only joking but still someone has to have some good ideas.

We need more education for our riders. What about a USEF/USDF run sponsored dressage school?

A wider availability of Young Horse Trainer Coaches? Scott is phenomenal but I think he is really overworked trying to keep up with the demand.

More money being awarded at competitions.

More exposure so it pays a business to support a rider or several riders and the shows.

More shows where there are additional reasons for spectators not involved in the sport. Just come to watch and have a good time. A lot of spectators do come out for Dressage at Devon GP Kur night even if they are clueless about dressage. They might get their children and grandchildren involved.

Money to support riders and trainers to compete so we have a broader pool of talented people to choose from. A lot of talented people go by the wayside because they need to work at jobs that actually pay a decent living.

[freestyle2music]

Why don't you take it step by step ?

Start with an institute (we have two of them in Holland) where trainers have to get their license to train people. This course can take up to five years if you do the 1 day a week course, or only evening course. These institutes are completly self supporting and don't get finance from the government, and it's not only about training but also management, finance etc.. And yes you can also stay and sleep at these schools if you do the two years (internal) course. So distances are not a problem.

Just some thoughts !

[Moderator 1]

The best way to address specific posts on this board that you feel require a moderator's attention is to utilize the "Alert" button on the upper right side of every post. If you click on the icon (an exclamation point inside a red triangle), a link to the post in question will be sent to the moderators and you can add a comment with the reason for your concern.

Feel free to continue the leadership/judging discussion addressed here, though a more appropriately titled thread may be a better location.

Thanks!

[ESG]

We have been told by Janet Brown-Foy that there is a need for a qualification system, to be modeled after the Dutch version.

Many of us have questioned why?

We have been told that a qualification system will help prevent bad riding, the "30% rides".

See Rebecca Yount's data above.

We have been told qualification will be for welfare of the horse.

We countered with the reality that the proposal obviously affects new riders/marginal riders who will then need to go to MORE shows in order to qualify, putting more stress on the horses.

We have been told all other countries have a qualification system

Well, Holland certainly does have such a system.
Holland also has roughly 14,000 dressage entries PER WEEKEND. In a country of appoximately 16 million.
Qualification is the way to keep the incredibly popular dressage shows from being over-subscribed.

I can only answer Ms. Foy by saying, when the U.S. has nearer 14,000 entries per weekend , then I too believe a qualification system will be a good idea.

Nicely put. :yes:

As rebecca has clearly demonstrated (at least, to me), Ms. Brown Foy's logic and data are faulty. I, too, wonder at the vehemence with which she's championing this apparently unnecessary rule change.

As with NAIS (and no flames, please - it's just a comparison), I always wonder who benefits from a rule like this getting passed. USDF are not, IME, the worst about paperwork and updating riders' scores and horses' registrations, but they're not the best, either. This rule would, like NAIS, create a lot more work for USDF/USEF, without discernible/comparable benefit to the dressage population. Maybe it's just me, but I don't see the point of putting all this time/effort/money into making a rule change that affects so few.

One doesn't see hunters, jumpers, breed show and driving competitions with this rule. And god knows, some of the folks competing in some of the jumper competitions should be made to qualify to move up. Guess natural selection plays a part there. But to require dressage riders to qualify, "for the benefit of the horse"?!?!? Um, no. The horses won't be the ones to benefit. I wonder, who is? :uhoh:

And, might I suggest that if Ms. Brown Foy is so incensed at the "abuse" our dressage horses are suffering, perhaps she should join the committee governing instructor certification, or the judges' standards group. That, to me, would demonstrate that she truly is interested in making riders better, not just making them show more to get better scores. :winkgrin:

[freestyle2music]

It is really amazing to see how many people you have in all these USET/USEF/USDF committees (dressage-committee, freestyle committee etc).

How can you ever take descisions ?

[Jeannette, formerly ponygyrl]

Rebecca - thanks for doing that analysis!

In your spare time (said with a big smile) any chance you could break down those 50 percent rides into how many were say 50-53 percent, how many were 54 to 57 percent, and how many were 58 - 59.9 percent? Or even just what percent were over and under 58 percent, say, since that is a cut-off for some existing things...

[Valentina_32926]

This BB has MANY people who, instead of diplomatically stating they disagreee, and why :D, instead act as if they are the ONLY people who know what they're doing and the rest of us haven't a clue. :no:

I take the higher road and ignore them - they are ignorant people who's parents never taught them manners. I also ignore people trying to pick a fight "why did you use that emoticon, why do you always stand up for X, etc." NONE of which has to do with the issue.

A BB is for exchanging information :yes: - the readers can select to listen/ignore as THEY seem fit, not the DQ "know it all" who thinks THEY are the only correct person on the BB.

Enough said on the subject.

[NoDQhere]

IMO, instead of a "Qualification" program, why doesn't USDF try to make programs (like instructor certification) more affordable?? And more accessible?

[ESG]

IMO, instead of a "Qualification" program, why doesn't USDF try to make programs (like instructor certification) more affordable?? And more accessible?

And not a complete waste of time? :winkgrin:

Exactly. And I feel the same about the judges' qualifications. You can't fix a "problem" (which, IMO, isn't one) like this by starting with the riders. You must start with those who are educating and judging those riders.

[Anselcat]

Very interesting statistics, Rebecca, thank you.

I wonder how many of those 30% and 40% rides were at the lower levels, with young horses without much show experience. A qualification system will not prevent *those* scores.

Plus, can I say that I'm in an elite group of dressage riders, the 1% who have received a score in the 40s? :winkgrin:

[SGray]

.....I did some quick math. I took the results as posted on the USDF website for all dressage competitions from 10/1/07 to present, in Region 1 (my region) and Region 5 (Janet Brown-Foy's region--since she is the one that made the comment about scores in the 30s). I think it is important to look at all results for all regions but I don't have time to do that right now.

In Region 1, there were 2260 total rides during that time period. Scores reported are as follows:

Scores in the 30s--2--0.08% of total
Scores in the 40s--37--1.6% of total
Scores in the 50s--783--34.6% of total
Scores in the 60s--1326--58.67% of total
Scores in the 70s--105--4.6% of total

Also, I did it for Region 2. In that Region, there were 465 total rides so far, with the following results:

30s--0 rides--0% of total
40s--4 rides--0.8% of total
50s--134 rides--28.8% of total
60s--300 rides--64.5% of total
70s--21 rides--4.5% of total


In Region 5, there were 773 total rides during that time period. Scores reported are as follows:

Scores in the 30s--0--0% of the total
Scores in the 40s--9--1.2% of the total
Scores in the 50s--242--31.3% of the total
Scores in the 60s--483--62.49% of the total
Scores in the 70s--27--3.4% of the total

Region 6 doesn't have any results posted yet. The other regions are done but I just made a table--see below--with the percentages of total rides in each range.

To summarize, it looks like a tiny fraction of a percent of rides for those regions for that time period score in the 30s. Most score in the 60s (by far), next comes scores in the 50s with again a tiny fraction in the 40s. Only about 4-5% of rides score in the 70s.

Much more work needs to be done in analyzing the data, like including other regions and adding data from shows as it becomes available. But it was not hard to do.

I think THIS is the kind of information that is needed, along with which judges are giving 30s, and where those scores are being found.


Here is information for other regions:

Please note that the following was done rather quickly so there may be some minor errors, which need to, obviously, be corrected before this is presented formally. But:

Okay, I had to cut out the number of rides per region in each score category, but here are the percentages, for all shows in all regions where results are posted on the USEF website (this is 10/07 through 11/07, approximately). Numbers are rounded, quickly done, and there were some rides at each show that were young horse tests so had scores like 6.4, etc. so I didn't put those in the calcs.

Editing here: I noticed that when it went on the BB it got hammered, so I'll interpret. I think examining the totals is interesting. Only 0.02% of ALL RIDES nNATIONWIDE scored in the 30s, 1.8% were in the 40s, 33.5% were in the 50s, 59.5% were in the 60s, 4.7% were in the 70s. There was one score in the 80s but it was a sport horse breed score of some kind so I didn't include it.

Many of the scores included in the below calculations were from Regional Championships. In Region 6 there were no scores reported so far. Some regions have many small shows (with 15 or 20 rides total!). Many regions have shows that only have one judge.



% of total rides in all shows in each score range
Reg 30s % 40s % 50s % 60s % 70s % Total Rides
1 0.08 1.6 34.6 58.67 4.6 2260
2 0 0.8 28.8 64.5 4.5 465
3 0 1.4 31 59.66 7.3 1490
4 0 1.9 38 54.97 4.76 713
5 0 1.2 31.3 62.49 3.4 773
6 0 0 0 0 0 0
7 0 1.3 28 65 4.8 1667
8 0 2.4 35.9 57.76 2.9 206
9 0 2.8 41.5 52.9 2.7 1351
Totals 0.02 1.8 33.5 59.5 4.7 8925

Interesting to note that in ALL regions for this time period there were only TWO (2) rides which scored in the 30s. There were 162 rides which scored in the 40s.

I haven't had time to calculate how many judges total were represented, or how many judges scored in which ranges. I can say that Janet Brown-Foy was represented at one show during this time period, and that was in Region 9. Of the 38 rides in that Region which scored in the 40s, 5 of those rides were influenced (either as a single judge or on a panel) by Ms. Brown-Foy. Also, of the 37 rides in Region 9 which scored in the 70s, Ms. Brown-Foy was involved in 7 of the rides as either a single judge or on a panel. She was not involved in either of the two rides (both of those in Region 1) which scored in the 30s. Those two rides (38.667 and 39.211) were on an Oldenburg and a Dutch Warmblood and the judges were (one for each ride) Renate Lansburgh and Janine Malone.

I haven't examined the data for the 40% range rides yet in that much detail.

But there is a LOT of information out there!


New suggestion - aim the rule change at those with poor riding - punish those that deserve rather than those that are doing okay

[I realize that I am taking liberties with the math here but I hope you'll forgive me]

the 0.02% who have received scores in the 30s could be told that they must move down a level until they jump through the qualifying hoops

the 1.8% who have received scores in the 40s would have to jump the hoops if they received two (perhaps three) or more at the same level - move down and start jumping

the other 98.18% could continue on as normal

[UMass Director]

I too am against the proposed rule change for qualifications and there is some great information in this thread that should be considered by the USDF rules committee.
I will throw out the suggestion that we allow judges to "ring out" unsuitable rider/horse combinations. It seems to work well in Europe, even Micheal Klimke got rung out in GP with a misbehaving horse that Ingrid later lead in the freestyle with.:winkgrin:

Of course the problem is that once a judge "rings someone out" they will suffer the the rath for which this thread was created in the first place!:confused:

[rebecca yount]

I'm working on it!

[vanillabean]

I will throw out the suggestion that we allow judges to "ring out" unsuitable rider/horse combinations. It seems to work well in Europe, even Micheal Klimke got rung out in GP with a misbehaving horse that Ingrid later lead in the freestyle with.:winkgrin:
:

How does this work? Is this similar to the 60+ seconds of disobedience=disqualification rule? I saw a couple of horses this summer get DQ'ed for naughtiness. Or, a judge-is-annoyed-at-watching-train-wreck situation.

[RonaldGroen]

How does this work? Is this similar to the 60+ seconds of disobedience=disqualification rule? I saw a couple of horses this summer get DQ'ed for naughtiness. Or, a judge-is-annoyed-at-watching-train-wreck situation.

Yes both plus lameness of the horse.

[SGray]

I too am against the proposed rule change for qualifications and there is some great information in this thread that should be considered by the USDF rules committee.
I will throw out the suggestion that we allow judges to "ring out" unsuitable rider/horse combinations. It seems to work well in Europe,.....

hey - send that to the Committee members -- it's got that magic word "Europe"

[sm]

"A fish rots from the head down" is an old saying which refers to corruption and mismanagement in an organization often beginning at the very top. :yes:

Hey, I remember it differently. :) The first time I heard this expression I was sitting in a corporate VP's corner office with a wonderful skyline view out his window of New York City, he leaned over his desk and announced to me, "Always remember this: a dead fish stinks from the head."

...well, back to the regularly scheduled program...

[Eclectic Horseman]

rebecca-
great data!

Your suggestions could be improved to change the emphasis to the riding. Only the rider's collective score should matter in a rider qualification system. Since gaits are rewarded (or penalized) in the mark for each movement and then once again doubled in the collective scores, overall scores are too heavily weighted by the horse's gaits to be any real reflection of the riding.

With fabulous enough gaits, you can post at the canter and get a 60%.

So if qualifying is supposed to be about the riding, it should narrowly focus on the rider's collective score alone.

[sm]

Only the rider's collective score should matter in a rider qualification system. Since gaits are rewarded (or penalized) in the mark for each movement and then once again doubled in the collective scores, overall scores are too heavily weighted by the horse's gaits to be any real reflection of the riding.

With fabulous enough gaits, you can post at the canter and get a 60%.

So if qualifying is supposed to be about the riding, it should narrowly focus on the rider's collective score alone.

to put more emphasis on the rider would be to place more reward on tempo, balance and expression - all elements that are only to be achieved through submission, contact, straightness and impulsion. Rather than emphasize the particular movement, which is Europe's current dressage trend.

For more, read von Ziegner who also looks at the collective score as a solution http://www.angelfire.com/sports/dressage/pages/wanted.html

[SGray]

in chatting with various judges I have been told that the judges are instructed/taught that they should not lower rider scores unless the problematic skills of the rider have had a direct, negative impact upon the performance of the horse during the test

thus, the schoolmaster that does his job despite the rider yanking on the bridle could allow the rider to receive decent 'rider' scores

true?/false?

[Dressage Art]

in chatting with various judges I have been told that the judges are instructed/taught that they should not lower rider scores unless the problematic skills of the rider have had a direct, negative impact upon the performance of the horse during the test

thus, the schoolmaster that does his job despite the rider yanking on the bridle could allow the rider to receive decent 'rider' scores

true?/false?

True. There are several main parts of the Rider's score:
1. Correctness and effect of rider's aids - mostly based on horse's response.
2. Rider's seat and position - mostly based on the rider
3. There are also timing and riding on the letters (aka canter depart right on A, not late & not early), correctness of figures (aka not an 18 meters egg shaped circle), ability to keep a horse on the aids while spooking (aka I'm going down the C-line and here is this very scary judge and I refuse to come near her), ability to bring horse back from the spook (aka I heard the noise that will eat me alive and I exploded), to present the horse in the best light affront of the judge (aka to really show where horse excels and hide the weaker sides), skill of riding a dressage test (aka to set up your horse for a dramatic movements: really go deep in to the corner, collect, and do a shoulder-for right before the lengthen trot, not just skip the corner and start running across the arena), and so on...

There is way too much stuff cramped in one score for the rider. Yet, we have three separate collectives for gaits, impulsion and submission for horses.

[SGray]

an aside

at the recent show in my area the only tests that scored below 50% were at TRAINING level --- does this mean that the powers-that-be will eventually institute qualifyers to compete at that level?

[ideayoda]

DA I do AGREE that the rider score (now with 3x) should be divided into parts, so that the score just not just slide by with no impact on the rider. If it was not just stated as alignment/effect of the aids....but divided 1x (for alignment), 1x (for effectivity), and 1x (for proper use/timing of the aids)

[SGray]

the suggestion being that instead of raising the co-efficient on the rider score it should be split into three separate scores at fourth level and below?

[Dressage Art]

Yes, Sgrey.
DA I do AGREE that the rider score (now with 3x) should be divided into parts, so that the score just not just slide by with no impact on the rider. If it was not just stated as alignment/effect of the aids....but divided 1x (for alignment), 1x (for effectivity), and 1x (for proper use/timing of the aids)

What I personally would like to see is the incorporation of the "equitation class" in the regular tests and developing the rider's score that reflect all of the aspects of the equitation class.

Guidelines for Judging Dressage Seat Equitation Classes PDF file: http://www.equestrian.org/aboutus/inter/dressage/seat-equitation/judging-guidelines.pdf
[quote]

[SGray]

suggestion - add new section in usdf connections

"What Went Wrong"

each rider and their trainer/coach that scores less than XX% will be asked WWW and the answers go in the column

nothing stymies over-ambitiousness faster than knowing the results will be public


at the same time, could get funny responses too -- my horse had never seen an Appy, before - there was one in the warm-up with us and it just blew his mind.....

[Sandy M]

at the same time, could get funny responses too -- my horse had never seen an Appy, before - there was one in the warm-up with us and it just blew his mind.....

ROFLOL. I can't tell you how many times I've had WBs (mostly) spook at my Appies. TBs not so much - if they've raced, no doubt there's been an Appy pony horse around - so they can handle it.... but my old (now deceased) 16.3 h.h. near-leopard Appy - lots of spooks from other horses in the warmup. And he just trucked around (admittedly, often with his ears pinned - he was a lifelong grouch and he HATED "doing dressage" - his motto was "Show me the Jumps!"), but he always projected a very calm demeanor, never upset by what was going on, stopped on a dime, etc., so it seemed to be only his color that set them off.

[Anselcat]

Any way to change the title of this thread to "discussion of scoring" -- it's turned into an interesting thread but I doubt people seeing the "Personal Attacks" title would suspect it!

[Dressage Art]

at the same time, could get funny responses too -- my horse had never seen an Appy, before - there was one in the warm-up with us and it just blew his mind.....
My mare gets pissy if she sees black and white paints - she makes "faces" and shows her teeth to them :confused:

Yoda, on your idea of the separate class for rider's seat and aids - why not just use Dressage Seat Equitation Classes? There can be many riders in it and all judges know how to judge them and they can be ran at the regular shows.
PDF file: http://www.equestrian.org/aboutus/inter/dressage/seat-equitation/judging-guidelines.pdf

[ideayoda]

To some extent every class IS an equitation class, because equitation effects the balance of the horse, and allows for the rider to be (easily) understood, or not. At least 50% if not 90% of every action of the horse is maximized or minimized by rider impact.

In the dark ages, the dressage seat medal (yes there was one) was a dressage test. And the students of Waetjen (master of developing equitational standards) often won them.

[sm]

I googled and found a score sheet, with rules on page two, for USA 2003 dressage seat medal http://www.equestrian.org/aboutus/inter/dressage/seat-equitation/scoresheet-medal.pdf I haven't found anything more current under USEF, although there were 2007 tests held.

I don't know if this is similar to the old days or not. I know when Handy Hunter classes are held today it's markedly different...