Anyone SUPPORT a "Qualifying System"?

[JennNC]

I have been following the Performance Standards Proposal threads and found myself wanting to share some thoughts and follow up with a question:

After the Dressage Committee shared their plans at the USDF convention during the open meeting, the floor was open for delegates and attendees to respond. There was such little dissension that Janet Foy actually commented that she was surprised not to hear more comments from the floor "against" the proposal. For one thing, many of us who spoke up against various aspects of the proposal LATER (at the BOG) said nothing at that time because we were just trying to grasp the details and needed some time to digest it. However, one person spoke at that DC meeting and made a comment that I think was quite true. She said "The reason you aren't hearing much opposition to a qualifying system is because you are preaching to the choir." She went on to explain that many of us there are ready to implement a qualifying system because we are in agreement that it would benefit the sport in general, but she recognized that there would be riders who would NOT appreciate the proposal back in our home states. That room was filled with many professionals in the business. Not all of them want a qualifying system, but I would say that the majority were upset more about some of the details of the original proposal, not the concept itself (and of course, I could have misread the situation).

My point in posting this is to say that I am curious to see if there are any people reading this bb who ARE in favor of a qualifying system. I have made myself very clear to the "powers-that-be" that I did not support the original proposal and wanted a system that was more reasonably attainable by the rider who only competes at 2 or 3 USEF shows a year and I adamantly opposed the requirement that riders must be full Participating Members of the USDF (rather than Group Members from being part of a GMO). Personally, however, I do support the idea of implementing some sort of qualifying system. I may be in the minority of my own GMO...I will have to continue to seek their input.

On another note (and maybe I should put this part of my post in the other thread about the impact of bbs), I want to add that I think the bbs serve an important role in the horse community and no doubt that the response from the people on this bb had an impact on the dressage committee's decision to postpone. However, I personally believe that the greater impact was made by those who probably don't read internet bulletin boards. As soon as I returned home from the convention, I was immediately involved in an email discussion with GMO presidents from all over the country. The GMO Council of the USDF has representatives, like myself, that went home and started spreading the word to the GMO leadership. The Chairman of the GMO Council was instrumental in getting us organized. She prepared a statement of information for us that was circulated QUICKLY across the country. I immediately alerted my GMO (North Carolina Dressage and Combined Training Association) by publishing the proposal in our January newsletter complete with the DC members' contact info. Members, in turn, contacted the DC on their own. I imagine the other GMO Council reps did as I did and contacted the GMO presidents in their regions. I am a rep for Region 1 and I personally sent a letter to every single GMO president in the region. My point in this long paragraph is to say.... as valuable as the bbs are, after the Dressage Committee presented that proposal, many of us went home with plans to educate the masses and many of us did not go to the bbs to do this.

I've had several people call me and email me to ask what they can do to influence the USEF rule-makers. My answer is... get involved at either the state, regional, or maybe even the national level. If the USDF has to vote on any of this at next year's convention, it will be people like myself who go there representing their GMOs and their Regions. The bigger the membership of the GMO, the more voting power it has.

Now, back to the original intent of this thread....are there any of you out there who SUPPORT a qualifying system in the US? (I think I saw a couple of people anyway who said they did). And perhaps say why you support it. If you aren't comfortable posting publicly, please email me privately. I'd also love to know if you are a GMO member or USDF member.

Jennifer Mitchell - johdug@aol(dot)com

[TouchstoneAcres]

I can't answer the question because there are no specifics. The devil is in the details.
If the members present were largely pros, then maybe you need to have separate tracks for pros and ammies, at their option. There seems to be quite a divergence of opinion between the members attending the convention and others, if your observations are accurate. Food for thought there. Who should the USEF represent and how.

[slc2]

Agree. the avenue of communication that's best are the official ones thru the gmos and organizations themselves.
\
If the system were to improve riding, and be coupled with an education system to be put in place BEFORE qualification, and there were a different qualification avenue to allow those with school horses and limited horses to get experience riding the tests (something that cost no more than a 150 dollar clinic fee), I would be in favor, depending of course, on exactly what the system was. The devil IS in the details. The details make all the difference.

If the system were to have the effect of forcing people to join more organizations than they want to, if it were to raise anyone's costs, if it were to require people in areas like S. Dakota and other large regions to put on more miles, if it were to cause a number of people to give up showing, if it were to cause people to 'points chase' and put more mileage on horses than is good for them, and if it were to create an extremely lucrative market for local professionals to make more money thru leasing of 'qualification horses' that would be leased for years and shown til they were in a state of ultimate sourness and high mileage, if the system was proposed not due to all those 30% rides at third level (those rides that don't seem to exist), but to for the main purpose of lining the USEF's wallet, and the lack of education programs with it and the tailoring of the program and the judging and coefficients to people with more expensive horses, I would not be in favor of it.

The 'qualification horse leasing market' to me is the most odious. It would be relatively easy for someone with a little imagination to tailor a horse's training not to its correct and progressive development, but to its suitability as a 'qualification horse' (teach eons of counter canter and no flying changes, teach a sort of 'working collection' gait and drill its behind off on the 1st and 2nd level tests til it performs like a robot, shape the gaits to 'em easy to sit, instead of developing them toward more impulsion), and then work it into the ground leasing it to multiple people each show season.

A restrictive rule would force the creation of this sort of thing. It would be a simple matter of who can pay how much.

[poltroon]

The devil is in the details, as noted already.

There is no way to implement a system like this without increasing costs and hassle, at least a little.

So, to me, to make up for those costs, the system has to be designed to have intrinsic value in education and in interesting goals for riders, rather than being strictly punitive. It should be a rider education/reward/qualification program, and not just piggyback on scores we use to evaluate HORSES.

I would rather have nothing than have a system like the one proposed. But, I could support a program that was structured to give more direct rider feedback.

[Commander Cody]

As you might recall, I did bring this topic up in both my Regional meetings at the Convention (Region 1, for those that don't know, Jennifer's Region also), just to get a feel for what people thought about the concept of a qualification system (and at that point knowing none of the details). One was, I believe, before the DC open meeting and one was after. In general, no one at those particular Regional meetings was very excited (it seemed to me, at least) one way or the other about the concept, so the reaction on the BBs did take me a bit by surprise. These are people like Jennifer who are at the Convention, either representing their GMOs and/or attending business meetings for the most part. They are not by any means all professionals.

I totally understand that there are issues with the proposed system and that clearly some more thought as to HOW it should work is required. And of course as a Regional Director and USDF EB member, I am very concerned about the impact for USDF in trying to implement such a system. That said, I do support some sort of qualification system and I think if it were well structured and "gently" introduced, the majority of competitors would not find it a terrible burden (and I am not saying that the initial proposal met those criteria).

You could argue that I am one of the professionals whose opinion differs for that reason (and I am totally grandfathered, so obviously I don't really have a personal stake in this at all), HOWEVER it absolutely does affect nearly all of my students and I think this is true for many professionals. So really, are our interests so different?

One thing I'd like to bring up also - I think some people would like the USDF Regional Directors (or USDF as a whole) to come out strongly against any qualification system, supporting the majority of opinions expressed here on this BB and others. But as Jennifer points out, there are those who DO think a qualification system is a good idea and maybe are not speaking up as loudly as they could. My job is to represent ALL of these interests (if that is possible) and therefore I really can't take a position for or against - I can just try to facilitate discussion and feedback and education on the topic, and when all is said and done, if a system does pass, do the best I can to make a workable system for USDF.
Alison Head
Region 1 Director

[slc2]

Yes, interests are very different. As a trainer/instructor, if your students have to show more, you make more money.

[Ghazzu]

Qualifying for a championship show or similar, fine.
Qualifying to show at a "regular" show at a given level, no. Not necessary. Does nothing but increase costs and aggravation.

[Commander Cody]

No, I disagree for 2 reasons. The first is that I don't make money from my students at shows (but that is just how I personally run my business). I have only students in training, and showing is pretty much part of the package. Any money I do make is a very small amount. Certainly not enough to get excited about or to cause me to support a proposal I didn't otherwise think was a good idea. I also have students that don't show at all and are happy to train at home.
The second is that for the most part my students won't show more. We already show at what we consider is a reasonable number of shows for us and our horses. We might show DIFFERENTLY, but I don't see "point chasing" as something we would be interested in. We'll wait, we'll qualify as best we can, we might do more unrecognized shows or more clinics or other fun activities until ready to move on. I don't see being motivated to hurry through the levels.

[RonaldGroen]

Do you have pilots without a license :D
Yes i am pro a qualifying system

[Bold Jax]

I am in favor of a qualifying system in concept. My concerns are if it can be carried out in a reasonable and fair manner, and at limited expense to the rider. I do like that the concept presented that the rider's skills and not the horse's gaits would earn the score. Lots of people buy higher level horses and do relatively well only because the horse knows what its doing, not because the rider is skilled.

Perhaps only qualified riders could ride level 4+ at the higher rated shows, leaving non-qualified riders to ride them at local shows. This would allow those who aren't serious contenters to try their skills. There are so may ways things could be handled. We'll see how it all develops...

[Ghazzu]

Do you have pilots without a license :D
Yes i am pro a qualifying system

Are you implying that an unranked rider is likely to crash into the judge's stand? :D

For the love of Pete, it's *horseback riding*, not neurosurgery...

[angel]

First, I would like to see better judging. This would come based on being required that the judge had been able to train a horse up the levels and get the scores which any new system would require...not just riding that level, but training an unbroken horse up to that level, and getting the designated scores. Then, I would like to see a reasonable number of scores and shows needed to achieve "passing" the level test, not this monsterous number that has been bandied about...reasonable numbers. When I say that the judge should train the horse from the beginning, that is just what I mean. Not this business of sending the horse out to a bronc rider for three or four or five months first.

[sm]

A new qualifying system has to make sense, to date this one doesn't. My thoughts:
- propoal is "due" out the Summer of 2008
- voting is in January 2009

This gives all the GMOs a chance to collect show data this year on what's going on at Third Level. For the sake of argument say the show season starts in March. The organizer of a USDF-recognized show has no longer than 14 days from the show to get info/results into USDF. So, get the same template together in all GMOs and collect some add'l info that does not need to be passed on to USDF right away:

- who is taking Third Level tests, broken down by numbers/percent: trainers, judges, ammies?

- are the horses: (a) clients' horses the trainer or judge is riding that will put in a poor test regardless and has nothing to do with quality of rider (b) ammies who have routinely used the training scale and are showing with the same horse and now have reached third level (c) ammies who are clueless, buy a further advanced horse and just decide to just show up at Third level and wing it.

- in addition, GMOs should ask the DC or BOG now for the data/numbers used to arrive at their proposal to date.

I know this takes co-ordination, and I know it's do-able to collect the 2008 show season data with a March start date. It is not do-able to collect a response AFTER the proposal arrives out in the Summer, especially if it's the end of summer or the proposal is released later than expected.

Does this help? Short answer is I never understood the REASON for the qualifying at Third, or why it isn't something like a proposal that trainers can no longer warm-up a rider's horse after a certian level: this would put riders in the USA on a more equal playing field with each other, require "better" riding skills, as well as be more in line with the euro model.

[Ange]

I agree with some sort of qualifying system, simply because the quality of the freestyles improved drastically once the qualifying system went into effect.

[Dressage Art]

I support the idea of the qualification system that will set a clear standard that we can strive for, system that will raise expectations and quality of dressage in the show ring. However, I'm disappointed how new qualification system was presented and I’m opposed to such difficult qualification standards.

Current proposed qualifying scores are not based on any of the existent USEF or USDF standards. Current proposed points to qualify to move up to the 3rd level belittle the scores needed to earn USDF Bronze Medal, they also belittle the scores needed to qualify for the USDF Championships, and belittle the scores needed to earn USDF 2nd Level Rider Performance Awards. Scores that are needed for USDF championships, scores that are needed towards USDF Bronze Medal, and scores that are needed for USDF 2nd Level Rider Performance Awards are all lower in % and lesser in the amount than the new proposed 3rd Level Qualification Rule calls for.

I would be glad to see the new qualification system based on the existing scores that needed for
1) USDF Championships Qualifying scores: aka 2 scores of 61% on 2nd level http://www.usdf.org/docs/competitions/regionals/RCProgramRules.pdf
Or
2) USDF 2nd Level Rider Performance Awards: aka 4 scores of 60% on 2nd level. http://www.usdf.org/awards/performance/rider-performance.asp
Or
3) Towards USDF Bronze Medal: aka 2 scores of 60% on 1nd Level and 2 scores of 60% on 2nd Level. http://www.usdf.org/awards/performance/rider-medals.asp

If the USEF creates a new rule based on the existent rule, it will be easier to track the scores and it will be easier to introduce this new rule to the membership as well. I also think it's important to make sure that riders can earn their scores riding only 2 tests. That will make it affordable and give it a reasonable time table.

Introducing a dressage levels qualification system is a correct direction, but it needs to be introduced for the right reasons and it needs to affect negatively only riders who are not spending enough time on the correct dressage basics, rather than negatively affecting people with a limited income.

[Ghazzu]

I support the idea of the qualification system that will set a clear standard that we can strive for, system that will raise expectations and quality of dressage in the show ring. .

We already have something to do that--it's called a score sheet.

[JennNC]

Yes, interests are very different. As a trainer/instructor, if your students have to show more, you make more money.

I'm with Alison...I disagree, slc2.

Personally, I do not compete in a big way, nor do my students. And to tell you the truth, I would welcome a system that helps keep an over-eager student from competing above his/her ability. It is hard to convince them sometimes that they aren't ready to move up when they are so sure that they are! So...if my students aren't scoring as they need in order to qualify, my guess is that we would show with a different strategy, or maybe even show a bit less, but certainly not more. I don't know if a qualifying system would hurt the horse show business or not, but if riders were not allowed to move up before they were ready, I would hope that the quality of riding would improve at the shows. Just like Ange said, the quality of freestyles improved after qualification was required.

For years, I have defended dressage to people from other riding disciplines who tell me that they don't like dressage because they judge it by too many bad rides that they have seen. Some of these riders think that dressage is all about the "crank and yank" and they have seen far too many riders who can't sit effectively having unpleasant looking rides. I have said, "not all dressage is like that, I promise" more times than I care to admit. And this is not just in the tests that score extremely low, of course.

As president of my GMO, I will be looking for input from the membership so that I can accurately represent them (just as Alison must do as she represents an entire region). Because I know that there are plenty of people across the country who do support a qualifying system, I just wondered if there were any of them visiting this bb.

I agree with those of you who want to see a qualifying system that focuses on the rider's actual ability more, and not so much on the scores that may be inflated because the horse has such fancy gaits. I don't know how they can accomplish this, but I hope they find a way.

Jennifer Mitchell

[Equine Connection]

This is probably one of the most well-thought, constructive threads I've read regarding the proposed qualification system. As a Region 1 GMO member (PVDA and VADA) and USDF/USEF member, I think it is time to begin some sort of further qualification system in this country, but in no way can we institute anything similar to what exists in Europe. Geographics and logistics alone would make this impossible.

IMO, it would be detrimental to go from "ground zero," so to speak to what was originally proposed. And like the proper training of the horse and rider, such a significant decision requires a great deal of time and an incredible amount of thought, input, etc., before even beginning to implement such a program (definitely agree with the "devil in the details" wording because it's so true). Research, input from members, proper and thorough preparation, etc., can either make or break such a program -- and possibly its horses and riders. Also similar to the proper training of our horses and riders, IMO, the program should approach a qualification system in phases and smaller steps (like to call them "little victories") and build upon a solid foundation which will maximize the chances of success for all involved.

This is a huge country, and IMO, in no way, can we implement such an undertaking within the next two-three years. By doing so could very well (most likely) destroy those important and essential aspects we say we are trying to preserve - the correct training of our horses and riders and to provide for a more level playing ground for our competitors, which are largely adult amateurs.

I agree that judges should also be held more accountable, as well. Get rid of the politics and personal venues which run rampant whether admitted or not. IMO, who owns what horse (and type/breed of horse) and who is riding what horse should not matter (but it does), and what judge one is riding before. I wholeheartedly agree that all judges who wish to remain judges should have trained a horse(s) themselves (clearly demonstrating their knowledge, skill and training) from the ground up - meaning from backing to GP. I have heard all too often from competitors who enter the "L Judges" program that they are doing it so they can get in with the crowd -- in hopes of getting better scores themselves (the "I can play that game" type of thing...). Some are not interested in what is really important -- definitely missing the forest for the trees... That said, thankfully, there are many who enter these programs with a genuine thirst for education and the desire to make a positive difference in the judging world. So by no means am I making a blanket statement here -- just that sometimes people do things for the wrong reasons.

Like anything else, way before implementing any new program in the business world or otherwise, ideas and proposals must be dissected many times over and include the extremely valuable input of those who are "out in the trenches" - in the real world. Most businesses fail if they try to grow and get large too quickly, making hasty decisions. Those businesses who strive for a slower, more consistent growth (a more methodical, well thought out plan), have a much better chance to succeed and remain in business. Since the proposal at hand will have such an incredible impact (and domino effect), it might behoove the powers that be to to "hurry up slow"... While we not specifically talking about the business world here, many of the processes and steps are very similar.

I'm for logical, fair and "achievable" goals for our horses and competitors. Thanks for starting this thread. Very well stated thoughts. :)

[arnika]

To Commander Cody; I would be in favor of a qualifying system if a rider has the opportunity to qualify with two scores under separate judges. In other words at only two shows. Oh yes, and only if NO ONE was allowed to be grandfathered in. After all, it would be so easy for all the upper level riders to requalify. I do believe one of the committee members said it should only take two shows to earn all the points needed, right? So the levels would just go boom, boom, boom. No problem.

To Bold Jax; I've never seen an unrecognized show here in Florida that has had any classes higher than 3rd level. Most have one class per day titled "2nd level and up". The judges are generally small "l" or "r" judges at these shows. Once someone is showing 3rd and up, they pretty much have to go to recognized shows.

For the love of Pete, it's *horseback riding*, not neurosurgery...

Thanks, Ghazzu. My sentiments exactly. What a way to take all the fun out of a sport. Regimented, regimented.

[rebecca yount]

I can't answer the question of whether or not I support a "qualifying system" until I review the DATA. I am still not clear on the reason for such a system. The problem has not been identified and defined. It is my hope that problem definition can be accomplished within a couple of months. It is entirely unclear to me right now who thinks something is "wrong" with dressage in this country, why they think that, and whether that is an accurate characterization.

I am a psychologist, and am trained in making data-based decisions. Although I know it is human nature, I am weary of people (on both sides of this issue) making statements and decisions which will have far-reaching consequences based on their FEELINGS or VIEWS or PERSONAL ATTITUDES. This is not about my own personal "qualification" and I think people should look at this not as whether or not you personally will get to ride at PSG, but as a broader question.

I can say, after looking at some initial data, that it appears that the majority of low-scoring rides is NOT at 3rd OR at 2nd level. They are at Training and First levels. Whether this has relevance to the "problem", I don't know, since I don't know for sure what people "think" the "problem" is.

To be continued.

[flshgordon]

To follow Rebecca, I would like someone (USEF/USDF/BOD/whoever) to reiterate WHY this qualifying system is necessary and back it up with FACTS about the huge percentage of low scores and the horses being abused.

I'm sorry but this system is no more valid in dressage than it is in hunters or jumpers. There are always going to be some crappy rides and there are always going to be horses that are saints and put up with a lot (has anyone been to watch a low jumper class lately?? :eek:) but based on facts, there seems to be NO REASON for this proposed system.

I scribed at a show this morning and saw rides from Intro to 4th level. And no...I am not in the heart of fabulous dressage, but it led me to believe that we are just not as bad off as Janet F-B would like us to believe

Until someone can prove to me that there is a valid reason for this, I will never support it.

And if someone does by a miracle come up with that valid reason, I still wouldn't support the membership criteria because that is only for the purpose of USDF making money. No excuse for that :no:

[claire]

-IMO, it would be detrimental to go from "ground zero," so to speak to what was originally proposed. And like the proper training of the horse and rider, such a significant decision requires a great deal of time and an incredible amount of thought, input, etc., before even beginning to implement such a program (definitely agree with the "devil in the details" wording because it's so true). Research, input from members, proper and thorough preparation, etc., can either make or break such a program -- and possibly its horses and riders. Also similar to the proper training of our horses and riders, IMO, the program should approach a qualification system in phases and smaller steps (like to call them "little victories") and build upon a solid foundation which will maximize the chances of success for all involved.

-Like anything else, way before implementing any new program in the business world or otherwise, ideas and proposals must be dissected many times over and include the extremely valuable input of those who are "out in the trenches" - in the real world. Most businesses fail if they try to grow and get large too quickly, making hasty decisions. Those businesses who strive for a slower, more consistent growth (a more methodical, well thought out plan), have a much better chance to succeed and remain in business. Since the proposal at hand will have such an incredible impact (and domino effect), it might behoove the powers that be to to "hurry up slow"...

Equine Connection makes very important points in this post.

Initially, before putting in place a qualification rule, more consideration and research should be given to first identifying the Core Problem and then the solution that would best address the Core Problem.

Perhaps, a solution that would not be so costly in time and money to administrate?

Consider the USEF guideline for Rule Proposals?
Quote:
How to Submit Proposed Rule Changes GR342

Methodology of Writing Proposed Rule Changes:

�� Define the problem. Is it specific to one breed or discipline?

�� Determine the scope of the problem. Is it a local problem? Does it extend to state, regional, or zone levels? Is it nationwide?

�� Develop as may possible solutions as you can. Ask others for their input.

�� Choose one possible solution that appears to be the most appropriate and that fits the stated mission and goals of USEF. The solution to the problem may be something that can be accomplished without a rule
change. A rule change is not always the best solution.

[ride-n-tx]

I am mostly against this proposal because i don't believe it will really work and i am fearful that it will just leave riders with less money in their pockets :(.

I also scribed this morning at a recognized show and would have to agree with flshgordon. I saw some riders that should not have been at the level they were showing at, but they weren't horrible or abusive. Some things were bad, but then some things went well. What do you do when the horse performs a movement very well, but the rider is pulling, has unsteady hands, and/or does not have a solid seat? what score do you give? what if the rider does 2/3 of the movements on a test really well, but the remaining 1/3 is really bad?

I don't think this proposed system will prevent people with unsteady hands/seats from advancing. Instead, riders have to be educated to know what level they should show at, and hopefully they will receive the proper guidance from judges and trainers to help teach them.

From what i have heard, dressage is a relatively young sport in the US and has progressed quite a bit in recent years. It will take time for a dressage culture to really seep into the horse world in the US, but from what i can tell and from what i have heard we are doing just fine. Maybe, just maybe, the qualification system isn't the best way to improve dressage in this country??

[Miss Dior]

In a word "NO". There are bigger issues that the USEF needs to concern themselves with. Promoting the sport and education are much more pressing issues. This is a make believe problem that a few people have a bug up their butt about "needing to solve all those 30% scores". Get a clue. They do not realize how ignorant they are making themselves out to be to the membership at large by steamrolling this so not urgent issue. It is almost as if they want to prove how completely out of touch they really are.

[Pony Fixer]

Jennifer,

I have to agree with most of the posters that are not sure REALLY why this qualification system is important to the USDF. It does not appear that perception and reality are aligned when it comes to scores. But then, scores don't tell the whole story, so maybe judges ARE seeing things they question regarding the training scale (one would think that the scores would reflect this, but I think we all know this is not necessarily true).

I do not like the system as it was proposed (and I will grandfather out if it stands, so really it does not affect me). But I am not opposed to a qualification system in general.

I worry for the future of the sport. I love MFS rides, but at least here in NC there does not seem to be much interest (there was more when I lived in VA). They are expensive in time and money to make. If more shows had prize money involved I think they would increase. Similar for regular shows if it winds up costing the average amateur a lot in time and money to qualify to move up. Many may not JUST because the task appears too daunting, and will stay at schooling shows and the like.

It seems like we need more support and more reward, not more hoops. In saying this, I'm not sure how this is accomplished, but not the way the current proposal stands.

[Touchstone Farm]

My answer would be no, because I don't have a good understanding of the problem that is suppose to be addressed by the qualifying proposal. Equine Connection, Flash Gordon and Rebecca expressed what I am thinking too. In business you have to state the problem (or opportunity) and have the data to support it; then do more research, come up with some solutions and review the solutions inside and out with all concerned (from IT to marketing, from finance to HR) before "implementation."

That's what I'd like to see here: state the problem with the data to back it up and then address the problem (if there turns out to be one -- sometimes perceptions are not reality...and sometimes gut feelings are right on...but I personally like data!). And definitely do a cost benefit analysis because no service offered by any company or organization is "free." It always takes personnel, IT hours, out-of-pocket costs, etc.

Hey, it's kind of like the rule-change outline:

1. Define the problem. Is it specific to one breed or discipline?
2. Determine the scope of the problem. Is it a local problem? Does it extend to state, regional, or zone levels? Is it nationwide?
3. Develop as may possible solutions as you can. Ask others for their input.

[FleetwoodStarr]

I'm not really convinced one way or another right now. First off, I think that a qualification system at some point in some way is inevitable- its going to happen. However, at this point in time for US dressage I don't think its the best thing. I would rather USEF and USDF focused more on bringing correct training and instruction to all riders, not just the lucky ones who live near a great trainer. I think progress is being made, with L judging programs, certifying trainers, the young rider programs etc. but there is still a way to go. Bring more education to the riders and then substandard work will diminish. jmo

[SaddleFitterVA]

I am pretty sure I will never be going to the Olympics.

But, I would like to someday get a USDF Bronze. I have no deadline, but if 2 scores above 60% at second level is all I need for the USDF Bronze, then I'd say that 2 scores above 60% at second level should be adequate as a "qualifier". When I get that Bronze, if it looks like I have a horse who is still sane and sound, then maybe, I'll start working towards a Silver medal. But, really, that is going to be far in the future.

I ride a 5/6 mover (based on dressage scores)...on a good day. She is one of those "supposed to be a cow-pony" horses, who has told me she likes dressage. But, that won't change her basic conformation, and it certainly is not going to give us any great scores on extensions...heck, medium trot is a tough one still. I do have other horses, but one is a TB, whose trot is not wonderful, and she is fairly hot, but I still enjoy her, and then I have a young WB, who I might be able to show a few times. Most of my horses are OTTBs. They fit my budget.

I'm an amateur (had a brief time where I thought I'd be professional, but it was short). I ride a few horses at home, take lessons when I can, don't spank & crank, in fact, the opposite is what I battle, not forward enough for dressage (spank more);)...and reins too long (crank more):eek:...but, anyway....

I don't understand why a complicated qualifying system is needed.

I am also in Region 1, a USEF, USHJA, USDF, PVDA & sometimes VADA member. I have the GMO memberships to attend local shows sponsored by them.

[Elegante E]

When this all came about, I said I wasn't opposed to a qualifying system but I have since changed my mind. It's obvious that the people working to create this system aren't being rational, fair, or smart. Their original scheme fell short of accomplishing anything but adding cost, time and aggravation to riders's lives. The watered down version given out more recently accomplishes nothing.

This idea is a failure from the start and should be abandoned. If the USDF truly wishes to improve riding and training in the US, maybe they should consider the "rider only" tests that was proposed on this board. In Europe, as I've read, judges were considered integral to the training of riders - in years past but not as much now. I would like to see that here, judges commenting and directing riders to help them improve. If we are to take systems from other countries, for heaven's sake, let's take the useful/smart bits and ignore the rest.

[ride-n-tx]

If the USDF truly wishes to improve riding and training in the US, maybe they should consider the "rider only" tests that was proposed on this board.

What is the "rider only" test?

[DennisM]

Thank you, JennNC, for starting this thread. I have read in this and other threads on this and other BBS that there are folks who support a "competition standards" proposal. I also have had the benefit of an email exchange with Ms. Brown-Foy prior to the USEF Convention, who (although I disagree with her) deserves complements for her generous efforts to engage in a dialoge on this issue. However, in NONE of the BB postings or my email exchanges with Ms. Brown-Foy has ANYone put forth a coherent argument in favor of "competition standards."

What is it? What facts support it? What advantages would it bring to the USEF? To professional riders? To amateur riders and/or juniors? To our horses? To the sport? What would be the cumulative cost for the point-tracking? The cumulative cost to competitors? What are the benefits to horses/riders/dressage sport from the systems in place in Germany and/or other European countries (although the US is very different in size, state support for horse sports, and in the far fewer number of horses bred for dressage)?

Go ahead, someone, please make the comprehensive case! After all, if it is a good idea, there must be SOME set of arguments in favor of it.

Who knows?! Those of us who have so strongly opposed the idea might be convinced otherwise by a good argument, well supported by facts, in favor of it.

[Sabine]

Most research shows that the best systems are systems that work for an area that is 'the same'- in other words has pretty similar opportunities and reasonable infrastructure and reasonable weather and so on..(homogenous is what they call it in science...)
Spreading a system like this nationally is truly crazy. It greatly disadvantages those that live in more remote areas- it has no solution for those that have a ton of money and just 'buy' into the sport- it tends to look like it 'labels' a rider and often that is also not the right approach.

I think the 'system' should be delegated to the individual GMO's and they should be the ones that come up with a optimal proposal for their area that takes into account the population of those that are involved, active and competing.

just my opinion...

[Cowgirl]

A lot of things have changed in the last few years and I am overwhelmed.

They raised scores to qualify for championships (and they made more rules and raised qualifying scores again at the last meeting).

They made the tests harder.

They allowed the double at third.

Until they can demonstrate with data that we need even more changes, I really think it needs a chance to stop and catch up. Did the changes they already made have an effect? Was the effect positive? Did it address and remedy the problems that created a need for such changes?

They raised the qualifying scores for championships for professional rides so high in the lower levels that we didn't have that many this year. Or so it appeared. Was that the desired outcome? Did it raise the scores? Was the quality better? Did it have the intended effect?

I just think assessments need to be made before the system is changed yet again.

[ideayoda]

I support a system, but not one which does it through showing per se. I would like to see something somewhat like the ice skating 'testing up' (meaning before you show x level).

Use a panal of three judges to review the ability to do the exercises/movements/purity of gaits/etc. It could be done like a test, but not necessarily. Comments could be given, and the judges sign a kind of 'passport' and either endorse P (or not/F) then moving up. That way the judges are made (more) responsible for their (numerical) endorsements, and it would be cheaper (less than a $100, and more educational) in the long run.

Qualification (as it is proposed) per se STILL depends upon the frankness of the judge, just to show more to get scores doesnt make the level better.

And quite frankly I worry about those horses who used to be jammed into a full bridle being 'power&painted' in the lunge arena since the FB will not be a warmup option.

[Hazelnut]

Whatever the Dressage Committee said to the USEF BOD, the BOD is convinced a qualification system is needed and has stated one will be put in place.

So, what is the prescription for affecting the final product?

[Equine Connection]

More very valid comments, particularly Sabine's:

"Most research shows that the best systems are systems that work for an area that is 'the same'- in other words has pretty similar opportunities and reasonable infrastructure and reasonable weather and so on..(homogenous is what they call it in science...)
Spreading a system like this nationally is truly crazy. It greatly disadvantages those that live in more remote areas- it has no solution for those that have a ton of money and just 'buy' into the sport- it tends to look like it 'labels' a rider and often that is also not the right approach.

I think the 'system' should be delegated to the individual GMO's and they should be the ones that come up with a optimal proposal for their area that takes into account the population of those that are involved, active and competing."
___________________________________
This is why I feel we can't even begin to think about implementing a similar type of qualification system that exists in Europe -- because we are way too huge of a country and so diverse from a size, geographical, economic, opportunity, you name it perspective. It's like comparing apples and watermelons (you get my drift).

And Cowgirl and Ideayoda make excellent poiints. The bar has been risen for riders in recent years, and maybe we should take the time to gather, digest and share that data which may, or may not, support the need to take further steps at this time.

The success or demise for competitors, of which are mostly made up of adult amateurs, seems to definitely be hanging in the balance. I'm very hopeful they will slow down, take a few steps back, and analyze this proposal (and any proposal) in a methodical, logical process and share the data with those most affected that demonstrates the need for an additional qualification program. Equally important, if not more, is to really listen to the feedback and ideas that are being shared in the BBs and in other ways. There are so many excellent and valuable ideas and thoughts being shared. Thanks.

[not again]

This whole thing is going to be vary hard on junior/young riders and vintage cup participants. Adult amateurs are not the only ones who will struggle here. It should help the sale of schoolmasters though.

[slc2]

I don't actually think the organizations want to make a qualification system because there are scores of 30%.

Why? Because there just aren't that many of those, and there are mechanisms in place to deal with those who are grossly not ready or abusive.

That is so obviously easy to deal with, if it comes out of a rider being abusive or totally incompetent. Riders can be eliminated or excused for being rough, abusive or totally unable to do the test. I've seen it happen. Once I saw a person get eliminated at 2nd level for excessive use of whip. Fact was, he could barely sit the trot. Those who are not ready are very likely to be 'eliminatable' on some other grounds. Those who are struggling make mistakes. Lots of them.

Riders also can get disqualified for making repeated errors of course or test, which is a very simple and convenient way to get rid of the real low scorers. I'm not sure that's been discussed, but I think it's very important, both because the results only show that someone was eliminated, but not why, so the numbers we can pull off the 'results' websites can be a very different picture from what the judge sees (the judges complaining about low scores at 3rd and 4th level may very well be including riders who were eliminated basically because they just aren't ready for that level), and because it is a very legitimate way of keeping people out of a level they don't belong in.

People are very likely to be eliminated by errors of course or test, if they are not prepared to ride at that level. They're simply much more likely to make errors of course or test when they are struggling at a level they don't belong in.

My thought is that the qualification is being pushed because there are riders who AREN'T covered by the errors of course/errors of test, abuse, or grossly-not-ready rules we already have, but who STILL are not scoring as high as the organizations want.

The big question is how high do they want the scores to be at 3rd and 4th level, and I think that's very obviously NOT 30%-40%, but also NOT 55-60%. Which I think is what most amateurs are likely to score at those levels, even with the 'score inflation' that occured about 8-10 yrs ago, even with guidance from a trainer.

So the question is if the intent is to make 3rd and 4th level the province of the professional trainer. Which I think is very likely. If it's not intended, it's still a very likely effect.

For most of the history of competitive dressage in the USA, eliminations due to errors of course and test, and low scores, together with ethical trainers who pressure their students to master the basics first, have been a very effective way of keeping people out of levels they don't belong in.

However, I don't feel poor riding, lack of preparedness or abuse is the reason ALL people who score a 30%, score a 30%.

It could be because of a duck. A video camera. A loose horse.

It could be that the horse and/or rider are extremely nervous, and they just have to keep showing and showing til that improves. I know quite a few people who are a nervous wreck at shows, either they are or the horse is or both are. They just have to go and show and show til it gets better. It can take 1, 2, 3 years. Some of these are very capable of riding at a higher level at home, but it gets to be a mess at the shows.

It can also be simply the rider isn't ready. And we do see people chronically showing at too high a level.

There are trainers who say, 'show at whatever level you want, it doesn't matter, because you will get scored off for the same things no matter what level you show at'.

Then show at schooling shows? Perhaps, but quite often, the atmosphere is just not the same. In fact, schooling shows are often much worse than recognized shows, with all kinds of pandemonium going on that you wouldn't see at a regular show, or a poor location. Or, a recognized show may have things a schoolling show doesn't - a bigger sound system, more horses, show jumping jumps...some people do have to show at recognized shows to get their horses over their show-itis.

The bottom line I think for them is that they could show at schooling shows for YEARS...the horse and the rider know the difference. It just doesn't always work to 'just stay home' or 'go to schooling shows'.

But I don't actually think that's the 'problem' they are trying to address. At all.

I think they want to make it because there are scores of 50%-60%.

I base this in part on the scores they wanted originally to require, and how the original proposal was much more specific as to scores and which tests of the level they had to be from. The last test of 2nd level is much harder than the first test of 3rd level, for example. It always has been. In fact for years, several of the last tests of a given level have been miserable tests (jerky, not kind to horse, abrupt), and much more difficult than the first test of the next level.

The quote provided early on as to why this was being done, was 'Dressage is an Olympic sport'.

I think the idea is to not have lower scores. Not the extremely lower scores, but the average to medium scores.

I also think that if a more palatable system is put in place at first, we should heed the casual remarks made about starting out with a less demanding system to get it accepted, and gradually ramping it up to make it more demanding.

Ramped up to what?

The original proposal, obviously.

I feel the organizations see the problem not so much as whether we should have a qualification system or not, but as how to put it in place despite a great many objections. The natural conclusion of those in the organizations is, I think, 'well of course they don't want it. They don't want to have pressure put on them to show more and score higher and work harder'.

I also think the organizations are ignoring alot of the objections, and putting out statements suggesting that there is a very small percentage of people who object, which I think is incorrect. What I am still not sure of is if most of the people objecting the loudest are actually effected by the proposal. I know quite a few of them are, but I think some of the most vehement objection of 'elitism' comes from people who will not be showing at 3rd and 4th level.

Additionally, I think most of the members who attended the meetings are naturally going to respond more positively to the idea.

I am guessing, but I'd say that the breakdown is about 30% 'I'd accept it if it was easy enough for me to get the scores required', 5 per cent 'sure, we need it', and 65% ' A mixture of No's', with ethical objections to any qualifications, objections to all the systems proposed, or 'No's' because of concerns it would not be administered fairly, the organizations have a bad track record of keeping similar information or it would take too long to be recorded as qualifying, there would be too many ways to cheat the system, it would favor the wealthy, it would be too costly to riders, or there are no options for those with school horses for a 'rider test'.

[JennNC]

I appreciate all the responses so far. And..so far there have been several of you who posted publicly in favor of a "type" of system and a couple of private emails of the same opinion. It also seems that several of you would consider a system if you only had a good understanding of WHY we need one. I think this is important. The WHY is crucial.

For me personally, I CAN see the "why" behind it. Maybe we can elaborate more about this. I think it's a tough reason to explain because it is a "touchy" subject in some ways. Sometimes it seems like conversations about dressage philosophy get as heated as religious debates. :-O

Maybe the Dressage Committee will go back to the drawing board and come up with a system that is more uniquely designed for this country.

By the way, only a couple of people have indicated that they are USEF, USDF or GMO members. I don't know if they are forgetting to include the info or if I can assume that many responders are not members of any of these affiliations?

Jennifer

[slc2]

I'm a member of everything this year. For others, I'm not sure people feel that information is relevant, however, I do know that quite a few people have written here that they'd stop showing, and would not join USEF or USDF if this qualification were put in place.

And...:lol:....some people's 'ethical objection to a qualification system at all' evaporated when it was made to sound easier, or at least when it seemed it might be easier...at least at the beginning...

The reasons are 'touchy', yes. People don't like to be told what level to ride at, for one thing because they're used to NOT being told for the last 40 years. Riding at anything above 2nd level in America is unusual and prestigious. It is a status symbol as well as a selling point for the more local pros. No one wants that fiddled with.

But on the flip side, alot of people have very real objections to the extra cost, and to the organization's track record with keeping other databases accurate and up-to-date. In Europe the rider can show at the next level immediately. Your organizations aren't offering that, or a way for those with school horses to qualify by being observed by 2 judges, as Europe also has. People have very legitimate and very real objections to what is being proposed. I think you're ignoring that side of it in this discussion, and I think the organizations are ignoring these points as well.

But I think it's fundamentally 'touchy' for some at this point, because the reason given originally, that the problem is that people are scoring 30% at third level, doesn't seem to be reflected in the statistics....and because there are mechanisms for dealing already with outright abusive riding and really bad riding.

And I'd ask you - is that really the reason for this? BEcause I just don't think it is...and I think the organizations involved are not being forthright about that. I don't think the intent is to eliminate the 30% rides at all...I think it is to eliminate rides below 60%. Why do I think that? Because I read the proposals.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not hysterical or angry. I'm not calling the people in the organizations or the organizations names. I'm not against a reasonable or rational program that's appropriate for american riders as they are today, though I think for the current situation, education and training and the judges having a free hand to use the entire scoring scale, is far more appropriate. If you want to change the character of 3rd and 4th level, and say, make them more like the 5 and 6 yr old tests are in Europe - largely the province of professional trainers preparing and selling top class young horses...say so.

[exvet]

Well I am a USEF, USDF, GMO and FWIW WPCSA, AHA & NPSA too (breed & type registries)

I for one would support a qualification system that is focused, effective, adhering to the training scale and enforceable to the point that it achieves and/or places the emphasis on the riding and the training over the gaits. Now having said that its not that I don't understand or realize how the gaits factor in or that I don't agree with all other things being equal the "better" mover should win.

As for the "why" behind such a program, being a goal-oriented individual and one who truly wants to perfect my riding for the betterment of my horses I can appreciate a measurement system that guides one along and/or creates a scale that is easy to define (maybe not so easy to achieve) and understand what one has to do to reach each level. I think many of us who compete regularly and train our own horses have in our own minds just such a system or scale - be it 65% or above for 3-4 tests at a particular level and of course our schooling progress at home before we throw forth the cash to move up or "test" the waters. Of course for some of us that system or scale has to be flexible enough to accomodate various challenges - financial, time (ie, those of us who work 45+ hours a week & train), average gaits, conformational challenges, etc). So then the challenge becomes how do you create a system to be applied across the board that contains that type of flexibility without compromising the true purpose/goals? How do you remove the politics AND insure qualified individuals who really understand and apply the defined standard are going to be the ones carrying that measuring stick? Having spent my time on the ice, I have to say that I like Paula's suggestion. I would much rather have such a qualification system in place as opposed to one that makes the medals program, the qualification for Championships etc a joke or "inferior".

I am fearful of a system that may blanket, label or pigeon hole rider/horse combinations as lower level combinations forever simply because the "new" standard that is created by that system is what wins at the international level and no longer focuses on the training or proper development of the horse and rider. I'd also like to speak to those who feel that taking a conformationally challenged or less than talented horse and training it or developing it along the dressage training scale constitutes abuse simply because it wasn't bred for dressage. If done correctly in cannot be abusive. If one recognizes when a horse's limitations are reached, it is not abusive. If I as a veterinarian (one who is trained and qualified to identify lameness/injury/abuse), rider & trainer am able to take a downhill, short necked, thick jowled beast up through the levels and maintain his soundness through no more than simple conditioning training/exercises and application of the training scale, scoring 7 for rider score much of the time, then who are you to classify me as abusive, especially if my horse LIKES dressage and panics at the thought of things he was bred for like driving? Yet so much of what has been written regarding the first attempt at a qualification system, if I were not already easily grandfathered in, would put me and my horses in our "appropriate place" - far from where this developing definition of the "true worthy" would be.

A system is in place already. There is a standard. There is a scoring system. There are minimums and requirements to achieve before going to regional championships, medals, etc. What is lacking are the people who uphold, apply, reward those who follow and train to the standard and failure to penalize those who take shortcuts if the product is flashy, pretty, and seemingly comes close (even if it's in a pig's eye) to international personna.

If the purpose is to "save" the horse, improve riding skills and prevent those from riding above their skill level then let's create a qualification system that measures a rider's ability regardless of the beast they ride (at least within reason - I know it has to be appropriately trained to that level).

Not to side track the thread but I sure would love to see USEF/USDF take the same amount of energy, time and finances and put it towards developing a program for unwanted horses. Just imagine the problems that might be solved if we truly did put the horses first :winkgrin:

[flshgordon]

JennNC forgot to include in mine....I am a member of all 3: USEF/USDF and local GMO and my horses are lifetime recorded with both USDF and USEF

[Elegante E]

I'm a USDF, USEF member. Used to be a member of my GMO but couldn't figure out why I'd pay for that as be a full USDF member.

Someone asked about the "rider only" test idea. From the way I think of it, it would be a test designed to evaluate the rider, not the horse (no score for gaits, comments all about rider effectiveness and position, effect of rider on horse). An example, a rider with noisy legs, excessive use of spurs, floppy hand, would be penalized with no halo points for a great horse. A rider who is quiet but effective, or who is effective but has a hole in their riding. This would be hard to do. I understand that, but if judges were trained specifically for it and the comments written for the rider's use, it could help without being a burden. If this becomes popular then it could later be used as a qualifying tool.

[poltroon]

I also scribed this morning at a recognized show and would have to agree with flshgordon. I saw some riders that should not have been at the level they were showing at, but they weren't horrible or abusive. Some things were bad, but then some things went well. What do you do when the horse performs a movement very well, but the rider is pulling, has unsteady hands, and/or does not have a solid seat? what score do you give? what if the rider does 2/3 of the movements on a test really well, but the remaining 1/3 is really bad?

I don't think this proposed system will prevent people with unsteady hands/seats from advancing. Instead, riders have to be educated to know what level they should show at, and hopefully they will receive the proper guidance from judges and trainers to help teach them.

Fundamentally, I think this is the "problem". Judges are seeing these riders struggling on nice horses, they're giving 5's and 6's, and then the judges are unhappy because the riders aren't getting the message that they suck. And so we have this idea that if the rider did more tests at the previous level, that they would suck less.

The problem, from the rider point of view, is that they're giving similar scores to riders who are doing OK but are on horses that are topped out. And so, the judges go home shaking their heads about the terrible riding and the riders go home thinking they are being told to get a new horse.

I too would be less resistant to just using the Bronze as a qualifier. Based on a response I got from Janet Brown Foy, and I don't mean to put words in her mouth, but I think she may find the Bronze as part of the problem, an award that encourages people to try third before they are ready. The Medal program is run by USDF, not USEF. If that's the case, maybe a more subtle solution would be to rework the medals so that they're awarding the first award in the program (it would need a new color - stainless steel? :D) culminating at 2nd level. No rule change, no new recordkeeping, and no extra burden on those who ride in the hinterlands.

I had brought up the idea of rider-specific tests before. The idea is that to eliminate the confusion above - a horse that is doing OK but the rider is bouncing around, what score does that get - a test that is scoring primarily the rider would give everyone a lot more clarity, if the point is to evaluate whether the RIDER is ready to advance, rather than whether the HORSE is FEI material.

There would be time and expense in writing rider tests - but, on the other hand, they would also provide interesting new goals. There would be no gait coefficients. The scoring would be set up so that the rider's effectiveness was evaluated rather than the horse's quality. It's equitation, as seen in the hunter/jumper divisions. I realize there's a dressage equitation experiment going on, but as a graduate of the hunter equitation division, my feeling is that the dressage equitation classes I've seen have less dressage in them than the hunter equitation classes do - which is saying something.

Like Rebecca, I would like to see the problem honestly and explicitly stated. I think there are better solutions than what has been proposed, whatever the real problem is.

[Tiligsmom]

JennNC - Thanks for this thoughtful question/thread. Fundamentally, I support a qualifying system.

I am a member of USDF/USEF and my local GMOS. I compete yearly. Love competition - love challenging myself against external/standard measures.

Two posters (Equine Connection and Sabine) hit it on the head for me...this is about change management. My work in corporations involves managing large change. The standards proposal is a large change effort. Any successful large change effort requires a business case backed by root cause analysis (data), return on investment (outcome), risk analysis (collateral damage), change plan (communication, socialization, inclusive decision making, transparency), and implementation plan.

What I'm seeing is that while there are merits to the concept, the change management is faulty, so the membership "immune system" has been triggered. In my letters to the dressage committee, I recommended that they produce and publish the business case that includes the data to support their assertions and proposal. This would go a long way in helping the membership understand the "why". At this point, we don't have the data, so it's natural to push back against it.

Bottom line...the committee needs to treat this as a large change effort that includes mechanisms for building understanding and buy in along the way. They have not yet done this and will continue to meet resistance until they do.

[mbm]

fwiw, i support the idea of a system of some sort to qualify to move up.

i like the idea of IDEAyodas of testing rider skills and knowledge - not just using a regular 2/4 test etc.

personally i think the problem is (and please forgive my bluntness) lack of quality riding/training.

i think that to change this we need to have some sort of structure in the US. i dont think a qualification system will solve the issue - but it would be a START in the right direction.

i know many people think that there is no problem for a rider to show above their skill set - and this might be true if another animal wasnt involved. but there is no way that i can be convinced that some of the riding is see isnt hurtful to the horse. and THAT is a huge issue to me.

i think that for dressage in the US to be more on the right track wed need to HIGHER the standards - not keep dumbing dressage down.

i dont know the percentage of correctly trained riders/trainers in this country - but it cant' be high (?)

and while qualification and higher standards doesn't directly address this issue - i do think it will create a "market" that will then be filled.

I also think that many who support the idea are silent on the BBS becuase we get attacked. I also think that the BBs only represent a very small percentage if riders.

sorry for the rambling post - just things that came to mind as i was typing.

:)

[Carol O]

I support a qualifying system, but I am also well aware of the potential costs involved with increased showing. I would like the system to include a way a rider could submit a test for a score which could be used for qualifying, such as via DVD or video. Film the test without edits and send it in for a score.

[Dressage Art]

I appreciate all the responses so far. And..so far there have been several of you who posted publicly in favor of a "type" of system and a couple of private emails of the same opinion. It also seems that several of you would consider a system if you only had a good understanding of WHY we need one. I think this is important. The WHY is crucial.

I'm a member of USEF, USDF, CDS, USDF "L" graduate with a "D" and a local dressage volunteer.

WHY? I'd like to see an emphasis put on the importance of the 2nd level: quality of the collection and connection. May be it's the fault of the Bronze Medal program that some riders rush to accumulate their Bronze Medal scores and try to get to 3rd level ASAP.

I think that there is a disconnect between judges and riders in quality needed to move up the levels and when to move up the levels. Some riders put too much emphasis on the single movements and forget the quality of the gaits and connection. 2nd level is very important to establish that quality and connection rather than keep on riding the poodle tricks and move up the levels. I'd like to see less riders skipping 2nd level - and there are many who do, b/c 3rd level is much easier for some horses and riders. I see many horses and riders go from 1st level to 3rd level and calling it "progressing several levels per year", but it's really more of a "skipping" several levels per year. Many riders spend much more time training Training Level and 1st level rather than 2nd level. 2nd level is an “armpit of dressage” as one of the “I” judges told me. Bottom line that 2nd level is very challenging and not many riders want to stay there – it’s easier to go on to a 3rd level if the horse has flying changes.

To have an option to qualify thru the rider's tests aka the "equitation class" that is already in place and several riders can ride at the same class - is a good way for qualifying system as well. At least that will address riders with "loud" hands, "bouncy" seats who ride supper gaits horses and get good scores thanks to their $$$$$ horses.

[claire]

A question if I may ;) (No, I am not a member of USDF/Dressage GMO -I do not show enough Dressage to make it $$$ worthwhile, BUT, I do volunteer at local recognized shows)

It really does not make any sense to me that the USEF DC and BoD do not have a grasp of the basic marketing and business 101 skills pointed out on this thread nor would they not have looked at the stastics of scoring and participating level of the membership.

So, you have to ask what the Real intent of of this proposal is.

slc, brought up a good question:
"if the intent is to make 3rd and 4th level the province of the professional trainer?" (and rider)

How to do this without alienating the substantial amateur base, that provides a great amount of the $$$ and volunteer support???
=A rule proposal to "raise the standards of dressage" and to "protect the horse from abuse" with an initial system of "palatable qualifications".

If the real intent of the USEF is to get Dressage at 3rd Level and up on a Pro track, that is fine. But, I think it would be better to be honest about the real end goal and purpose of the proposal.

I don't actually think the organizations want to make a qualification system because there are scores of 30%.
Because there just aren't that many of those, and there are mechanisms in place to deal with those who are grossly not ready or abusive.

So the question is if the intent is to make 3rd and 4th level the province of the professional trainer.

[Pony Fixer]

Jennifer,

I am a USDF, USEF, and member of your GMO :)

I have been thinking and rethinking my position over the last few days.

For MFS, you have to submit a regular test from the highest test of that level (or higher level) at >58% to show. In other words, to show a MFS at 3rd level, you must include with your entry a test from 3/3 or higher at 58% or better.

Apparently, this is sufficient to show your proficiency and ability to ride at that level. Since most of us don't wake up being competitive at the highest test of our current level, I think this makes sense.

So why not have to just include a 58% (or better) test copy in with your entry for regular tests to move up? Show 2/4 to "test into" third, etc? Those with school masters would have to show "down" one level to get thr required score, but that is more doable than the current standard. I also agree that 2/4 is harder than 3/1, so it sort of works double duty as a qualifier. One would not be able to "debut" a particular horse at a higher level until they got their rider qual. finished, but is that a big deal?

[Elegante E]

If the real intent of the USEF is to get Dressage at 3rd Level and up on a Pro track, that is fine. But, I think it would be better to be honest about the real end goal and purpose of the proposal.

If that is the case, I find it offensive. To say that only a pro is capable is silliness. To even try and limit it in such a way offensive. If we are worried about horse welfare, then look at the pro sector. That is the area where more abuse happens, real abuse. People forcing horses into false frames, beating animals that aren't fully cooperative, pushing young horses beyond their limits, etc. That isn't an argument, it's simply snobbery.

[claire]

WHY? I'd like to see an emphasis put on the importance of the 2nd level: quality of the collection and connection. May be it's the fault of the Bronze Medal program that some riders rush to accumulate their Bronze Medal scores and try to get to 3rd level ASAP.

I think that there is a disconnect between judges and riders in quality needed to move up the levels and when to move up the levels.

Why is a qualification system needed?

If the judges are awarding all these riders who are not ready to move up the levels with 60-70% scores and bronze medals?

(The initial results of Rebecca Yount's scoring analysis shows that 98% of the rides scored in the 50-70% range...with 64% in the 60-70% range)

And how does requiring a rider to get (10) scores of 58%
(latest revision ;) ) or in other words "Show More"
improve their riding skills?

And wouldn't requiring judged proficiency tests before moving up a level encourage the "test leasing" of a schoolmaster?

[Dressage Art]

A question if I may ;) (No, I am not a member of USDF/Dressage GMO -I do not show enough Dressage to make it $$$ worthwhile, BUT, I do volunteer at local recognized shows)....How to do this without alienating the substantial amateur base, that provides a great amount of the $$$ and volunteer support???
This is a fact that it's only about 20% of the USDF members who show above 2nd level based on the years of USDF existence. Those statistics are printed in the USDF Year Awards magazines if anybody is interested in looking in to them.

So the rule proposal will affect only 20% of the USDF members. About 80% - a very strong majority - of USDF membership will not be affected at all. This rule applies only to 20% of USDF membership and will not "alienating the substantial amateur base, that provides a great amount of the $$$ and volunteer support" May be it's a brutal truth, but according to the USDF statistics, historically 80% of the USDF members who actively show will probably never show above 2nd level for various reasons.

I do value points of view of riders who do not show or who do not belong to the USDF, USEF and GMOs, but there comes a point when one needs to put their mouth where their money is ;)

I talked with quite a few "live" riders who show 2/3 level and ALL of them are for the qualification rule with easier details. The internet BB responses don't reflect the responses in the "real" world. It's a strange phenomenon.

[claire]

Quote:
Originally Posted by claire
"If the real intent of the USEF is to get Dressage at 3rd Level and up on a Pro track, that is fine. But, I think it would be better to be honest about the real end goal and purpose of the proposal."
"If that is the case, I find it offensive. To say that only a pro is capable is silliness.

I agree, but maybe the intent is to get two tracks going? Pro and Amateur?

Because, it is really hard to believe the reasons USEF put forth like rider incompetence and horse abuse? :confused:

Like I said, I have a hard time believing the USEF BoD and DC members not having an understanding of the basic marketing and business tenets and going forth with presenting a rule proposal without reviewing the score statistics.

[Ja Da Dee]

Personally, I may never ride at third level, but I was very upset when I read the first proposal, it was like someone snatched my dream away. I'm on a limited budget, and split my money between two passions, dressage and eventing. I do believe there will be a qualification standard because too many of the upper level riders want one, I just hope that they make it attainable for the average rider with the average, non-warmblood horse. Talking about MFS scores, yep, they are higher, but at least around here, I've only seen maybe 4 or 5 riders competing in them. If that same standard was applied to the upper levels, I wonder if those of us in areas with small UL classes will completely loose the opportunity to even show in these levels. Why hire an S judge and offer the classes when there are only 4 people signing up?


I suggested to JBF that possibly instead of using test scores to move up, use the rider score or have a box that the judge checks that certifies that the rider is qualified to ride at this level. Requiring two positive marks or two good rider scores from different judges would be enough to ensure that the riders are qualified to move up. (someone mentioned maybe getting a passport stamped, I like that idea! While the info is being loaded into the database, the rider can copy the passport, and enter next weekends show)


I believe the people looking at this need to answer a lot of questions, and do a lot more research. I don't believe that we will become like Europe just by having standards like Europe. Anyway, if we were to adopt a Euro like system, maybe the judges should adopt the Euro like system too, and not get paid large fees to judge the shows. At least then, maybe the entry fees could be reduced so riders could compete in more shows. Some of the points I would like to see addressed are below.

What is the problem the qualifications are supposed to correct?

Can the USEF supply data proving that this problem exists?

Has the USEF taken the time to see if the changes made over the last few years (ie: rider coefficient = 3, increased qualification percentages for ch's) have had a positive affect.

Are riders who currently receive low scores moving down or continuing to ride at the incorrect level and continuing to receive low scores (scores less than say 50%) If they are staying at the level, what are the rider scores?

How will the proposed qualifications correct the problem?

How will the program be maintained, and what will be the cost?

How will the USEF ensure scores are received in a timely and correct manner to ensure that riders will be able to show at the next available venue.

I have been a USEF, USDF, USEA and CSDEA member for the last few years but expired in Oct, I will be renewing in March (my usual time since my area doesn't have shows in the winter). I was seriously considering not renewing all my memberships this year, but I do believe that if I want to have input, I should maintain my memberships.

I do commend the OP for getting notification out to her membership after the USDF meeting, not all GMO's appear to be so proactive.

[claire]

So the rule proposal will affect only 20% of the USDF members. About 80% - a very strong majority - of USDF membership will not be affected at all.

DressageArt,

My question was not about who or what "small %" the proposal would effect.

I was wondering WHY a very costly Qualification System (administration and $$$) was needed?
What real "core problem" is it to solve? What research has been done to document the problem?

And, as you point out, if only a very small percentage of the riders are showing above 2nd Level...how big IS this problem of incompetent riders and abused horses, that an expensive qualification system is needed???? :confused:

I do value points of view of riders who do not show or who do not belong to the USDF, USEF and GMOs, but there comes a point when one needs to put their mouth where their money is

This was an interesting and civil discussion. There is no need for rude remarks like this.

In any case, I think volunteering my time ($$$) at local GMO shows IS supporting the USDF and USEF.

[JennNC]

Since my last check of the thread, there have been so many great responses and I wish I could repond to individual points because I think they are so interesting.

To the one who said that there may be a "plan" to make 3rd level and above for professionals only...this surely can't be what they are thinking! Adult amateurs are the bread and butter for most of the industry. For those professionals who teach amateurs...the dream is to get them up the levels as high as they can go! It's good for business, and besides for those of us who teach, it's so fulfilling to see our amateurs and young riders get to that level of riding. I absolutely disagree strongly that the Dressage Committee wants to hurt amateurs in any way! And for the more "elite" trainers...it's their amateurs who buy the expensive horses and pay the training and coaching fees. For those who think that the DC has some elitist view of who should be riding dressage, I wish I could convince you otherwise. I think they just want riders to improve their ability..that's it.

I also was there when the USDF decided to raise the scores to qualify for USDF HOY and regional championships. The loudest cry came from those who said, "you're trying to eliminate the non-warmblood breeds".

I don't think so. It is true that the gaits are scored and therefore it's harder for the less brilliant movers, but I would venture to say that most of the folks on that Dressage Committee feel like a sound horse with three pure gaits should be able to make it through 2nd level and achieve the scores needed without much "point chasing". It's often the quality of the riding and NOT the quality of the gaits that prevents a sound horse with pure gaits and a willing temperament from scoring in the 60s. I agree with the poster who said that the DC isn't worried about those few scores in the 30s and 40s....they probably ARE trying to deal with the riders who routinely score in between 50 and 60%. slc2 made that point, and I must say that I think it is right on.

Please, I hope you guys realize that I am certainly not able to answer for the Dressage Committee and wasn't there when all these plans were made! I am only engaging in this particular line of discussion because I think it is interesting and informative and I hope it will help somehow.

Also, I agree that some of the members of the DC may be out of touch with the reality of much of the "base" of dressage competitors. I think they became very willing rather quickly to lower the scores and cut the points required when they heard the outcry. Maybe I'm just the eternal optimist but I really think that they would like to come up with a plan that is NOT elitist or costly.

What I do know is this... a qualifying system is likely going to be put into place. I also know that it doesn't do much good to send the DC scathing emails or to leave them rude phone messages on their phone. That sort of thing may even make it worse, I don't know. They sure got plenty of that.

Janet Foy, who has been quite criticized through all this has been extremely curteous to respond to many, many, many emails. She is not the devil, she is the chairman of a large commitee that worked together to come up with this proposal.

My own husband and I don't agree on this issue. He says that the reason he thinks I am for it is because I am too much of a "purist". And he says it as if this is a negative quality! haha This is what I think is on the minds of those in favor of a qualifying system. They want to see more dressage riders raise their standards and learn how to ride more effectively...no matter WHAT BREED they are riding.

I have students who ride everything from Arabians to TBs to warmbloods to QHs and Saddlebreds. I think probably every one of those horses are capable of getting scores in the 60s easily. It's the riders who are struggling to get the feeling of how to get the horse through and connected. It takes a LONG time to learn how to sit effectively, but so many of them are dying to get to a horse show. So many of them don't WANT to spend hours on a lunge line. It's BORING.

I could go on and on.

sorry for being so long winded,
Jennifer

[Ja Da Dee]

This is a fact that it's only about 20% of the USDF members who show above 2nd level based on the years of USDF existence. Those statistics are printed in the USDF Year Awards magazines if anybody is interested in looking in to them.

So the rule proposal will affect only 20% of the USDF members. About 80% - a very strong majority - of USDF membership will not be affected at all. This rule applies only to 20% of USDF membership and will not "alienating the substantial amateur base, that provides a great amount of the $$$ and volunteer support" May be it's a brutal truth, but according to the USDF statistics, historically 80% of the USDF members who actively show will probably never show above 2nd level for various reasons.



a) I gag at the thought of a two track system. I don't want to be judged by a different standard, I fully understand my horses limitations, and know that a low to mid 60's are good scores for us.


b) statistically only 20% of riders move up, that's true. How many lower level riders dream of moving up? That's how this will affect them. They will see that it's unattainable, and switch to a sport more enviting.

c) if tough qualifications get put in place, can the USDF afford for that 20% number to fall?

I know of people switching from dressage and eventing to team penning and cow sorting.

[angel]

If we were to have an examination specific to a rider's ability, who do you think might judge that. Perhaps, the same people who are already giving the lessons today??? So if what they are teaching students today is not effective today, why might you think it would be any more effective tomorrow? The problem with dressage is in the training and in the judging. Scores given to rider that were in the lower 50s down into the 40s would help weed out the problem much faster. Add into that, not certifying dressage instructors who, themselves, could not do a proper sitting trot, and you might begin..just begin to fix the system.

[slc2]

thanks jennifer for the effort and for the posts.

and yes, i do think it is the scores from 50-60 that they are trying to affect, not the occasional 30-40.

i disagree, dressage art. People who are directly affected are objecting to it. I think the worst personal insults to the people involved and the organizations, ARE coming from people who will never be affected, though. that nastiness I think comes mostly from 'Email Courage', kinda like dutch courage...anonymity of the internet.

[JennNC]

Personally, I may never ride at third level, but I was very upset when I read the first proposal, it was like someone snatched my dream away. I'm on a limited budget, and split my money between two passions, dressage and eventing. I do believe there will be a qualification standard because too many of the upper level riders want one,
.

I would like to add that I am not an upper level rider. I have competed to 4th level, but my business is focused on training young horses and teaching lower level riders. One reason I support a qualifying system is because I am goal oriented with my riding and I think it would actually bring riders a greater sense of accomplishment to actually "qualify". If the DC can come up with a reasonable plan (I hope they get to hear some of the great suggestions that have been made by some of you here as well as by others who have taken the time to offer helpful advice towards devising a system) those of you who are afraid you would never "make it" might be very surprised. Perhaps it will make us all work harder (as riders AND AS INSTRUCTORS) and dressage will become MORE appealing to the outsiders looking in.

2nd Level is where the rubber meets the road. If you can show your horse at 2nd level and have him truly "through" and "connected" and "engaged" and can show the collection needed...climbing the levels after that should not be nearly as difficult as it was getting to 2nd level!

Jennifer

[claire]

-they probably ARE trying to deal with the riders who routinely score in between 50 and 60%.
-This is what I think is on the minds of those in favor of a qualifying system. They want to see more dressage riders raise their standards and learn how to ride more effectively...

Jennifer,

If I am allowed :winkgrin: a few questions.

1.) If the problem is riders scoring between 50-60%, was there data shown to you at the meeting showing the extent of this problem?

Rebecca's initial score analysis (including all levels) shows 64% of the rides scoring in the 60-70% range.

And, if only 20% of the rides are at 2ndL+ What IS the extent of the problem?

It would be interesting to see the actual, complete data. How many riders are consistently scoring in the low 50-30% at 2nd/3rd Levels?

2.)"They want to see more dressage riders raise their standards and learn how to ride more effectively"

What if instead of a costly qualification system that is based on showing scores, they put that money toward more (affordable) training clinics for both pros and amateurs at the GMO level? :yes:

[Dressage Art]

People who are directly affected are objecting to it.
According to JBF only 3% of USDF/USEF members voiced their opinions against the future qualification proposal ... 3%... so there are some USEF/USDF members who are against this proposal, but strong majority is for it. I think that the devil is in the details, really.
Strong majority of "USEF BoD" (delete "membership) is for the qualification system. It will pass. The question is WHAT KIND? The bbs are usually on the top of the things, but now posters are still muscling about “yes” or “no” about qualification system, but truly it’s a “yes” already and now we need to think about “what kind” of qualifications we all can live with?

PS: changing word "membership" to "USEF BOD" for clarity.

[Elegante E]

According to JBF only 3% of USDF/USEF members voiced their opinions against the future qualification proposal ... 3%... so there are some USEF/USDF members who are against this proposal, but strong majority is for it. I think that the devil is in the details, really.
Strong majority of membership is for the qualification system. It will pass. The question is WHAT KIND? The bbs are usually on the top of the things, but now posters are still muscling about “yes” or “no” about qualification system, but truly it’s a “yes” already and now we need to think about “what kind” of qualifications we all can live with?

I'm a member of both organizations and was never poled. So maybe these numbers come from a select few who "think" they are the only members that count.

[rebecca yount]

Still examining data. Let's look at some stats re rides scoring below 55% (since there were so very few rides in the 30s and 40s).

The VERY preliminary data for Region 1 are showing that for 10/1/07 to 11/30/07, percentages of rides BELOW 55% are as follows:

Training Level 7.5% of rides scored below 55%
First Level 8.3% of rides scored below 55%
Second Level 12.9% of rides scored below 55%
Third Level 10.2% of rides scored below 55%
Fourth Level 11% of rides scored below 55%
PSG 10.3% of rides scored below 55%
Intermediare 9.3% of rides scored below 55%
AND---drum roll please....
Grand Prix 14.2% of rides scored below 55%


To rank order them in terms of level at which highest percent of rides were below 55%:

Worst Grand Prix
2nd Level
4th Level
PSG
3rd Level
Intermediare
1st Level
Best Training Level

It's very preliminary and of course more examination and more DATA are needed. This is just a tiny fraction of the information that's out there.

However, it looks like there may be (and this will change as we look at more Regions) more of a problem at GP, 2nd, and 4th than at 3rd level. But still too preliminary.


Working, working...

[slc2]

No one should be naive enough to equate the percentage of people who 'said something negative to the organization people' with the percentage who object. Please, don't even go there.

As far as people who aren't members or aren't about to show at 3rd level are the only ones 'affected', their instructors and trainers, the judges....I don't agree with the idea that only those planning to show next yr at 3rd level are effected.

The qualification system affects anyone who might show at 3rd/4th eventually, their trainers/instructors, but it also affects how people view the organization, how eager they are to join, and how eager they are to show dressage - at all.

[Dressage Art]

As I know those numbers came from emails, written and phone member replies about the proposed rule change. Nobody was "polled" and I do share your unhappiness about being not polled as well. Unfortunately, at times many committees are assuming positions of: "this is what WE want and if THEY don't want it, THEY need to come to US and convince US that we are wrong." Some committees doesn't feel the need to convince anybody that they are correct, they vote on it and if rule passes - it's a good enough validation in itself ;)

[Touchstone Farm]

Jennifer,
You wrote, "For me personally, I CAN see the 'why' behind it." So...what do you think the "why" is? If you can shed some insight into what the dressage committee has for data, that would be helpful. If it only affects 20% of the riders (if that many), why would the effort, and the ensuing cost, be put towards fixing "it" (whatever "it" is)? Seems like resources would be better spent on larger problems...but I don't know, I need to understand the problem and the data a bit more.

Also, to answer your questions...I'm a board member of our GMO, member of USDF and USEF.

DressageArt, I'm one of those people who is puzzled by the need for this proposal and probably will not be affected (most likely) if this rule goes into affect, but I still care! I'll probably grandfather into the top level (IF all goes well in the '08 show season...if not, I'll be grandfathered in fairly high, so most likely will never have to worry about this again)...but that doesn't mean I will just shrug my shoulders and let the rest, "Eat cake."

I think your comment about talking to people who support the proposal and that your and their opinion is more reflective of the general public... Well, I don't know too many people in my circle (from intermediate riders to FEI) who are supportive of this, so I could say that this board IS reflective of reality. But, see, that's kind of the point, isn't it? We need some objective data (not our "opinions") to show us if there really is a problem, how big is the problem and its "ripple effects," and is it worth the cost of fixing it, and if so, what are several solutions to be explored for correcting it (in addition to the qualifying proposal).

Anecdotal stories don't really help identify the problem, nor do they help in calculating public opinion "numbers."

[rebecca yount]

OH MY GOD!!!!! DressageArt--I can't STAND IT!

That kind of thinking is SO SO SO incorrect!!! That is why people are running around willy nilly not making data based decisions!!!!!!!! PLEASE STOP!!!

IF it were true that 3% of the membership of EITHER organization (and they have VERY DIFFERENT numbers of members, so to even speak about this you need to identify 3% of WHICH!!!!!)---or could it be that we were talking about 3% of the COMBINED MEMBERSHIP, WHAT!!!????

EVEN IF that were true, that DOES NOT MEAN that the other 97% WERE FOR IT!!! That is just absolutely untrue.

You simply CANNOT make a statement like that based on the information you THINK you have. It is not based in reality. Jumping to that kind of conclusions is just incorrect and will do nothing to help define the problem, which is what people need to do right now.

If you want to TRY and look at this correctly, you need to say: What percent of the membership of USDF or of USEF VOICED ANY OPINION AT ALL? Then, what percent of THOSE PEOPLE were for it and what percent were against it.

And you would get a VERY DIFFERENT result than the flawed thinking you evidenced--I would guess a 90% or even higher rate of disagreement with the proposal.

In addition--typical response rates to a survey are only 2% to 30% maybe sometimes as high as 50%. And this wasn't even a survey.

More info re survey methodology:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_survey

So PLEASE!!! You CANNOT say that 97% of the membership were FOR ANYTHING!!!

Okay I'll calm down now. But be careful what you say, because it is very misleading and very incorrect.

[claire]

Rebbeca, Thanks for the update on the analysis! I keep checking for
new results! Such a numbers geek I am! :lol:

Interesting that ~90% of the 2nd/3rd Level rides scored Above 55%


And thank you for all your efforts to objectively define "the problem"

[Equine Connection]

While a bit brutal (sorry - guess it's time for that "flame suit"), IMO, the bottom line is until this country, Europe and everywhere else in the world (the dressage world and otherwise), until the mindset changes from the significant global thinking that money = quality = correct training/performance and superiority), IMHO, I don't believe these issues, like so many others, can be truly resolved. That said, I'm personally so very thankful to everyone out there who gives so much of themselves in so many ways to keep the art and sport of dressage flourishing).

It's so very sad but I've seen it over and over again for years. In many cases, it seems that no matter how good (correct) a person (rider) is and/or no matter how good their demonstrated training with their horse(s) may be, if one is not "in the money," then in way too many cases (disclaimer here), it seems that too many are discounted as being sub-par to those who have greater monetary fortune. That said, there is absolutely nothing wrong with anyone being affluent -- in many cases those who are affluent support so many aspects of dressage and other disciplines and make many opportunities available to those who otherwise would be unable to participate. It think the problem lies more in the associated politics versus whether one is monetarily affluent or not (hope this makes sense).

In my mind, the greatest fortune of all is the journey we are so privileged to share with our equine companions who give to us so much of themselves. No matter if further qualification programs are implemented or not, we should throw aside the politics and associated preferences (herein lies the problem). I believe this country needs a higher level of accountability amongst judges, and judges who are not afraid (even when it might not be politically correct) to do what is right when judging what they see during a specific period of time - 5-8 minutes, or so (and to give credit where credit is due, this is indeed a very tough task for any judge). But, until more judges creep out of the "comfort zone" and reward those horse/riders for demonstrating proper training (always keeping the wellbeing of their horse the top priority) AND for penalizing those who do not demonstrate correct training appropriate for the level which they are competing or of potential abuse), then IMO, any further qualification programs will not rectify the problems of improper training, competing above one's capabilities, etc., etc.

Just happened to stumble upon an interesting link. I have no knowledge of who owns this site or anything else about it, but I thought it was interesting...

http://www.ridingart.com/good-riding.htm

[Dressage Art]

Anecdotal stories don't really help identify the problem, nor do they help in calculating public opinion "numbers."
True, and no matter if some of us support the qualification rule or not - the true slap on our faces is that NOBODYS opinions were taken to equation of the new proposed rule! And still, nobody officially unveiled the transparency behind the makings of this rule or detailed further progression of this rule.

I would love to see a public statements from all of the DC members how they feel about this rule.

PS: OH MY GOD!!!!! DressageArt--I can't STAND IT!

Oh please Rebecca, get a grip on yourself, don't yell at me, and stop your "internet hysteria" - it's not helping. I was quoting JBF, so don't kill the messanger... that said, I'm done posting my support about this rule: I don't think that my or your opinion really matters.

[flshgordon]

According to JBF only 3% of USDF/USEF members voiced their opinions against the future qualification proposal ... 3%... so there are some USEF/USDF members who are against this proposal, but strong majority is for it. I think that the devil is in the details, really.
Strong majority of membership is for the qualification system. It will pass. The question is WHAT KIND? The bbs are usually on the top of the things, but now posters are still muscling about “yes” or “no” about qualification system, but truly it’s a “yes” already and now we need to think about “what kind” of qualifications we all can live with?

I don't believe this is a correct assessment at all. Like someone else said....who was polled? I wasn't. And I'm pretty sure the entire membership did not respond so while there may have been 3% against it, it's BS to think that 97% is for it. That's the insinuation, but given the sampling here of all different types, I'm definitely not buying that.

And I'm a little mortified to think that it's the 50-60% rides that they're trying to prevent. Either you can say it's about the abuse of the horses or you can't. The argument can't change to fit every situation and I'm finding it really hard to believe that someone scoring between 50and 60% is abusing their horse. That's just a bad ride folks, it's not abusive....

[Pony Fixer]

I'm a member of everything this year.

Not that I care so much, but USEF has you listed as inactive, and USDF has you listed as not a member. You might want to call them to let them know they lost your membership. Unless you joined justthisveryminute, in which case mea culpa.

[rebecca yount]

DressageArt, I was not questioning what you assert that Janet said--that 3% of SOME membership number wrote in opposition to the proposal. That may very well be the case.

I was questioning your erroneous assumption that because 3% indicated that they were opposed, that meant that the rest of the membership was in favor. That is not the case.

I DO think that my opinion matters, and like to believe that the Dressage Committee thinks so, too. It is because of all our actions, driven by our opinions, that the proposal was tabled. Certainly it would have been quickly passed had we not all voiced our concerns.

I am also FAR from hysterical. I am, however, truly frustrated at statements like the ones you made. I think it's important that the dressage community continue to work toward a reasonable definition of this "problem" and a workable solution that follows from the functional analysis of the issue of concern. Erroneous assumptions do nothing to assist in this effort. I have to say that I am frequently puzzled by some of your statements, and by those in response to this issue in particular.

[J-Lu]

DressageArt, I was not questioning what you assert that Janet said--that 3% of SOME membership number wrote in opposition to the proposal. That may very well be the case.

I was questioning your erroneous assumption that because 3% indicated that they were opposed, that meant that the rest of the membership was in favor. That is not the case.

I DO think that my opinion matters, and like to believe that the Dressage Committee thinks so, too. It is because of all our actions, driven by our opinions, that the proposal was tabled. Certainly it would have been quickly passed had we not all voiced our concerns.

I am also FAR from hysterical. I am, however, truly frustrated at statements like the ones you made. I think it's important that the dressage community continue to work toward a reasonable definition of this "problem" and a workable solution that follows from the functional analysis of the issue of concern. Erroneous assumptions do nothing to assist in this effort. I have to say that I am frequently puzzled by some of your statements, and by those in response to this issue in particular.

Well stated (and true).

PS. I'm an active competitor and member of all things (as is my horse)

[SaddleFitterVA]

I think that perhaps they need to reevaluate what the description is of the scored numerical values. The reason I think this is that the scale tells the average rider that the best riders in the world are somewhere between "fairly good" and "good". It is nice to know that our world class riders are merely "good". I am not a world class rider and I know this. I hover around satisfactory, with some sufficient moments and a few fairly good moments.

5 is sufficient. Sufficient is defined as
1 a: enough to meet the needs of a situation or a proposed end <sufficient provisions for a month> b: being a sufficient condition2archaic : qualified (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/qualified) competent (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/competent)

10-Excellent: Absolute precision, movement is performed exactly on the correct lines from marker to marker. All the requirements of the training scale have been fulfilled to their utmost.
9-Very good:Absolute precision, movement is performed exactly on the correct lines from marker to marker. All of the requirements of the training scale have been fulfilled.
8-Good: Accurately performed movements that follow the correct lines. All the requirements of the training scale will be regarded as good.
7-Fairly good: Fairly accurate movements that are performed following the correct lines. All of the requirements of the training scale will be regarded as fairly good.
6-Satisfactory: Either the movements will be performed with accuracy and precision but there will be some weaknesses within the training scale, or movements may be lacking accuracy and precision but still demonstrate good qualities of the training scale.
5-Sufficient: Either the movements will be performed fairly accurately but there may be some clear weaknesses within the training scale or some fairly serious mistakes. Or, movements may be inaccurate but still demonstrate satisfactory qualities of the training scale.
4-Insufficient: Either, the movements will be performed fairly accurately but there may or will be some serious weaknesses within the training scale or some obvious error within the movements. Or, movements may be very inaccurate but will demonstrate sufficient qualities of the training scale.
3- Fairly bad: Inaccurately performed movements with serious problems within the training scale.
2-Bad: Inaccurately performed movements with severe problems within the training scale.
1-Very bad: Movements performed are barely recognizable. Showing severe resistance throughout, i.e. rearing, running backwards.
0-Not performed: Not performed. There is no fragment of the movement performed

I don't see a huge problem with Sufficient to satisfactory riding, if the horse is not being abused.

If you are consistently sufficient to satisfacotry (the 50-60% range) and you are happy with that and can be sufficient to satisfactory at levels above 2nd, then why does anybody care?

Read the bold face, it is English, compare the bold word with the normal definition of it to the dressage meaning.

If you want 50-60% to mean something terrible, change the descriptions. Make 5 be insufficient, 6 sufficient, etc.

[Dressage Art]

I was questioning your erroneous assumption that because 3% indicated that they were opposed, that meant that the rest of the membership was in favor. That is not the case.
The USEF made an extra effort to release a statement that they clearly support a future qualifying rule for dressage - this is not my "erroneous assumption" as you call it, but a simple fact. As for USDF/USEF members, unfortunately nobody asked us...

[atr]

I have no problem with a qualification system of some sort that a) presents a level playing field wherever one might happen to live in the USA and b) is based on true merit rather than the volume of shows you have the opportunity to attend.

I am a USEF, USDF and local GMO (UDS) member. I'm coming back into showing this year after a break. I'll be showing first and maybe some second, but my goal for this year is to go to regionals at first level. Not very exalted, but once I've achieved that, I think I may just about be able to describe myself as a "dressage rider" without blushing.

I think the dressage committee regard dressage in a very different light from many adult amateurs.

[claire]

According to JBF only 3% of USDF/USEF members voiced their opinions against the future qualification proposal ... 3%... so there are some USEF/USDF members who are against this proposal, but strong majority is for it.

Dressage Art, This is your statement that is being referred to as erroneous.
That "a majority of the USEF/USDF members are in favor of the rule proposal (because JBF said only 3% of the members voiced their opposition)

Not

The "fact" that the USEF BoD released the statement: "that they support the concept of performance standards for dressage, said USEF President David O’Connor"

The USEF made an extra effort to release a statement that they clearly support a future qualifying rule for dressage - this is not my "erroneous assumption" as you call it, but a simple fact.

Rather than obfuscating the issue, I think it would be helpful to keep this discussion on track and:

-define the "core problem" with objective data.

-explore various possible solutions to the "problem".

[slc2]

pony fixer, my statement about membership is correct, but i doubt it's been proccessed or even received yet by the organizations. it is so utterly wonderful that you checked, though :)

[~Freedom~]

pony fixer, my statement about membership is correct, but i doubt it's been proccessed or even received yet by the organizations. it is so utterly wonderful that you checked, though :)

Maybe she will re-check next month when it will be processed.

[AnotherRound]

pony fixer, my statement about membership is correct, but i doubt it's been proccessed or even received yet by the organizations. it is so utterly wonderful that you checked, though :)

Of course she checked, as did most of the thinking people you hope to impress who read your drivel. Grandiosity is your forte, not honesty.

I guess since you don't ride and don't show, you felt it necessary to say you have joined every (in general) association. I just don't feel that justifies you speaking out of turn on these subjects. I don't feel this claim to 'membership' qualifies you as the expert you try to pretend you are in every little thing.

[JennNC]

Jennifer,

If I am allowed :winkgrin: a few questions.

1.) If the problem is riders scoring between 50-60%, was there data shown to you at the meeting showing the extent of this problem?

Rebecca's initial score analysis (including all levels) shows 64% of the rides scoring in the 60-70% range.

And, if only 20% of the rides are at 2ndL+ What IS the extent of the problem?

It would be interesting to see the actual, complete data. How many riders are consistently scoring in the low 50-30% at 2nd/3rd Levels?

2.)"They want to see more dressage riders raise their standards and learn how to ride more effectively"

What if instead of a costly qualification system that is based on showing scores, they put that money toward more (affordable) training clinics for both pros and amateurs at the GMO level? :yes:

I can tell that I am not going to be able to keep up with this thread, but I will do my best when personally addressed to answer! Please forgive me for being blunt, but I'm short on time this morning.

1) I was shown no data by the decision makers. I think most of them are talking about their own personal observations and opinions, not hard data. (that is my guess)

2) I can wholeheartedly agree with that suggestion (re: affordable education)!

Jennifer

[JennNC]

Jennifer,
You wrote, "For me personally, I CAN see the 'why' behind it." So...what do you think the "why" is? If you can shed some insight into what the dressage committee has for data, that would be helpful. If it only affects 20% of the riders (if that many), why would the effort, and the ensuing cost, be put towards fixing "it" (whatever "it" is)? Seems like resources would be better spent on larger problems...but I don't know, I need to understand the problem and the data a bit more.
"


Obviously, the "why" is debatable. It is MY opinion that a qualifying system would help riders to slow down and work harder to develop their position and effectiveness as a rider. Myself included. I have no data, only "anecdotal" evidence. It is my opinion that a qualifying system might help save a few horses from breaking down. Maybe I'm completely unrealistic.

If this issue is brought before the USDF delegates for a vote, and if I am there as a voting delegate, I will represent my GMO. If the majority of my membership is opposed, I will represent their views. If a system is not put into place, it matters not to me. I will continue to teach and train the same. I just simply think that there is merit to a qualification system and would personally be in support of one.

I AM concerneed that it will hurt the horse show business with fewer entries coming in. I don't know. Maybe riders will just drop down to a level where they can be more successful.

I don't think it will hurt amateurs or professionals...I think it will help. I completely oppose a system that will cause a hardship on those riders who have to travel long distances to get to shows or riders who show infrequently at the USEF/USDF rated shows. I think a system should be implemented that is reasonably attainable.


Again, I have not hard data, but the anecdotal evidence abounds. It just becomes a matter of opinion as to how people view that evidence, I suppose.

Jennifer

[claire]

Originally Posted by claire
Jennifer,
1.) If the problem is riders scoring between 50-60%, was there data shown to you at the meeting showing the extent of this problem?

2.)What if instead of a costly qualification system that is based on showing scores, they put that money toward more (affordable) training clinics for both pros and amateurs at the GMO level?


I can tell that I am not going to be able to keep up with this thread, but I will do my best when personally addressed to answer! Please forgive me for being blunt, but I'm short on time this morning.

1) I was shown no data by the decision makers. I think most of them are talking about their own personal observations and opinions, not hard data. (that is my guess)

2) I can wholeheartedly agree with that suggestion (re: affordable education)! Jennifer

Jennifer,

Thanks for taking the time to answer all these questions and for opening up a venue here for a discussion on this important issue!

Ideas and solutions come from the most unexpected sources! ;)

[Dalfan]

I just don't feel that justifies you speaking out of turn on these subjects.

Well, since you don't ride or show either perhaps you should zip your trap as well. Let's see all your credentials/experience laid out so we can determine if you should be speaking out of turn.

[knz66]

I support the idea of the qualification system that will set a clear standard that we can strive for, system that will raise expectations and quality of dressage in the show ring. However, I'm disappointed how new qualification system was presented and I’m opposed to such difficult qualification standards.

Current proposed qualifying scores are not based on any of the existent USEF or USDF standards. Current proposed points to qualify to move up to the 3rd level belittle the scores needed to earn USDF Bronze Medal, they also belittle the scores needed to qualify for the USDF Championships, and belittle the scores needed to earn USDF 2nd Level Rider Performance Awards. Scores that are needed for USDF championships, scores that are needed towards USDF Bronze Medal, and scores that are needed for USDF 2nd Level Rider Performance Awards are all lower in % and lesser in the amount than the new proposed 3rd Level Qualification Rule calls for.

I would be glad to see the new qualification system based on the existing scores that needed for
1) USDF Championships Qualifying scores: aka 2 scores of 61% on 2nd level http://www.usdf.org/docs/competitions/regionals/RCProgramRules.pdf
Or
2) USDF 2nd Level Rider Performance Awards: aka 4 scores of 60% on 2nd level. http://www.usdf.org/awards/performance/rider-performance.asp
Or
3) Towards USDF Bronze Medal: aka 2 scores of 60% on 1nd Level and 2 scores of 60% on 2nd Level. http://www.usdf.org/awards/performance/rider-medals.asp

If the USEF creates a new rule based on the existent rule, it will be easier to track the scores and it will be easier to introduce this new rule to the membership as well. I also think it's important to make sure that riders can earn their scores riding only 2 tests. That will make it affordable and give it a reasonable time table.

Introducing a dressage levels qualification system is a correct direction, but it needs to be introduced for the right reasons and it needs to affect negatively only riders who are not spending enough time on the correct dressage basics, rather than negatively affecting people with a limited income.

Ditto, ditto and ditto!

[poltroon]

In the interest of moving with carrots rather than sticks, I would love to hear what people think of my proposal to establish an award for proficiency at Second Level. If people can get an award that gives them some satisfaction, they might be more inclined to spend some time at that level to get those scores rather than push to 3rd.

The cost is minimal, and it creates no inconvenience for people who live in Hawaii and other places where shows are not plentiful. And since only 20% of riders show above 2nd level, why should the other 80% have to pay the costs for a qualification program?

[sm]

poltroon, you just lost me. Are you referring to your post #44? Which I thought was well thought out especially regarding capable horses and their bouncing riders. I thought your post added a great deal to the quality of the thread.

I don't know that people need to spend more time at any particular level, I am thinking as some others that the "problem" still needs to be first clearly stated and then defined (defined by sharing data with the GMOs).

There were many good thoughts on this thread, but unfocused as solutions because the "problem" is not clearly stated.

[flshgordon]

In the interest of moving with carrots rather than sticks, I would love to hear what people think of my proposal to establish an award for proficiency at Second Level. If people can get an award that gives them some satisfaction, they might be more inclined to spend some time at that level to get those scores rather than push to 3rd.

The cost is minimal, and it creates no inconvenience for people who live in Hawaii and other places where shows are not plentiful. And since only 20% of riders show above 2nd level, why should the other 80% have to pay the costs for a qualification program?


I'm not sure I followed your plan completely but I believe there is some merit in a rider evaluation. However I'm not sure why it can't come in the form of the rider coefficient at the bottom of the tests. The reason for making that a x3 coefficient was to put more enphasis on the rider score correct? Didn't that just happen about a year or 2 ago?

It seems to me the problem in your post 44 could be resovled with the bouncing rider on the good horse by giving a very low rider score (as in 4, 3, etc). I have to say if I got THAT on my test, as opposed to the random scatterings of 4 & 5 here and there for movements I just flat screwed up, I would be MUCH MUCH MUCH more likely to step back and say "wow....my riding really sucked today, better work on that". That's where I think the judges really should be encouraged to make a change....because honestly as a scribe I've not seen any rider coefficients under 5 (not that I have seen a million or anything) and rarely have I seen 5s. In fact as a scribe I often think I would give a lower rider score than the judges do but agree on the individual movement scores. I've even had (well known) judges comment to me on the poor riding, bouncing hands, etc and then give the rider score a 6. I think many judges are afraid to directly "insult" the rider as opposed to scoring a particular movement low.

But I personally would definitely take note if I got a 5 or less on my rider score.

[DennisM]

My thanks to those of you who have posted reasons why you think a "competition standards" system should be implemented.

This post is an attempt to summarize all of (I hope I haven't missed any) the reasons posted so far:
-- to provide standards to strive for and raise quality of rides (kn266; exvet)
-- to slow riders down and prevent horses from breaking down by moving up too fast (JennNC)
-- to put more emphasis on 2nd Level (DressageArt)
-- to make 3rd Level and above the province of the professional rider (Claire)
-- to judge rider scores only

That's it. I didn't really see any others.

Possible responses from those of us who oppose the idea:
-- "standards" -- already exist, we get scores for every ride

-- "slow down; prevent breakdowns" -- nice idea, but why would one have to go backwards (to 2nd L) if, for e.g., you've suddenly gotten a ride on an advanced horse, or have been training in Germany and made huge advancements in ability while away from showing, or are recovering from an injury to you but your horse has continued in training and is ready? Also, what if you are from another discipline (e.g. hunters, jumpers or eventers) and can produce clean changes and a decent half-pass; what harm is there for the rider or the horse in trying out a 3rd Level test w/o repetitively showing at 2nd L? It is likely that there may be insufficient collection and/or balance in the extended movements, but, so what? What harm (to "Dressage Sport", to the horses or to the riders) comes from allowing riders to try even if they fail? [Clearly, lots of eventer, jumpers and hunter riders can produce the "moves" (changes and lateral work) w/o hurting their horses.]

-- more emphasis on 2nd level -- same response as immediately above; this really is (in my view) the elitist response -- that there should be no mediocre performances above 2nd Level, isn't it?

-- 3rd Level + professionals only -- even taking this suggestions seriously (and, I'm not sure the poster intended it that way), that may be a significant result of a "competition standards" proposal. In fact, at most shows I attend, it's a bit that way already, which (in my view) is not a good thing.

-- rider scores -- not a bad proposal, but one I could support only if the no. of scores were 2 or less, and were self-certifying (e.g., providing a prior score sheet like one now provides a copy of a coggins certificate), that way, there would be no administrative cost/burden on USEF.

[Whisper]

I just joined both USEF and USDF. I was initially going to wait until I confirmed that I was able to compete in a recognized show this year, but decided to go ahead with it partly so that I can contribute on this topic through the correct channels.

I don't think that a qualification schema is needed, and oppose it in general because I don't think it's worth the USDF/USEF/show organizers spending the additional time and money it would take to implement it. If they do decide to put it in place anyway, I think it should require 2 or 3 *rider scores* of 6 or above at the previous level, self-certifying by bringing copies of previous score sheets. As to the special "rider test," why put one in place? Isn't that what dressage equitation classes are for?

If someone is riding badly, their rider score should absolutely reflect that, with appropriate comments. Not mean, not "You have no business riding any horse," but "hands unsteady" etc. If judges won't do that, no qualification system is going to fix it.

[claire]

My thanks to those of you who have posted reasons why you think a "competition standards" system should be implemented.
-- to make 3rd Level and above the province of the professional rider (Claire)

DennisM, Thanks for summarizing! But I do NOT think that 3rd Level and above should be the province of professionals! :D
(I just wondered if this was the real end goal of the performance standard?)

My question is: What problem has been objectively defined?

I question that an organization would consider a solution/performance standard before researching and statistically defining the problem. :confused:

[MontanaDun]

I guess I am just an anarchist<g>. I don't see any reason to require riders to qualify to move up the levels. I happen to be fortunate enough to own a grand old GP schoolmaster. If my trainer and I should decide that the work we are doing merits showing at 3rd or 4th level, why shouldn't we just show at those levels?

If I am "not ready" (and what does that mean?), presumably the judge will score appropriately. If I am *SO* not ready that I am abusive to my horse, then the judge and/or TD should speak to me and DQ me from the show. (That's DQ-disqualify).

I used to (20 years ago) scribe very frequently and after a long break have recently become more active in my GMO, including serving a term on the BOD, managing recognized shows, and scribing for other shows. I can only say that between then and now, IMO riders have improved a great deal - lots less crank and spank, lots more riders with good basics and generally a much better picture in many more of the rides.

Like many of the other posters, I still see no compelling reason to institute a qualification process for moving up the levels. Also agree that a problem definition / statement needs to happen before proceeding.

For instance - the data Rebecca collected doesn't really show a problem with horrible abusive riders. So what is the real problem? Until that's defined, proposed solutions are just shooting in the dark.

For instance - are we qualifying horses or riders? The proposal as originally stated and even as modified, really focuses on qualifying horses, even though it's presented as a tool for qualifying riders. But since our scoring system is really about the horse, you can't effectively use that tool to qualify riders.

USEF/USDF/AQHA/Lifetime Registration on 3 horses

[~Freedom~]

Well, since you don't ride or show either perhaps you should zip your trap as well. Let's see all your credentials/experience laid out so we can determine if you should be speaking out of turn.

Fang we went through this before. No one is REQUIRED to post their credentials, however if one does they may have to look carefully at what they post otherwise they will appear very foolish.

Just for the record and while it makes no direct difference to me I would not support a qualification system.

[Moderator 1]

We wanted to remind everyone that it's up to the readers of the board to use their own judgement in determining the merit of the personal opinions provided on this or any forum. Feel free to disagree with points that are made, but avoid personal attacks and insults. Thanks.

[rebecca yount]

Claire, thanks for your clarifying statements. Refreshing.

Now, then, you also said something about 20% of the RIDES being at 2nd level and above.

I think, if this 20% number is accurate at all (and I need to check with USDF to see what their statistic is), it is that 20% of the RIDERS (not rides) are at 2nd level and above.

The preliminary stats I have do not show, and I don't think they'll end up showing overall, that 20% of the RIDES are 2nd and above. Rather, for that 2-month time period in Region 1, for example, there were 1059 (or 46.94% of the total) rides at Training and 1st Level. There were 1197 (53.06%) rides at 2nd Level and above.

I think a question might not be how many MEMBERS this might affect, but actually perhaps how many RIDES it will affect, since the income at shows comes per ride, not per rider.

Even if only 20% of the riders were alienated, they make up almost half of the income per show in terms of rides paid for.

Yummmm! Statistics!

Oh by the way--to answer the question I think was back there someplace, Jenn: My memberships to USDF, USEF, and my GMO are currently expired. I have been members of each for a long time (USEF # is 175365 to show how old I am). I have served on the BoD of my GMO (PVDA) for several years and been a delegate to the USDF convention at least 4 times, including having worked on the first "Underfoot" with George Williams. All of my horses are lifetime registered (4 are dead, 2 currently competing) with USDF and USEF. I volunteer extensively for my GMO doing all kinds of activities, and have scribed for many hours, including for World Cup qualifiers. I have also served as a demo rider for judging programs including L, r, and R, and as a demo rider under Axel Steiner for 3rd and 4th level for a test clinic when the new tests came out. I have my USDF Bronze medal and 4th level scores for my Silver. I have competed through PSG and worked to GP including P & P, the other P, tempi changes to 1s, etc. Under the proposed new rules I would be able to ride at PSG and I-1 ("advanced"?).

[RonaldGroen]

Rebbeca, Thanks for the update on the analysis! I keep checking for
new results! Such a numbers geek I am! :lol:

Interesting that ~90% of the 2nd/3rd Level rides scored Above 55%


And thank you for all your efforts to objectively define "the problem"

Above 55%

the judges in the US reward their riders at least 10% higher as in Germany.

[claire]

The preliminary stats I have do not show, and I don't think they'll end up showing overall, that 20% of the RIDES are 2nd and above. Rather, for that 2-month time period in Region 1, for example, there were 1059 (or 46.94% of the total) rides at Training and 1st Level. There were 1197 (53.06%) rides at 2nd Level and above.

I think a question might not be how many MEMBERS this might affect, but actually perhaps how many RIDES it will affect, since the income at shows comes per ride, not per rider.

Even if only 20% of the riders were alienated, they make up almost half of the income per show in terms of rides paid for.

Yummmm! Statistics!

Rebecca,

This is just so interesting! :D Thank You!

And FWIW, I believe that Dressage Art's point was that it was 20% of the USDF Members riding at 2nd level and above. (I misquoted and said "rides at 2nd and above")

It is an important distinction.
But, as you point out, it is the # of rides that bring in the $$$$.
I do know that some of my eventer friends like to do a couple of "Real Dressage" ;) 3rdL classes on a "pay as they show" basis.
So, figuring "rides" vs. "member riders" might give a more accurate picture?


This is a fact that it's only about 20% of the USDF members who show above 2nd level based on the years of USDF existence. Those statistics are printed in the USDF Year Awards magazines if anybody is interested in looking in to them.
So the rule proposal will affect only 20% of the USDF members.

[Ellie K]

About all I have to say anymore is that USEF has bungled the PR on this in a manner that is truly FEI-esque in its magnitude.

But I think one should consider the fact that as of June 2006, this system was to begin at 2nd level, not 3rd. So I think it's unwise to think of it as something that's always intended to be at 3rd and up. I think they are starting it at 3rd, because they know it affects so much smaller a percentage of riders and probably thought it would be an easier sell. So if you're crunching numbers, might as well have a look at 2nd, as that might be where it's headed once they get the initial dust to settle. (Of course they'll deny this even if it's true).

[claire]

Above 55%
the judges in the US reward their riders at least 10% higher as in Germany.

Well this is the US not Europe.

We are just learning to walk! ;)

[rebecca yount]

Yeah, Claire, I figured you had either typed an "s" instead of an "r" or misread what DressageArt wrote.

RonaldGroen, I do not really see the relevance of your statement to this discussion. It is of no importance and serves no useful purpose to make comparisons between the US and Germany. In fact I think that making such comparisons is actually a part of the problem.

We are discussing an issue regarding rides in the United States, by American riders. What judges do in Germany is of no interest, really.

[Dressage Art]

Yeah, Claire, I figured you had either typed an "s" instead of an "r" or misread what DressageArt wrote.
Originally Posted by Dressage Art
it's only about 20% of the USDF members who show above 2nd level based on the years of USDF existence.

It is members aka riders - not "rides"
It is not "2nd and above", but "above 2nd", in other words: "3rd and above - not including the 2nd level"
Variations:
About 80% of USDF members show at 2nd level and below.
About 20% of USDF members show at 3rd level and above.
The new rule will affect about 20% of USDF members who show at 3rd level and above.

Is that clearer?

[rebecca yount]

Yes, thank you, that is clearer. I realize that you were talking about USDF members (I am assuming that is members who DO RIDE/compete, correct?--there are actually some USDF members who do not ride so I don't think they should be included in the numbers). So is the 20% you are referring to 20 % of ALL USDF MEMBERS or 20% of THE USDF MEMBERS WHO COMPETE AT ALL? And I see that you were talking about 2nd and below vs. 3rd and above.

So, breaking it down that way, for Region 1, from 10/1/07 to 11/30/07, 1436 of the rides at competitions were at 2nd level or below. That's 63.65% of the total rides.

And 820 of the rides were at 3rd level or above--that's 36.35% of rides.

[eggbutt]

rebecca, you are amazing. :yes:

I can support a qualification system IF I understand WHY one is needed. Can anyone provide a concise reason this became important in the US? Reading this thread (and the others) it is clear a problem was never defined and communicated before a solution was developed.

[NoDQhere]

Above 55%

the judges in the US reward their riders at least 10% higher as in Germany.

Even if this is true (which I doubt) what does it matter?? This is the USA we are talking about.

[sm]

For instance - are we qualifying horses or riders? The proposal as originally stated and even as modified, really focuses on qualifying horses, even though it's presented as a tool for qualifying riders. But since our scoring system is really about the horse, you can't effectively use that tool to qualify riders.

Agreed all this is shooting in the dark. But that was my initial instinctive reaction, that with this proposal approved we are really pushing riders along for "better bred" horses as opposed to working on the quality of the rider.

As soon as I first read this proposal, I thought of the old move when the rules changed from 58% to 60% median score needed for All Breeds Awards Training through Fourth. IMO, it doesn't directly encourage riders to ride better, it does encourage All Breed riders to look for a "fancier" dressage-bred horse to ride to have an easier time to get the points needed.

If this proposal IS about the rider, flshgordon had a good idea in the form of the rider coefficient at the bottom of the tests --- that's the type of solution to help riders ride better...

[Dressage Art]

Yes, thank you, that is clearer. I realize that you were talking about USDF members (I am assuming that is members who DO RIDE/compete, correct?--there are actually some USDF members who do not ride so I don't think they should be included in the numbers). So is the 20% you are referring to 20 % of ALL USDF MEMBERS or 20% of THE USDF MEMBERS WHO COMPETE AT ALL? And I see that you were talking about 2nd and below vs. 3rd and above.
Yes, I know that not all of USDF members do compete - I myself didn't show at all in 2007 since my mare came up lame in February and I brought her back from rehab only in August, yet I registered with USEF/USDF/CDS in November.

I don't know for sure, but I personally would assume that it is "ALL USDF MEMBERS". Simply b/c it's easier to calculate just looking at the total numbers rather than researching in the detail every single USDF Member.

Also, in the statistic, it said that this data was assembled from all available years of existence of USDF. So it's not a statistic only for a current year or for a last year.

[rebecca yount]

Okay, so it's "20% of all USDF members in history (including honorary members, those who are business members and who have never shown etc.) have competed at least once above 2nd level"?

It would seem to me that it would be more informative if it were broken down by year, because I would assume (this may not be correct but it is a guess) that what we would see is that in the beginning of USDF (1973), there were far fewer members showing above 2nd level than there are now.

If one lumps all the years together, the results will be skewed toward people showing "lower", because reflected in the statistic will be the early years, when probably only a few people showed above 2nd. That might erroneously make it look like fewer people show above 2nd NOW than really do. So it may not actually be representative of the USDF of today.

All this can, should, and probably will be looked at based on DATA.

[sm]

Well, it would seem to me that it would be more informative if it were broken down by year, because I would assume (although this may not be correct but it is a guess) that what we would see is that in the early years of USDF, there were far fewer members showing above 2nd level than there are now.

Well, percentage of starts per level may be close to today's, there were few riders in the beginning of USDF. And I don't see the upper levels today overly full, at least in the local USDF-recognized shows...

A bigger question is have the tests themselves changed enough where one can't compare them over a few decades.

[JennNC]

I'd like to add some "concluding thoughts" on this particular subject. I know that many people are still questioning why the USEF Dressage Committee feels the need for a qualifying system. I wouldn't mind getting some extra details from them myself, but it is my opinion that they think they HAVE given their reason. Regardless of how any of us feel about it, the stated "mission" of the Performance Standards proposal is this: "to fully prepare riders with positive competitive experiences in order to be able to successfully move up the level while supporting the welfare of the horse."

I infer from this that the committee believes too many riders are having NEGATIVE experiences and too many are not moving up "successfully" enough. The mention of the welfare of the horse is surely an indication that they think horses need some sort of protection.

I learned from my most recent conversation with a member of the DC that they are currently working hard right now to fine tune "three systems" for review by the GMO delegates and PM delegates as well as the affiliate delegates. Those delegates will be responsible for getting input from their members and returning the ideas to the DC subcommittee.

SO...I will be waiting to see what they come up with this summer and will immediately start asking the people I represent to give me their feedback. If you are a member of a GMO, you might want to check in with your president sometime in the early summer to let him/her know that you want to be kept abreast of what is happening with those proposals. If you are not a GMO member, but you are a USDF member, you should have regional delegates that you can contact.


Jennifer

[Speedy]

My point in posting this is to say that I am curious to see if there are any people reading this bb who ARE in favor of a qualifying system. I have made myself very clear to the "powers-that-be" that I did not support the original proposal and wanted a system that was more reasonably attainable by the rider who only competes at 2 or 3 USEF shows a year and I adamantly opposed the requirement that riders must be full Participating Members of the USDF (rather than Group Members from being part of a GMO). Personally, however, I do support the idea of implementing some sort of qualifying system. I may be in the minority of my own GMO...I will have to continue to seek their input.


To answer your original question - yes, I support the concept of a qualifying system - but like you and for similar reasons, I do not support the original proposal.

I do wonder a bit what all the fuss is about - if you are ready to move up, your scores ultimately reflect that. My scores aren't the only factor in the equation, but I certainly take them into account before I consider moving up. So, I just don't have any real fear or paranoia about this kind of thing...and I kind of like the idea that when I move up, it may mean something in that I had to satisfy some kind of standard to do it. That's all assuming that the standards are fairly reasonable of course. I have voiced that opinion before, however, and it was less than popular :)

[eggbutt]

I do wonder a bit what all the fuss is about - if you are ready to move up, your scores ultimately reflect that. My scores aren't the only factor in the equation, but I certainly take them into account before I consider moving up. So, I just don't have any real fear or paranoia about this kind of thing...and I kind of like the idea that when I move up, it may mean something in that I had to satisfy some kind of standard to do it. That's all assuming that the standards are fairly reasonable of course. I have voiced that opinion before, however, and it was less than popular :)

Speedy, I think many wonder WHY a qualifying system is needed in this country in the first place. No one has been able to answer this question fully.

But on another note, in your situation, suppose you obtain a higher level school master. You would have to satisfy all the criteria of the lower levels to enter that horse for the levels he was trained for (assuming you had also received training in how to correctly ride that horse). Is that fair? I know a lot of this needs to be fleshed out over the summer before a "real" proposal is submitted, so perhaps we should all do as Jennifer has suggested....contact your regional contacts to stay informed and provide input.

[sm]

One wouldn't know it from the thread's title, but there are some good thoughts/solutions starting with post #40 below and going through to #45 (click arrow inside quote below to switch over to other thread):


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.

[Dressage Art]

Since we are talking statistics, here is another interesting one:

*the average income of USDF member family is $80K per year.

[Sandy M]

Since we are talking statistics, here is another interesting one:

*the average income of USDF member family is $80K per year.


Not MY average income. I'm a SITH (Single Income, Two Horses) ROFLOL

[Speedy]

Speedy, I think many wonder WHY a qualifying system is needed in this country in the first place. No one has been able to answer this question fully.

But on another note, in your situation, suppose you obtain a higher level school master. You would have to satisfy all the criteria of the lower levels to enter that horse for the levels he was trained for (assuming you had also received training in how to correctly ride that horse). Is that fair? I know a lot of this needs to be fleshed out over the summer before a "real" proposal is submitted, so perhaps we should all do as Jennifer has suggested....contact your regional contacts to stay informed and provide input.

To be honest, I think the 'why' is pretty evident at some of the shows.

With regard to the schoolmaster type situation - I think it's premature to worry. We don't have the details yet and that may be addressed to your satisfaction one way or another. My personal opinion is that you should be able to ride the horse at the level if you are also competent at the level - but if the horse is trained to the level and you aren't, you shouldn't be showing there. Maybe they can give you a pass if, for instance, your horse has a record at the level and you do as well on a different horse. I think they will have to figure stuff like this out - I just don't automatically assume that they'll do it in a way that will be completely counterproductive to the sport. Possibly I am seriously naive.

[Suzier]

The proposal as originally stated and even as modified, really focuses on qualifying horses, even though it's presented as a tool for qualifying riders. But since our scoring system is really about the horse, you can't effectively use that tool to qualify riders.

This hits the nail on the head for me. The current proposal appears to be a tool that evaluates horses in order to qualify riders, since the rider can then go on to compete at their qualified level on any horse. Actually it attempts to be a tool that evaluates horses in order to qualify riders in order to protect horses. Which really doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

I support a rider qualification system. In my ideal world it would cost no more than $150 to $200, there would be two judges, and you'd have maybe a half-hour ride either in a small group or one-on-one setting, following the orders the judge calls out -- like a hunter equitation flat class. You'd get pass or fail for the level at which you wanted to show (basic, medium, advanced) along with a brief list of comments. A panel of 3 judges would be better, though maybe unrealistic, and there should be at least a few opportunities per region per year. In an ideal-ideal world you'd also have donated school horses provided for the evaluation, but that's probably wildly unrealistic. It would be cool to hook it up to a show, not as PART of the competition, but just for easy access for people -- have it the day before or after when people are trailering in/out, or as the last class of the day or something. This would be expensive, but less expensive than a season of showing, especially for people who are not able to afford their own horse -- those who part lease or ride school horses, but are good competent riders and would like to show at the level they are able to even if they can only do one show a year. And for those who are really struggling to get by, local chapters or barns could fundraise to defray part of the costs.

I also think it should apply also to young-horse classes (especially, perhaps) and junior/YR, who are just as capable of damaging their horses as AAs. My understanding is that the current system excludes both those groups, which I don't think is sensible or fitting with the stated objectives.

[flshgordon]

Since we are talking statistics, here is another interesting one:

*the average income of USDF member family is $80K per year.


How on earth is this relevant? :confused:

[SGray]

if the average is $80,000 then there are many below that amount

if you figure board at $500 per month (very conservative #) and a lesson per week - add a bit of training on the horse and you've got a large percentage of income going to the sport (before tack, clothes, travel, show fees, etc)

which makes the idea of more expenses being added on that much more questionable

the 'average' dressage rider is not rich

[Eclectic Horseman]

Since we are talking statistics, here is another interesting one:

*the average income of USDF member family is $80K per year.

First of all, that figure is not necessarily from a credible authoritative source. It doesn't come from the US census and I don't remember USDF asking me how much I made when I joined. These sorts of figures are usually exaggerated numbers used to persuade advertisers and sponsors to get involved in the sport.

Second, the number is misleading. How many people are there in a "member family"? Two earners? Three earners? One earner and 4 children? The number is meaningless unless you know how many people are in the household and what their expenses are (i.e., college tuition?)

If you look at the US census, you will be surprised at the very small number of people in the top tiers of income. Maybe they all ride dressage? ;) :lol:

[ride-n-tx]

Two thougts, what do you think?...

1. What if the judges had another riders score box in the Judge's Comments section labled "Preparation"? Maybe this would make it a little more abundantly clear if the rider is overfaced.

2. What if the judges had a little more time to write their comments between riders? Often the judge has to scramble to finish writing a single sentance before the next rider starts. This could be hugely beneficial because we do spend quite a bit of money to hear their opinions anyway.

[RonaldGroen]

Even if this is true (which I doubt) what does it matter?? This is the USA we are talking about.

Don't doubt it ! Ask the international judges !

[dutchmike]

Above 55%

the judges in the US reward their riders at least 10% higher as in Germany.

Many things have happened in Germany that had to be corrected by the USA not that long ago;).

Each country has it own federation for a purpose and as long as they follow the general FEI rules they can do whatever they like.So if they want to score 10% higher in the US then in Deutschland then they score higher so what?. I honestly do not see any constructive critisism in these types of posts

[Touchstone Farm]

A poster wrote that the DC had given a reason for needing a qualifying system thru its mission statement: "to fully prepare riders with positive competitive experiences in order to be able to successfully move up the level while supporting the welfare of the horse."

Sorry, I still need data for a qualifying system! And to me, that mission statement would work even better on a plan for an educational program/series. :-)

[RonaldGroen]

Many things have happened in Germany that had to be corrected by the USA not that long ago;).



And we have send over Klaus Balkenhol to make it up with you:D

[J-Lu]

And we have send over Klaus Balkenhol to make it up with you:D

You sent? YOU sent? Ummm, I don't think the average German citizen (which I somehow doubt you are) sent anyone. I think the USEF contracted him and he's making more money with this arrangement than he was making in Germany.

Your posts make me laugh! It's as if you think you are special because you live in, or are pretending to live in, Germany! No. one. here. cares. Try making an actual contribution. You might get hooked!

[Sabine]

And we have send over Klaus Balkenhol to make it up with you:D

That was indeed very funny and those who know - will know...just watch the latest DVD.


I am in concept very much FOR a qualifying system. I am for improving rider knowledge and skill- I am for reducing horse misuse or discomfort, - I am for climbing a ladder that is well thought out and achievable by a human earthling of the amateur kind- while keeping in mind that this is a sport and requires a certain degree of toughness, committment, discipline and practice.

All this said- I believe and I have said this before- that we need to adjust the requirements according to local availability and some concern for finances- as making this an elitist sport will surely remove it from the olympics and the minds of most americans.
It should be accessible and possible to participate - even if you are not a millionaire. And this is in some urban areas- not a small feat. It is for the same reason in some remote areas almost impossible to commute to viable show grounds. These issues need to be addressed if we want dressage to be a sport for the people...and if we want a more solid support in the grassroots of this country for the beauty and the health that can be gained by training a horse properly for dressage and showing how nice this can be....

[mtngirl]

I support some form of qualifying. I like Suzier's line of thought in post #119. Affordable. Attainable. Reasonable. After all, from all that I've read, the main concern is that the rider be competent to move up...demonstrate that they have the knowledge and skills necessary.

I think a qualifying class would be ideal. Like Suzier, I think it could be run like an equitation class. Have 6-8 people in a class, provide a "score sheet" with certain requirements that are marked as pass/fail or sufficient/insufficient. Most judges I know have a good enough eye to be able to differentiate from the rider vs the horse being competent/confirmed in certain movements. Let the class be offerred at some of the rated shows just like a regular dressage test class. Say, "ride qualification class for medium level", $50-$75. You sign up for it just like you would any other class. The 6-8 riders enter the arena and do a series of movements etc as called out by the judge (like the equitation classes) one behind the other (example, shoulder in down the rail). The judge marks the movement sufficient/insuffient. Of course a score sheet would have to be devised, but I don't think that would be all that difficult to achieve. It would be up to the rider to later provide a copy of the sheet to prove they have passed the test to move up.

Hmmm. I can see clinics being scheduled to help "prepare" people for the riding test, just like some do for schooling shows or "ride-a-test" clinics, where you get feed back on how to improve. Isn't the whole purpose to educate and improve our riders, thus improving the quality of dressage training in general? Sounds like a more reasonable, affordable alternative, especially for those who don't show that often and are on a limited budget.

[ClaraLuisa]

I'm in favor of a qualification system if it helps me meet my goals, and if its quantifiable benefits outweigh its costs. Not seeing that here. I would support the idea of one-time rider qualifying tests, or a rider qualifying check box on the score sheet. Under those circumstances I would renew all my memberships--they are lapsed since we have been doing only training shows this year and last.
That said, I'd rather see all this sturm and drang be expended on trainer preparation and qualifying tests. I am very lucky to ride with somebody who began his training career in Germany, and that gives me some assurance that I am working in the right direction, and doing the best I can do within the limits of my horse and my (negligible) talent. Why not begin with the source of quality riding?

[NMK]

Well I don't know if this is a chicken/egg question but simply, shouldn't the USDF be just as concerned about who is teaching the riders out there showing? Really, if the end goal is to improve the riding (and therefore the scores) at shows, they should be looking at the quality of instruction as well. Is there some sort of USDF ICP (Instructor Certification Program) like the USEA has?

To me, if you are going to qualify riders then you should really look at qualifying those that instruct them.

[Dressage Art]

Majority of the riders at 3rd level and above are professionals - so that rule will affect them - that is the main reason why I support this rule.

[J-Lu]

Majority of the riders at 3rd level and above are professionals - so that rule will affect them - that is the main reason why I support this rule.

There are still alot of riders who are amateurs at third and above (like me) who will also be affected. In fact, I'll be much more affected than professionals. Most professionals are sponsored or ride client horses, many of which are nicer quality than the horses amateurs own. Thus, most professionals (at least, many professionals) don't purchase their horse, don't pay board, don't pay training fees (owner do), don't pay show fees, don't pay vet/farrier fees and write off all horse expenses. Following, most professionals end up climbing the levels quickly at little expense to them and get paid to do it. This rule will affect the lower level rider who takes money for training (who must ride in the open classes), but it will not affect the "career" professional much. But still, the lower level rider who takes money for training often gets paid to go to shows with students, so they end up going to alot of shows anyway. Even they will move up faster than the average amateur who has to pay for everything and is therefore limited.

I know the above is a generalization, but this is why I oppose the rule change.

[rebecca yount]

DressageArt, could you please tell me your source for the information that the majority of riders 3rd level and above are professionals? I would like to refer to the original data source. Thank you. RY

[Touchstone Farm]

Yes, please, dressageart, give us the source of your information...cuz I'm an amateur showing above 3rd. And I'm not alone. So curious about your data source. Or are you just throwing "gut feelings" around????

[Cowgirl]

DressageArt, even if what you post is true (that the majority of riders at third level and above are professionals), the rule will likely not affect them. If they have been riding any length of time, they should have enough scores to grandfather in. If the bottom qualifying score is 58%, then you could have professionals who grandfathered in with all scores of 58% and it doesn't serve any purpose that I can think of for this particular group. The group who are actively competing at that level likely already have (or will have in the next two years) enough scores to grandfather in. Most likely, the people who are competing FEI who skipped the lower levels are the Advanced Young Riders (and yes some of them become trainers, but the rule proposal has EXEMPTED THEM). And maybe a few AAs who bought schoolmasters and want to show FEI before the horse has to be retired.

I don't have any data to back up these statements, however, and perhaps we should stay away from statements that are not based on data. Really, the whole issue I have with this rule is that there is no data to support the need for it.

[exvet]

I'm another one who is not a professional but rides third and above. I have found lately that I'm riding in larger classes with more amateurs than professionals at least in region 5.

[ltw]

I ride at Training, First, 3rd, 4rth and PSG. I am an amateur. I find that the classes in my region (one) are split about 50/50 between Amateur and Professional at all levels.

[Dressage Art]

I ride at Training, First, 3rd, 4rth and PSG. I am an amateur. I find that the classes in my region (one) are split about 50/50 between Amateur and Professional at all levels.

WOW! You own/show 5 horses and you are AA? Or you own/show 3 horses on several levels? In any case, you are very lucky to be able to do that and be AA! I'm sure that you are not an average AA - and that is based only on my personal observations ;)

About the data, it comes form USDF Connection Magazines and some print outs for potential sponsors. Sorry that some of you don't like it. I can post more, have a whole PDF file full of it, but some of poster's wrath doesn't make it worthwhile.

Tread litely and have fun!

[Arathita]

About the data, it comes form USDF Connection Magazines and some print outs for potential sponsors. Sorry that some of you don't like it. I can post more, have a whole PDF file full of it, but some of poster's wrath doesn't make it worthwhile.

Tread litely and have fun!


This response doesn't answer the previous posters' questions.

People asking you for facts to back up your statement is not "wrath", it is asking for data. I'm sure you understand the difference. Back up your statements with facts if you have them. Otherwise, admit that this is only conjecture on your part.

[exvet]

WOW! You own/show 5 horses and you are AA? Or you own/show 3 horses on several levels? In any case, you are very lucky to be able to do that and be AA! I'm sure that you are not an average AA - and that is based only on my personal observations

Actually I too have more than one horse competing and they currently range from training level to fourth level (4 horses). I also own a stallion as well as some youngstock. I am not a professional. I back/train my own and get help/eye on the ground from a wonderful riding instructor. I am a small animal vet in terms of how I earn my living. I am "your average AA" in that I work a job not related to horses, I have kids, a spouse, and ride in my spare time. I don't believe luck has anything to do with how many horses one rides, the levels one rides at, or whether or not one can be considered "average".....at least the last time I read the requirements/definition as set forth by the USEF regarding what constitutes amateur status. However, I do consider myself quite lucky in that I have a job that I love and a real passion (riding/raising horses) that I can share with my family. I can name a few others in my area who ride more than one horse with at least one at or above third level and easily meet the definition of an amateur.

As for as for qualifying to move up the levels - as stated before I would support such if it were reasonable and clearly met the goals or needs that were defined. I feel that if improving riding skill is "the reason" then let's focus on that but as others have stated I haven't really seen the proof warranting the need to develop and implement an elaborate and potentially expensive system that is questionable as to whether or not it will "fix" anything.

[rebecca yount]

Hey, DressageArt, as Arathita said, I am not saying I "don't like" the information concerning most riders 3rd level and above being professionals. Asking nicely (I even said "please") for the source of the data was simply a request for more information.

I am trained as a scientist, and it is my belief that it is best to make decisions based on data. Sometimes we have to change our minds if we see proof of something--and if my initial ideas are disproven by data, then so be it. We investigate things by looking at data and then determine whether we accept or reject some hypothesis. There are many reasons why it is unwise to make decisions or accept as fact something based on our own "personal observations". I don't have time to teach a basic course in statistics but if you google it or look on Wikipedia you can find lots of information in layman's terms.

I have been taught to NOT just trust what is advertised or bandied about without looking at the source data, and that attitude, while it threatens some people, has served me well, both professionally and with respect to decisions about my horse. You wouldn't just feed your horse something or try a different saddle or use another type of medication because someone on a bulletin board said to, would you? You would check into the scientific literature to see proof that the material or item was indeed as advertised, I hope.

One of my big problems with the whole qualifying criteria proposal, so far, has been that there seem to have been decisions made which are NOT based on data. If I see data and it supports a particular system, then I might change my mind. I am trying to be productive in examining actual statistics and my question re the source of the information was an effort in that direction.

[SGray]

I found

USDF members are characterized by loyalty to dressage and their horses. The federation currently has more than 35,000 members:

90% are adults
96% are female
66% are over the age of 41 years of age
96% own at least one horse
87% compete at least one horse
37% own at least five acres of land
70% have an income of $75,000 and abovehere
http://www.usdf.org/press/facts-stats/index.asp

[Sandy M]

I found

USDF members are characterized by loyalty to dressage and their horses. The federation currently has more than 35,000 members:

90% are adults
96% are female
66% are over the age of 41 years of age
96% own at least one horse
87% compete at least one horse
37% own at least five acres of land
70% have an income of $75,000 and abovehere
http://www.usdf.org/press/facts-stats/index.asp

Well, that's interesting. Guess they won't want to cater to those of us in the 30% that have an income of LESS than $75,000/year. They can say that "most of our members can easily afford to show enough to meet these requirements" and be done with it. Sigh.

[Eclectic Horseman]

Well, that's interesting. Guess they won't want to cater to those of us in the 30% that have an income of LESS than $75,000/year. They can say that "most of our members can easily afford to show enough to meet these requirements" and be done with it. Sigh.

Lies, damned lies and statistics. The purpose of these statistics put out by USDF is to persuade sponsors and advertisers to participate. As I have said before, I do not believe that they are reliable.

[claire]

We investigate things by looking at data and then determine whether we accept or reject some hypothesis. There are many reasons why it is unwise to make decisions or accept as fact something based on our own "personal observations".
One of my big problems with the whole qualifying criteria proposal, so far, has been that there seem to have been decisions made which are NOT based on data. If I see data and it supports a particular system, then I might change my mind.

I think this is the basic issue that many have a problem with. Anecdotal "facts" often give skewed views of a "problem", and initiating (costly) solutions based on such anecdotal evidence does not produce the best results.

Rebecca Yount and ShotenStar are trying to gather objective data to
verify the hypothesis that there is a "serious" problem with riders moving up the levels before they are "ready."

Asking for the "source" of data/statistics is not being "wrathful", simply a logical question to correctly understand the conclusions being drawn.

For example, in this thread Dressage Art has presented four statistics/facts (to support the standards proposal?)
FromUSDF Connection Magazines and some print outs for potential sponsors.

But, without the source of the actual statistics and the context used, these "facts" from the USDF magazine/sponsor printouts presented support only very subjective and in some cases erroneous conlusions.

1.)According to JBF only 3% of USDF/USEF members voiced their opinions against the future qualification proposal ... 3%... so there are some USEF/USDF members who are against this proposal, but strong majority is for it.

Rebecca wrote:
"IF it were true that 3% of the membership of EITHER organization (and they have VERY DIFFERENT numbers of members, so to even speak about this you need to identify 3% of WHICH!!!!!)---or could it be that we were talking about 3% of the COMBINED MEMBERSHIP, WHAT!!!????
EVEN IF that were true, that DOES NOT MEAN that the other 97% WERE FOR IT!!! That is just absolutely untrue."


2.)it's only about 20% of the USDF members who show above 2nd level based on the years of USDF existence

Rebecca wrote:
"it's "20% of all USDF members in history (including honorary members, those who are business members and who have never shown etc.) have competed at least once above 2nd level"?
It would seem to me that it would be more informative if it were broken down by year because,
If one lumps all the years together, the results will be skewed toward people showing "lower", because reflected in the statistic will be the early years, when probably only a few people showed above 2nd.

-So, breaking it down that way, for Region 1, from 10/1/07 to 11/30/07, 1436 of the rides at competitions were at 2nd level or below. That's 63.65% of the total rides.
And 820 of the rides were at 3rd level or above--that's 36.35% of rides'

3.)the average income of USDF member family is $80K per year.

I am assuming this fact was to the ancillary point that: the average member would not be fiscally affected by a qualification standard?
In any case, the source of the data is unclear and this does not address definition of a "problem"

Eclectic Horseman wrote:

"First of all, that figure is not necessarily from a credible authoritative source. It doesn't come from the US census and I don't remember USDF asking me how much I made when I joined. These sorts of figures are usually exaggerated numbers used to persuade advertisers and sponsors to get involved in the sport.

Second, the number is misleading. How many people are there in a "member family"? Two earners? Three earners? One earner and 4 children? The number is meaningless unless you know how many people are in the household and what their expenses are (i.e., college tuition?)"

4.)Majority of the riders at 3rd level and above are professionals

Again, it would be important to understand the original source of the data and the actual statistic that was used to present this "fact".

What #/% of what total group? What year or years? USDF members or not?

I think that many are trying to say that it is important to First
define the problem with objective data.
Rebecca has asked that everyone with hard data/statistics PM her
so that it might be included in her search to define the "problem"...
And probably should be posted on the "data thread".

So, no "Wrath" just genuine interest. :)

[Suzier]

Lies, damned lies and statistics. The purpose of these statistics put out by USDF is to persuade sponsors and advertisers to participate.


I agree. It does not state whether the $75,000 is per member or per household, which makes a gigantic difference. And as for the $80,000 average income statistic, there is a subset of the equestrian community that is extremely wealthy, and a little chunk of people with $500,000+ incomes will skew the number pretty drastically. If you've got 45 people making $40,000 a year and 5 making $500,000 a year, it comes out looking like the average income is $86,000. (not a math person so don't slaughter me if I added wrong -- I'm pretty sure I'm correct in theory at least).

[Speedy]

I would assume that the USDF is making a decent effort to get good data, because, while it may be true that it is gathered at least in part to obtain advertising, that advertising would be tailored to the target market described by the data - and would be pulled if the market didn't respond. So, presumably, the data isn't all bad. If it were, the USDF would be back to square one with its fundraising.

[Suzier]

I would assume that the USDF is making a decent effort to get good data, because, while it may be true that it is gathered at least in part to obtain advertising, that advertising would be tailored to the target market described by the data - and would be pulled if the market didn't respond. So, presumably, the data isn't all bad. If it were, the USDF would be back to square one with its fundraising.

I think this approach to gathering advertising data (aka use the best statistics you can get) is pretty consistent among any group that is trying to secure advertising. It is a little bit like a personals ad or making a great first impression. It's a piece of the story, but not the whole story. In terms of letting advertisers know that your population has disposable income, it is probably reasonably reliable because those on the wealthy end of the spectrum would make up for those on the lower end of the spectrum when it comes to buying things. BUT, that is not necessarily the same logic that should go into crafting showing rules or governing the sport from a perspective of building better riders, where ostensibly if horse care/protection is the issue you'd want to reach the most PEOPLE/HORSES, not the most DOLLARS.

[Speedy]

BUT, that is not necessarily the same logic that should go into crafting showing rules or governing the sport from a perspective of building better riders, where ostensibly if horse care/protection is the issue you'd want to reach the most PEOPLE/HORSES, not the most DOLLARS.

I am just guessing, but I doubt that the USDF is so flush with cash that it has the ability to do multiple studies for multiple purposes. If that is true, then USDF would do a study to obtain the data and it would then have to rely on that data for advertising, and for other things, like sport governance.

And, if it is true that 70% of its members have an income of $75K or more, than it is also true that the USDF will reach the most people AND the most dollars by satisfying this demographic in its rule making decisions.

They'll never satisfy everyone, but if they are comfortable with the accuracy of the data they've gathered, well, those in the 30% demographic are probably out of luck. I am not saying that is a good thing or bad thing, just making an observation.

[Eclectic Horseman]

I certainly have no problem with a qualifying system that would not be more than a nominal increase in cost to the riders. That is, a system that addresses a specific problem based on actual data from recognized shows of the type that Rebecca Y is compiling.

But if one of the agendas here is actually an attempt to increase revenue for USEF, then I think that the proposed system has more potential to have the opposite effect long term. Folks have been complaining more and more about costs of showing the past few years anyway, and an expensive, time consuming qualifying system may well be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

[DennisM]

What percentage of the membership (USEF and/or USDF) is AA and/or Junior (i.e., would qualify to show in more than "open" classes)?

Also, what percentage (or absolute number) of AAs are there on the USEF Dressage Committee (which gets to make the rules for all of us)?

[Dressage Art]

Well, that's interesting. Guess they won't want to cater to those of us in the 30% that have an income of LESS than $75,000/year. They can say that "most of our members can easily afford to show enough to meet these requirements" and be done with it. Sigh.
Sandy, you are a great example how a USDF member with non WB horse (Appaloosa), with a less than $75K per year income (who on top of that lives in expensive state of California) can obtain a 10 scores of 60%+ showing USDF 2nd level!!!!

[Dressage Art]

Rebecca, you were polite and that's the only reason why I answered YOUR question. Some other posters starting to become nasty and I'm not interested to go that route. This topic was originally addressed to supporters of the rule change and I wanted to show my support for this rule, that's the reason why I posted here. I'm not trying to convince anybody to change their minds about the rule change. I respect your passionate position on this issue and I hope that you will get your voice heard.

[Touchstone Farm]

One time you mentioned that you are puzzled by my thoughts. Here, there is a core difference ;) I am trained as an artist and I've been a successful artist mostly due to my unique visions, ideas and thinking. I do question statistics as well as the people's opinions and I can go against the grain - but to give up my unique thinking would be to give up my income - the art ideas rarely come to an average thinking artist. So, if you want to sample the average pro-rule USDF member - it's probably not me.

So just a friendly "warning" that my thinkning might not reflect the average or popular outlook.

Still waiting for you to post the source of your statement ("Majority of the riders at 3rd level and above are professionals"!). You can put a pretty box or design around it if it suits your creativity! :-)

P.S. I'm in the creative side of business (advertising/writer), and I still use data to help me shape my creativity! One side of the brain (left versus right) doesn't mean the other side is totally excluded.

[J-Lu]

Rebecca, you were polite and that's the only reason why I answered YOUR question. Some other posters starting to become nasty and I'm not interested to go that route. This topic was originally addressed to supporters of the rule change and I wanted to show my support for this rule, that's the reason why I posted here. I'm not trying to convince anybody to change their minds about the rule change. I respect your passionate position on this issue and I hope that you will get your voice heard.

One time you mentioned that you are puzzled by my thoughts. Here, there is a core difference ;) I am trained as an artist and I've been a successful artist mostly due to my unique visions, ideas and thinking. I do question statistics as well as the people's opinions and I can go against the grain - but to give up my unique thinking would be to give up my income - the art ideas rarely come to an average thinking artist. So, if you want to sample the average pro-rule USDF member - it's probably not me.

So just a friendly "warning" that my thinkning might not reflect the average or popular outlook.

No one is asking you to give up your unique thinking. People are asking you to quote your sources. You should be able and willing to do this. No one is asking you to change your mind, either. They are asking you to back up what you say is fact.

You are an "L" graduate, right? If you are judging at a schooling show and a competitor asks you why you gave certain scores, you wouldn't say "You're not asking me nicely so I won't answer you, and its my unique thinking that led to this score - I can't tell you why I gave it", would you?

If you are stating your opinion, then just be honest about that. If you are saying something is a fact, then you have to be able to back that up. It's not a big deal.

J.

[Dressage Art]

People are asking you to quote your sources.Huh? I did that already several times, I really don't know what else you expect ... may be some posters should take their time reading posts before posting a question that’s been already answered?

[J-Lu]

Huh? I did that already several times, I really don't know what else you expect ... may be some posters should take their time reading posts before posting a question that’s been already answered?

When I posted about $80K average income for USDF members, some posters called it “bull” --- yet another poster found similar data on the USDF website that majority of USDF members have a $75K+ incomes… now, where is your: “oh I’m sorry that I was questioning your post”???????? No? No “I’m sorry”?…….. Right……. You know, if I really want to argue with anonymous posters, about whom I don’t know anything, who might as well be 14 years old, judging from their comprehension and attitude – I might as well go downstairs and argue with my teenage son, he is so good at it, he knows everything and he is always right, no matter what! ... and if he talks himself in to the corner, he just picks the next subject to argue about, with out saying.. "Oh I was wrong about that, sorry..."

I think you are taking this way too personally. You quote USDF connections. Which one? In other words, did USDF come up with this, or a contributing author? The SOURCE is what people expect. It's not nearly as big of a deal as you are making it out to be.

Also, you'll note that several people say they never gave their income level to USDF. I never have either, and I ASSURE you that it is less than $75K.

Please stop taking this so personally. People aren't questioning you as much as your sources.

J.

[egontoast]

You are an "L" graduate, right? If you are judging at a schooling show and a competitor asks you why you gave certain scores, you wouldn't say "You're not asking me nicely so I won't answer you, and its my unique thinking that led to this score - I can't tell you why I gave it", would you?



You mean like if they were on the 'wrong diagonal" (wink) ? Maybe the "L" program needs a review too.

[JRG]

http://www.usdf.org/press/facts-stats/index.asp

For those looking for where some numbers are, USDF and USEF

[claire]

Thanks JRG (and S.Gray)
But, I *think* what is being asked is what is the "source" from which these USDF statistics were collected.

eg. "From an informal poll of USDF PM it was determined that 70% had an income of $75K and above. Of the 100 members that responded to the poll, 70 members or 70% had an income of $75K and above."

Is very different than:

"Based on an extensive study by xxxx group on the USDF membership profile (study.com #1234), of the 35,000 members of the USDF 70% had an income of $75K and above."

Maybe Rebecca or ShotenStar could explain better.


In my opinion, this does look more like a marketing profile for potential sponsors. NOT lies, just using statistics (from a limited sample) that best reflect the membership to sponsors?


Facts & Statistics

USDF Membership

304 Business Memberships
20,177 Participating Memberships
15,214 Group Member Organization Memberships
129 Affiliated Group Member Organizations
37 Intercollegiate/Interscholastic Member Organizations
850 Recognized CompetitionsUSDF Members

USDF members are characterized by loyalty to dressage and their horses. The federation currently has more than 35,000 members:

90% are adults
96% are female
66% are over the age of 41 years of age
96% own at least one horse
87% compete at least one horse
37% own at least five acres of land
70% have an income of $75,000 and aboveCompetitive Dressage Horses

High insured values
Large investment and long-term relationship between horse and rider
Average competitive life is ten years
Peak performance age average is twelve years
Average age at which a horse is USDF lifetime registered is 7.5 years
13,666 new horses have been registered since 2005
92% increase in the horses competing at USDF recognized shows

[rebecca yount]

Claire, I think you said it pretty well.

Those "statistics" leave many questions--if one wanted to know certain things one would have to have far more information than what is summarized in the obviously-designed-to-attract-advertisers blurbs above.

All those statements could be technically true but lots is unsaid between the lines.

[Eclectic Horseman]

Claire, I think you said it pretty well.

Those "statistics" leave many questions--if one wanted to know certain things one would have to have far more information than what is summarized in the obviously-designed-to-attract-advertisers blurbs above.

All those statements could be technically true but lots is unsaid between the lines.

Undoubtedly a self-selecting sample. Those members of very modest means and who do not own horses, etc. probably do not bother to respond. It is not something that people generally brag about. And who is to say that the folks who responded weren't just exaggerating anyway? ;)

But even aside from that, $80,000 per annum (whether individual, couple or household income) may sound like a lot of money in East Timbuktu, AK, but if you are anywhere near Boston, New York City, San Francisco or other places where housing costs are outrageous-- you're very lucky if you can rent an apartment or own a small home on that salary, let alone board a horse.