Thoughts on Changing the Collective Marks

[ShotenStar]

All the discussions about Performance Standards -- the issues behind the proposal and possible alternatives -- caused my brain to start meditating on the Collective Marks.

Currently, the Collective Marks for T-4th are:

Gaits (freedom and regularity) x 2

Impulsion (desire to move forward, elasticity of the steps, suppleness of the back, engagement of the hindquarters) x 2

Submission (attention and confidence, harmony, lightness and ease of movements, acceptance of the bridle, lightness of the forehand) x 2

This is a total of 60 possible points for the horse.

Rider (position and seat, correctness and effect of the aids) x 3

Here there are a total of 30 possible points for the rider.

With the 2-1 ratio favoring the horse, it's easy to see how riders can overlook their role in the equation.

So, here's your thought experiment for the day: let's redefine the Collective Marks into a format that puts more emphasis on the rider and less on the horse.

How about something like:

Gaits (freedom and regularity) x 1
Impulsion (desire to move forward, elasticity of the steps, suppleness of the back, engagement of the hindquarters) x 1
Submission (attention and confidence, harmony, lightness and ease of movements, acceptance of the bridle, lightness of the forehand) x 1

A total of 30 possible points for the horse

Rider Position and Seat (correctness of posture, stability of seat, suppleness in the saddle) x 3

Rider Effectiveness (correctness and effectiveness of the aids, use of the bridle and leg aids) x 3

This would be a total of 60 possible points for the rider.

Would these kinds of Collective Marks give judges more tools to convey information to riders ... both negative and positive?

Is there another Rider Score that could be added?

What say you?

*star*

[slc2]

sorry. i think more rider scores would become too subjective, and prefer evaluating the general impressions via the effect of the rider on the horse instead.

[ToN Farm]

Definitely NOT in favor of more marks under the collectives. I often wonder why we even have collectives.

Judges are trained to judge the horse. Do they train judges how to judge a rider? Just asking, as I really do not know.

[egontoast]

i'm no math genius but I'm pretty sure that X 1 is no change to the mark at all so why say it that way?

I like the collectives the way they are. I think they serve a useful purpose. It allows the judge to mark a general issue rather than dinging the ride for the general issue on every movement. It works.

[ideayoda]

Personally I would like to just have the rider score (which is x3) divided into three parts.....alignment/correctness of seat x1/effectivityx1/timing of aidsx1 That way the poorly aligned seat would be addressed. Effective riding would be rewarded or really lowered....and the riders would not just be patted on the head for steering around.

The rest has to be kept in order, since riding is primarily about the horse (and preservation of gaits) and the PROPER training.

Yes, the judges training does (now) include judging equitation classes, AND the rider (score) IS explained in the rules.

[ShotenStar]

i'm no math genius but I'm pretty sure that X 1 is no change to the mark at all so why say it that way?...

I stated it that way to show that those marks would have no coefficient -- they would get only the single score.

*star*

[XHalt]

The rider coefficient is currently X3.

[atr]

The only one that is truly "horse" is gaits. The rest of them are all heavily rider-influenced, and it is arguable that gaits could be included in that, too.

[poltroon]

I would like to see harmony pulled out as its own collective mark, and I think that would be more of a rider mark than horse.

I would then make gaits a 1x mark at the lower levels, to emphasize training.

[Dressage Art]

Definitely NOT in favor of more marks under the collectives. I often wonder why we even have collectives.

Judges are trained to judge the horse. Do they train judges how to judge a rider? Just asking, as I really do not know.
Collectives are actually more important than individual scores and are harder to judge. Those reflect the training at large. 1/4 of the "L" dressage training is spend on collectives and further remarks and 1/4 of the "L" dressage training is spend on the rider equitation. As you can see collectives and rider scores are VERY important parts of judge’s education.

I'd like to see two separate scores for riders:

1. Rider's seat/equitation.
2. Effect of the rider's aids on the horse.

[ToN Farm]

Collectives are actually more important than individual scores and are harder to judge.
LOL. That explains why 95% of the collectives are a combination of 6&7 with the occasional 8 for gaits. The only purpose the collectives have to to repeat the average score of the individual marks.

Why penalize a rider for less than stellar equitation position when their horse is pleasantly accept the aids and responding properly??

I've read the equitation judging rules. Losing a stirrup is a huge fault. Yet.....taking ones foot out of the stirrup (or even losing the stirrup due to lifting the foot) likely has no adverse effect on the horse's way of going. If the rider position were to be judged separately, they would be penalized heavily for this. Do it in an equitation class, but not in a performance class. Just judge the horse's performance. Why does it matter if the performance is poor due to the horse's inability or the rider's inability?????

[angel]

A rider losing a stirrup is indicative of a very crooked horse, so while nothing changes from the rider losing that stirrup, it happens because the horse's motion is already badly constructed. It means that the rider could not feel the horse's crookedness and fix it prior to the stirrup being lost.

[ShotenStar]

...

Why penalize a rider for less than stellar equitation position when their horse is pleasantly accept the aids and responding properly??...

Why does it matter if the performance is poor due to the horse's inability or the rider's inability?????

The statements surrounding the Dressage Committee's design of the Performance Standards indicate they want to prevent riding that is so bad as to be abusive to the horse ... all the banging on backs by unbalanced riders, jerking on the curb rein, etc. Some of the issues raised in the discussions on this and other BBs suggest that judges both not using the full range of scores and are giving 'decent' scores for the horse's part of the ride because the horse is doing the movments ... they do not 'punish' the rider with low scores on every movement when they see things like jerking on the curb. When they give an 'average' mark to the rider at the end, they are NOT conveying the message strongly enough that there is a problem with the rider .... riders who get 5's and 6's usually think they are doing OK.

So, would a wider range / more specific set of rider collective marks help judges convey to riders exactly WHAT is the problem area? Would more weight on the rider scores help adjust the final scores so that poor riding would not receive high marks? Is this a more targeted response / fix to the issue of 'abusive riding' that the DC is trying to address with the Performance Standards?

*star*

[ToN Farm]

So, would a wider range / more specific set of rider collective marks help judges convey to riders exactly WHAT is the problem area? NO! It's not going to help. Hey, the judges can use the comment section. Just tell it like it is. "Rider rotating back on the reins" "Rider bouncing in the saddle" "Rider see-sawing" "Rider restricting" etc. etc. etc. Wouldn't a written statement say more than a numeric score?

Sorry, but I cannot imagine the abuse being too severe if the horse is still performing well. Besides, why have a national scoring system that differs from that of the FEI, or Europe, which the DC is apparently wanting to measure up to.

[ideayoda]

The gait score IS rider influenced, ride a horse out of balance (ie onto the forehand/too shortened) and the purity IS influenced (as is the freedom). And that interaction should be clearly shown with arrows between any (of the) general impressions which are related. Too often this is not clear enough.

Yes imho dividing the elements of rider score into three parts WOULD encourage judges to note the weak/strong areas, and the scores might vary more as a result. It SHOULD be numerical AND COMMENTS. With dividing the rider score into SPECIFIC parts, the particular comment(s) might be more directed then they now are.

Why have a national scoring (or any other) system that varies from the FEI? We already do with the 3x for the rider. (The words we are shortly going to use of defining five will also.) What we choose to do nationally can highlight what we think is most important and/or want to develop.

And yes, too often things like poor riding (ie torqued curbs) is not reflected enough in other correctives (ie impulsion where the hindlegs only push) or in gaits (where the purity starts to disappear) or submission (where the horse is no longer up and open or long enough).

[Eclectic Horseman]

The only one that is truly "horse" is gaits. The rest of them are all heavily rider-influenced, and it is arguable that gaits could be included in that, too.


The validity of this assumption could be tested by equitation classes in which riders change horses like they do in some hunter equitation classes.

My guess is that it would prove true in some cases (horses with good gaits corresponding to their conformation becoming even better with a better rider) and not true at all in others (horses with mediocre gaits corresponding to their conformation and soundness not showing improvement.)

It would be an interesting test.

As far as tests of correct training being reflected in the scores, this says nothing about the rider competing at the show. The horse may be ridden 4 days a week by a trainer who is not the rider at the show. So this is another variable in the entire score that is not really reflective of the rider.

[sm]

definitely on the right track:

Personally I would like to just have the rider score (which is x3) divided into three parts.....alignment/correctness of seat x1/effectivityx1/timing of aidsx1 That way the poorly aligned seat would be addressed. Effective riding would be rewarded or really lowered....and the riders would not just be patted on the head for steering around.

The rest has to be kept in order, since riding is primarily about the horse (and preservation of gaits) and the PROPER training.



similar to SGray's comments, and I don't know enough to tell which is preferable:

I believe that the issue remains with the judging. TPTB made an attempt to address rider problems in previous years by raising the coefficient on Rider from 2 to 3.

BUT - large but - judges have stated that as long as the horse gets the jobs done, even if despite the rider, they have been instructed that they should give a 6....that 5's and below only come into play if the rider is grossly interfering with the movements of the horse.

So, that change in coefficient, while well intended, did not have the desired effect. Leading to the current rule change proposal.

Perhaps, instead of raising the coefficient, they might have split the “Rider” section.

Currently: Rider (position & seat; correctness & effectiveness of the aids) X 3.

So – problem to be addressed is bad riding – split “Rider” into two scores, each with a coefficient of 2.

“Rider Connection” (seat, reins, legs) -- this part would address bouncing butts, jabbing hands, banging legs, ....

“Rider Effect” (use of aids and execution of test) -- this part would address the outcome of the test....that the rider knows how, when, where to ask the horse for the various movements.

Instituted for the national level tests this could let judges better pinpoint where problems lay.

THAT is my rule change proposal

[merrygoround]

A rider losing a stirrup is indicative of a very crooked horse, so while nothing changes from the rider losing that stirrup, it happens because the horse's motion is already badly constructed. It means that the rider could not feel the horse's crookedness and fix it prior to the stirrup being lost.

Not necessarily. Riders lose their stirrups when they pull their knees up do to an insecure seat, at the sitting trot and canter. Of course that makes their seat even more insecure. :)

[Eclectic Horseman]

Not necessarily. Riders lose their stirrups when they pull their knees up do to an insecure seat, at the sitting trot and canter. Of course that makes their seat even more insecure. :)

Riders also can lose a stirrup when the horse spooks and spins. :winkgrin:

[rebecca yount]

Okay, here's the report. Ducking and running, flame suit on:

Along with an “R” dressage judge, this past weekend I attended and competed in a large, 3-day USEF licensed dressage competition. We were there for the first two days of the show and returned home on Saturday after our classes. The judge and I both rode in the competition and did well, getting ribbons in all classes and each winning one. Anyone wondering about scores can email me dryount@yahoo.com -- our scores were in the mid to high 60s. I rode for 3 different judges. My companion rode for 2 different judges.

The judge/competitor I was with is very aware of the controversy and discussions regarding the performance standard. We observed at the show with this issue in mind. Please bear in mind that what follows is my opinion based on my observations (so limited data) and experiences at this show. The show was very well-run, excellent footing, stabling, and all other conditions. The management was top-notch and we will return to this facility for shows run by them.

There were several “textbook” examples of the kind of riding about which Janet Brown Foy and others report being extremely concerned. We were appalled by what we saw in some cases, and it matched what has been anecdotally described by Janet. In one case, a 3rd level test, the horse was inverted, back dropped and locked, overweight (sorry, had to say it) rider slamming up and down on the horse’s back, kicking, poking with spurs, jerking on the curb rein. We felt horrible for the horse and yes, what we saw made us want to snatch the riders off, untack the horses, and put them in a nice comfy stall. The horses were saints. We understand why people concerned about horse welfare would want to put a stop to this kind of riding.

But guess what? The 3rd level test in the double bridle as described above got 60% and change—from an “S” judge. That’s a score toward a Bronze medal, and it would get a point according to the “performance standards” proposal. We saw another similar test, ridden by a JUDGE but in a snaffle, and it got a 55%. I watched the judge for this class (not the rider/judge but the judge for the class) staring off into the stands while at least one movement was being performed.

In the warmup area a little later in the day, there was the rider whose test scored 60% and change, going around in the same manner—banging on the horse’s back, spurring, kicking, jerking on the double bridle. And there was the TRAINER, yelling at the rider to “KICK him KICK him, he’s not even trotting!” And yelling “GOOD, GOOD” when the horse was inverted, back dropped, stumbling along the best he could, mouth open, bulging neck, “horizontal” curb shanks. And the TRAINER is also a JUDGE. So the TRAINER/JUDGE clearly appeared to be condoning this kind of riding and supporting the rider to show, clearly indicating that things were “good”. Then the person goes into the ring and gets above a 60%, and thinks “Great, I’m doing okay “. I was so disgusted that I spoke to the trainer, saying that the reason the horse wasn’t trotting was because the rider was jerking on the curb rein, and pointed out this was what, in part, probably motivated the “performance standards” proposal. The trainer did not respond.

Then I went to find the technical delegate, who was completely on the same page, even stating the rider’s number, and told me that he had been watching the same horse and rider in the warmup. The TD noted that while the riding was painful to watch, there was nothing that had yet crossed the line into abuse as defined by the rules. We had a long discussion about the situation and also the performance standards proposal. The TD said he was going to keep watching this rider and trainer.

The second situation involved another rider, also fairly large for the horse, who was banging on the horse’s inverted back and jabbing the horse in the mouth (snaffle bridle, lower level, but it was equally painful to watch). The warmup, also being directed by a trainer (but a different one), was not going well. The horse looked, IMO, stiff/sore behind—e.g. kept changing leads behind, pinning ears, flattened, dropped back, rider double bouncing, stirrups too long, unable to post correctly, etc. Since things were not going well, the trainer got on the horse and schooled it (in rather a rough way, imo—but still not “abuse” as defined by the rules). This all made the rider late, and the announcer was calling for the rider to get into the ring or be disqualified. The rider jumped on and trotted over to the ring across pavement and gravel. The test was painful to watch, with the horse struggling mightily, changing leads behind, resisting I am sure out of pain, the whole 9 yards, and I was relieved when it ended, thinking that the horse would get the tack off and go into the stall. I heard the trainer talking to the other people from the group something about what a big step the rider had taken going from schooling to recognized shows. I said to the trainer “The horse looks like it hurts behind”. The trainer said something to the effect of “Yeah, well, that’s life”. I was then absolutely horrified to see the trainer get on and school the horse MORE. The horse was lame. My companion later saw the same thing occur to the same horse. The score for the test I saw was around 50%. I looked around but was not able to quickly find the technical delegate, and then had to get ready for my own test. I am very sorry for that and I will write the technical delegate a letter.

After these experiences (this is not the first time I have seen atrocious riding and coaching), I certainly have a renewed understanding of the motivation to protect horses from abusive riding. And I agree with it. I just don’t agree with how it’s being approached and handled.

HOWEVER. What I saw was the responsibility of the judges and the trainers (one of whom IS a judge). One of the RIDERS on an inverted, stiff horse was a judge. They were either directly or through scores telling these riders that what they were doing is okay. These trainers ought to be ashamed of themselves. They should take their riders home and REFUSE to help them at a show until they can at least have an independent seat and hands. And they should be sanctioned by their fellow trainers and judges. Everyone needs to speak up.

While I hate seeing this kind of riding, I don’t know what the answer is—I think it might partly lie in more close supervision and sanctions in the warmup. Maybe we need judges in the warmup. We also need judges to pay more attention and score rides according to what they see. We might need to give them more of a way to penalize or disqualify riders for this kind of riding. We probably need a RIDER proficiency test—but the answer, I am convinced, is NOT in getting scores at particular levels. It is not going to protect horses to put a qualifying rule in place. These three riders would not have been affected by a qualifying rule—one was training level and the two other 3rd and the score was over 60%. The riders we saw will just keep banging and jerking, getting 20 scores of 60%, or get “grandfathered” in by getting a bronze medal. The judge would be grandfathered in also.

Riders and trainers need to be better-educated. They need to get scores that will be a real wake-up call. There is no way that ride should have been 60%. Trainers who do this type of thing maybe should be punished and sanctioned—or maybe public opinion will cure them. Judges should be encouraged and supported in scoring more accurately. Horses need to be protected, but it won’t happen through making riders get qualifying scores. These riders would have received points. And ridden more and more abusive tests. So—the performance standards proposal won’t fix this. Yes, we need to fix it—but the DC needs to find a better way. I am available to help.

[SillyHorse]

:( What a sad commentary about the state of training, riding, instruction, and showing.

[rebecca yount]

I just wanted to also make it clear that what we saw at this competition was not ALL bad.
There were some lovely riders and horses. Certainly the awful stuff was the exception--but it IS what the DC is talking about.

There was a wonderful little Quarter Horse mare who did, with her very nice rider, a nice Intermediare (!) test that, while not as brilliant as some, was much more pleasing and IMO what dressage is all about than lots that we saw. She beat some fancy WB horses, too. I told her rider what a nice job he did.

Saw lots of lovely rides/horses at all levels. But the relevant things to this discussion were the ugly ones.

[Eclectic Horseman]

Thanks for your thoughtful observations, Rebecca.

But especially regarding the judges involved (rider/trainer/judging judge) it raises the huge question of WHY? Clearly, their tolerance of bad riding isn't out of ignorance. At least it shouldn't be if they are recognized judges. So what else could it be? :confused:

How can we address the problem unless we identify the cause? Do these judges need more education? Or are they being political? Or corrupt? I mean what on earth is their motivation? :confused:

[Dressage Art]

Why penalize a rider for less than stellar equitation position when their horse is pleasantly accept the aids and responding properly?????

"Pleasantly" is a relative word. But in the rule book the perfect aids have to be nearly invisible and affective. That combination is not easy to achieve, but it still should be a goal of every rider.

In my opinion we are not judging the horse, but a "team" of a rider and a horse, thus, I need more tools to judge rider. Now, the wording, the scores are strongly focused on the horse. That is promoting flashy horses not correct riders. I'd like to see an emphasis that will promote correct riders as well.

[Dressage Art]

Thanks for your thoughtful observations, Rebecca.

But especially regarding the judges involved (rider/trainer/judging judge) it raises the huge question of WHY? Clearly, their tolerance of bad riding isn't out of ignorance. At least it shouldn't be if they are recognized judges. So what else could it be? :confused:

How can we address the problem unless we identify the cause? Do these judges need more education? Or are they being political? Or corrupt? I mean what on earth is their motivation? :confused:

There will not be just ONE cause. Just like there are many different dressage trainers around, there are many different dressage judges around - all of them have different motivations, believes and backgrounds. USDF and USEF do their best to merge those vast experiences in to cohesive result of judging.

I would welcome more education for judges, but how many judges will be able to afford it? I spend about $5K on just a very first step of dressage judging "USDF "L" program (fees, hotels, travel, meals) and that was quite a hard hit for my wallet. That new saddle that I wanted to buy for my mare has to wait now...

Will riders be willing to pay $5 extra for their entries that can go toward the ongoing education of registered judges?

[Eclectic Horseman]

There will not be just ONE cause. Just like there are many different dressage trainers around, there are many different dressage judges around - all of them have different motivations, believes and backgrounds. USDF and USEF do their best to merge those vast experiences in to cohesive result of judging.

I would welcome more education for judges, but how many judges will be able to afford it? I spend about $5K on just a very first step of dressage judging "USDF "L" program (fees, hotels, travel, meals) and that was quite a hard hit for my wallet. That new saddle that I wanted to buy for my mare has to wait now...

Will riders be willing to pay $5 extra for their entries that can go toward the ongoing education of registered judges?

In this day of online videos and training, through which one can get an advanced degree, it should not have to cost that much for continuing education for judges.

But I am not even sure that the problem IS ignorance. More like negligent or wilful disregard of the objective standards. I agree that there is probably more than one cause. But what will address that? Performance standards? Collective marks? Oversight? Penalties?

[sm]

I think an "S" judge should be educated enough. I'd like to say any judge should be educated enough --- or else why hire them in the first place to provide feedback.

I believe better communication tools are needed (rider marks). I believe judges need to score correctly and make sure the score sheet CLEARLY reflects the non-sufficient aspects. If 50 is sufficient... why did that test score 60+.

[evenstar]

I believe I was at the same show, in a non-riding capacity, and I've got to say that I went into the weekend pretty much opposed to qualification criteria, and came out of the weekend convinced that something HAS to be done. I guess I had never really focused before on what was going on in the arena. I was always too involved in my own rides and my friends' rides.

But, oh dear! :eek: I saw some really bad riding at 2nd level - test 4, where theoretically you're knocking on the door of 3rd level, not test 1 where the rider can be forgiven for not keeping the balance and collection consistently. Is "bad" an overstatement? I don't know. But so many of the riders needed to be on a longe line to establish a seat. Some of those rides really were hard to watch. And they are going to go to third level possibly, when they haven't come near to meeting the requirements of 2nd.

But they don't know that because their trainer maybe hasn't told them, or doesn't know either, and they aren't given low enough scores to get the point across. Judges can make comments on the tests that will tell a rider the truth of things, but unless that's backed up by a score closer to 50% than 60% I don't think the rider will pay enough attention.

I do agree that performance standards based on what is essentially a test of the horse (it's a Horse Show, not a Rider Show, after all) aren't going to have the desired affect, and I don't like the idea that some pretty bad riders are going to end up grandfathered in.

Sigh. :confused:

[SGray]

you won the Quadrella of horse show bads - bad riding/coaching/training/judging


........In one case, a 3rd level test, the horse was inverted, back dropped and locked, overweight (sorry, had to say it) rider slamming up and down on the horse’s back, kicking, poking with spurs, jerking on the curb rein. We felt horrible for the horse and yes, what we saw made us want to snatch the riders off, untack the horses, and put them in a nice comfy stall. The horses were saints. We understand why people concerned about horse welfare would want to put a stop to this kind of riding.

But guess what? The 3rd level test in the double bridle as described above got 60% and change—from an “S” judge. That’s a score toward a Bronze medal, and it would get a point according to the “performance standards” proposal. We saw another similar test, ridden by a JUDGE but in a snaffle, and it got a 55%. I watched the judge for this class (not the rider/judge but the judge for the class) staring off into the stands while at least one movement was being performed.

In the warmup area a little later in the day, there was the rider whose test scored 60% and change, going around in the same manner—banging on the horse’s back, spurring, kicking, jerking on the double bridle. And there was the TRAINER, yelling at the rider to “KICK him KICK him, he’s not even trotting!” And yelling “GOOD, GOOD” when the horse was inverted, back dropped, stumbling along the best he could, mouth open, bulging neck, “horizontal” curb shanks. And the TRAINER is also a JUDGE. ......., probably motivated the “performance standards” proposal. The trainer did not respond.

........ I said to the trainer “The horse looks like it hurts behind”. The trainer said something to the effect of “Yeah, well, that’s life”. I was then absolutely horrified to see the trainer get on and school the horse MORE. The horse was lame. ........After these experiences (this is not the first time I have seen atrocious riding and coaching), I certainly have a renewed understanding of the motivation to protect horses from abusive riding. And I agree with it. I just don’t agree with how it’s being approached and handled......

[Dressage Art]

I think an "S" judge should be educated enough. I'd like to say any judge should be educated enough --- or else why hire them in the first place to provide feedback.

You would think, but not long ago judges didn't had to even RIDE above Training Level to judge GP! They also didn't have to go thru educational programs, just submit recommendation letters and be accepted to be a judge by USEF. There were not enough judges back then. There are still some judges who judge GP now that never rode GP themselves.

New for the last 15 years judges must go thru education and pass it with exams, judges must earn certain scores on the certain levels to be able to progress up the judging ladder. Judges must attend the judging seminars and continue their education. I heard that it takes on average about 20 years to become an "S" + lots of money and the pay for a day at the end is 1/2 of what a good dressage trainer can make from a day of training lessons. So many good dressage trainers don't even bother becoming judges b/c they'll have to take a salary cut.

It's easy to demand more education from judges and put more risk and weight on them. but everything comes at a price, if you want better judges, you need to find the way to either pay for their education or either give them a good salary at the end of their education - currently judges are spending a fortune for their education and ending up with a salary 1/2 of what they make as trainers. While this situation persists, it may be quite difficult to demand more and more from judges with out giving anything back to them.

So how is that for a thought: next time when somebody will see Hilda Gurney at C, remember that she lost about ½ of her income for that day by accepting to judge you and others. Please remember that when tempted to put even more demands on judges, yet complaining about the high cost of showing.

[ise@ssl]

Rebecca - I feel your frustration and understand it 100%. As a breeder - I've reached my point of just not wanting to breed, train and attempt to sell EXCELLENT horses who have a correct foundation of training to riders/trainers who will torture these horses with the "face grab - spur stab" dressage that is across the board and at all levels in this country.

I'm not sure if adding more scores for the rider will help but if a rider gets an effective mark of 1 or 2 - it would definitely affect the score.

We are planning to significantly reduce our breeding program just because we can't stand to send our horses out to be ridden badly when sold and know they will have tremendous physical pain and not be able to present their full athletic ability due to HORRIBLE RIDING. We give them a good foundation of leg into receiving hand and then cringe when we see the pull the rein - kick the sides - and balance of the horse's mouth riders that want well bred horses with "FEI potential". Grrrrrrrrrrrr.

And don't get me started on the Judge to Judge connection. I could provide a list of Judges that receive scores when showing that are GROSSLY HIGHER than they should be. It seems to be some unwritten agreement that judges will not score other judges with scores they clearly deserve -.....much lower than what they receive. It's a silent Quid Pro Quo - which assures these judges of receiving this special treatment in the future. Where it usually shows up as reality is when we have judges from other countries - then the scores are usually much lower.

I honestly feel there should be a rule that allows a judge to DISMISS a rider if the riding is either physically hard on the horse or putting them into a position that completely prevents them from moving correctly.

[ideayoda]

I want to know what: "a rider for less than stellar equitation position when their horse is pleasantly accept the aids and responding properly" means? Is this a horse with truckling obedience (vertical/shortenedetc)? Or is a horse moving in a steady tempo offering a steady flexion, but not 'round' enough (for the tastes de jour)? And what is 'responsding properly'? The typical second level lateral movements without resistance and laying NO ground work for further training?

What is 'stellar equitation'? Alignment of the body parts? Or steady responses to methodical aids? The point of equitation per se is the rider can routinely produce the same reactions in the horse, and work toward refine, and a properly trained horse.

The proof of refined equitation imho is that the aids are not noticable, the horse is in a steadily balance (hopefully more uphill etc as the horse continues with its training), and the goals of the level are being met. Whether the rider looks like the rotund body of Bubi or the long lines of Reiner misses the point.

[angel]

If judges supposedly know about the horses accepting the aids, why are so many horses that are being ridden overbent getting good scores? Nevermind the rider's position with shoulders slumped forward and toes reaching to find the stirrups. Kudos to the horses that perform fairly well in spite of their riders! Oh! And while we are on the subject, how about when those judges ride and flop on every stride of the canter!

[ise@ssl]

Ditto to Ideayoda's comment about invisible aids. When I watch Dressage tests - if I'm looking at the rider's positions, leg movements, hands, head movement etc. SOMETHING IS VERY WRONG. And that boink, boink, boink with the spur on the side of the horse every stride.....grrrrrrrrrrr.

[ToN Farm]

I want to know what: "a rider for less than stellar equitation position when their horse is pleasantly accept the aids and responding properly" means? Is this a horse with truckling obedience (vertical/shortenedetc)? Or is a horse moving in a steady tempo offering a steady flexion, but not 'round' enough (for the tastes de jour)? And what is 'responsding properly'? The typical second level lateral movements without resistance and laying NO ground work for further training?

What is 'stellar equitation'? Alignment of the body parts? Or steady responses to methodical aids? The point of equitation per se is the rider can routinely produce the same reactions in the horse, and work toward refine, and a properly trained horse.

The proof of refined equitation imho is that the aids are not noticable, the horse is in a steadily balance (hopefully more uphill etc as the horse continues with its training), and the goals of the level are being met. Whether the rider looks like the rotund body of Bubi or the long lines of Reiner misses the point.
Ideayoda, you are asking for better explanation of a statement I made. First of all, I do not think it is possible to ride a GP test that would win in today's ring and have the aids totally invisable; i.e. 'refined equitation', as you put it. I don't care who the rider is. I've watched Dr. Klimke's tests, and it's very easy to see his aiding.

What I call 'stellar' equitation, is a beautiful, textbook position with effective aiding. A horse 'responding properly' would be one that was putting in a good solid test that met or exceeded the test directives/objectives (a performance you would find acceptable, Paula).

I think we'll all agree that a great rider can get the best performance from a horse. All I'm saying is that some occasional 'unsteadiness' in the riders' body parts does not always have a significant detrimental effect on the horse's show ring performance.

[ideayoda]

There is a big difference between intentional uses of the aids/unsteadieness in posture/etc refined equitation. We would say that a torqued curb is VERY steady (probably intentionally employed) w/o any understanding of why this is so problematic. Too often what I see is riders steadily sawing horses r/l (with a curb) and while seating steadily btv (in their trunk). Imho we should look for stability and balance in the rider and positive effects of the aids upon the horse ie maintaining pure gaits/horses steady ifv (since it is requested in the rules as well).

The fact that a winning GP might not allow a perfected seat speaks volumes about is winning (or why) imho.

[Alpha Mare]

Rebecca, thanks for posting and also for the work on capturing the scores over the last year.

What I hear is that riders, with judge-level coaches, were riding poorly and yet the one had an acceptable score and the other had a lame horse. As the responsible parties (rider, coach) didn't see the problem we need a way to appeal (e.g. video or still picture) the rides and warmup to USDF/USEF to sanction the trainer and the scoring judge. You will not improve the situation unless the sitting judge for the class has feedback with specific examples. Also to correct the trainer coaching so poorly. Ideally this would be with a signature from the TD to attest that it was not an isolated moment but characteristic of the ride.

I think the call for the performance standard to qualify for 3rd level and above is due to incorrect judging at that level. The scores you describe and quality of that ride are not consistent with the directives of the test or the level.

**************************

In my younger days I was in 4-H and no horse could be pinned AT ALL in ANY class if lame AT ALL. I am constantly astounded at the tolerance of 'irregularity' in the dressage ring. The very most basic concern for the horse means that that ride should be excused from the ring and be told to go home and take care of the horse. Any trainer continuing to work the horse should be sanctioned.

!!!???!!!

[Hidden Pond Farm]

I know of a very successful training barn in our area that market to our general dressage enthusiasts that they ride "dressage for the show" rather than classical dressage. The trainers and their students are very successful in our area, doing well locally, regionally, and even at DAD. Yet to watch them in the warmup arena...:confused:

On top of this, it's usually true at the end of the day, you can find this same group sitting with the judges and TDs officiating at a local restaurant. Now I have said in past posts that I believe one solution lies in bringing judges, riders, and trainers together in a way that forwards the quality of our sport. And maybe a social meeting after the show is one way to do this. So in general I don't oppose of having a friendly meeting with officials at the end of the day. But, IM HUMBLE O, if the result is that the harsh warm ups and harsh riding methods continue with approval and ribbons, then local enthusiasts are getting the wrong message.

On a parallel note, I find it very interesting that the more this discussion ensues, it becomes clearer that the root of the problem goes much deeper than just bad riding....it circles right back around to the very people who should be the guardians of the horses and methodology of our sport...the very same group who started this proposal in the first place... the judges.

[lorilu]

But do we want dressage tests to become something like the "equitation horse" classes in H/J? Steady, obediant, easy to sit gaits, allowing the rider to "pose"? (I AM NOT SUGGESTING THAT ALL EQ RIDERS ARE LIKE THIS!!!)

I agree there is an issue.... my trainer is VERY position-focused.... but I think there needs to be some sort of distinction made between "equitating" and "effective and CORRECT aids"

L

[canyonoak]

I guess the basic problem is that dressage in the U.S. has always been a hobby-sport.

And now, all of a sudden, the up the DC want it to become a business-sport, a la certain European countries.

The PROBLEM is that it continues to be a hobby-sport as well in those countries, and sheer NUMBERS of RIDERS have created a business-sport cadre of elite riders.

The reason the performance standard will not work is that it will effectively eliminate much of the revenue-producing (and growth-stimulating) less-than-elite riders.

and for what purpose?

it is all rather silly, not to mention mis-guided.

it is like lopping off an entire foot because you have a bunion on your toe.

please note smiley face above to remove negativity from post.

[freestyle2music]

I guess the basic problem is that dressage in the U.S. has always been a hobby-sport.

And now, all of a sudden, the up the DC want it to become a business-sport, a la certain European countries.

The PROBLEM is that it continues to be a hobby-sport as well in those countries, and sheer NUMBERS of RIDERS have created a business-sport cadre of elite riders.

The reason the performance standard will not work is that it will effectively eliminate much of the revenue-producing (and growth-stimulating) less-than-elite riders.

and for what purpose?

it is all rather silly, not to mention mis-guided.

it is like lopping off an entire foot because you have a bunion on your toe.

please note smiley face above to remove negativity from post.


As long as the USA keeps importing these ODG (Old Dressage Gurus), I don't see any progress in the sport. Not now and not in the future.

Theo

[claire]

I know of a very successful training barn in our area that market to our general dressage enthusiasts that they ride "dressage for the show" rather than classical dressage. The trainers and their students are very successful in our area, doing well locally, regionally, and even at DAD. Yet to watch them in the warmup arena...:confused:

Kathy Johnson addressed this point in a thread on another BB: "The USDF as an organization is about showing".
The performance standards the DC proposed have to do with increased showing, and would *Not* the correct the "bad riding or horse abuse" (the DC's stated Problem Definition) OR be an incentive to have the "bad riders" receive additional training before moving up the levels.

It appears that the initial problem definition (bad riding/abuse of the horse) was used to gain the support of the $$$amateur base for the Performance Standards rule. I think it is good that people continue to question the problem definition, discuss and offer solutions...perhaps the USDF and USEF DC will begin to have more open communication with it's base (like the USEA???)

I think Kathy Johnson's post is spot on!)

I think the problem is bigger and more systemic than some bad rides with decent scores.

USDF as an organization is primarily about showing. Rider qualification scores and performance standards are completely about showing. Qualification systems are merely a bandaid on the heart attack. They discourage people from showing, so the really bad riders and trainers will stay home or at schooling shows and learn even less.

Showing is the greatest priority in the USDF instructor certification program. Everything is geared toward having those scores or teaching others to get those scores at each level. Awards, awards, awards, all about showing. I suspect if you look at the budget, the greatest portion goes toward competitions, awards, qualifying, etc.

So, your governing body holds a philosophy that competition and creating Olympic contenders are the highest goals. Education and certification of trainers are based around results at shows. The criteria for excellence is high scores and wins. It's a simple cause and effect: whatever scores well in the showring is the "right" way to do things (and so we end up with rollkur, double bridles at second level, horizontal piaffes, horses routinely BTV, gadgets, bigger spurs and so on).

Is the answer for riders to stop showing or god forbid for Paula to stop judging? NO!!! The answer is to expose more riders to better training and better riding, to teach them more about correct and compassionate ways to do dressage. I do not believe that education holds a high enough priority with the USDF and certainly not with the USEF. I think the biggest flaw in dressage is at the top of the pyramid and the garbage you see at shows is a trickle down effect.

(And just to throw in a tangential rant, why in God's name would we look to Europe, bastion of rollkur, for models of a qualifying system? Even if they produce Olympic champions, are their riders/trainers/system really better than ours, or are they simply better at "riding their horses down and showing them up"?)

[freestyle2music]

Who is Kathy Johnson :confused:

[Eclectic Horseman]

Kathy Johnson is a regular poster on the this board.

http://www.kathyjohnsondressage.com/

[claire]

And now, all of a sudden, the up the DC want it to become a business-sport, a la certain European countries.

The PROBLEM is that it continues to be a hobby-sport as well in those countries, and sheer NUMBERS of RIDERS have created a business-sport cadre of elite riders.

The reason the performance standard will not work is that it will effectively eliminate much of the revenue-producing (and growth-stimulating) less-than-elite riders.

and for what purpose?

Exactly, and so the Performance Standard does not seem to be a viable solution for either the stated problem definition : "Bad riding/Horse abuse"

or

The "unstated" problem: Growth of US Dressage as a business sport (like Europe).

So, what is the "real" problem definition? :winkgrin:

[Donella]

After attending a judging clinic this weekend where one of the 4th level demo riders was attrocious..bouncing all over, grabbing at curb rein ect I am VERY glad they changed the rider coefficient. If you aren't good enough to get a decent rider score you should probably get on a lungeline or adress that issue before getting into the showring. Otherwise..should be easy points.

[PennyRidge]

It is VERY INTERESTING to me that the tone of the conversation regarding Performance Standards has shifted since folks are now taking a good look at what is going on at the shows. I REALLY appreciate Rebecca and the others who have posted that their eyes are now opened to the fact that there IS A PROBLEM and that horses are really getting mistreated by their well-intentioned riders.

Obviously, the consensus here is that the original qualifying system that the DC proposed is not a way to stop these riders. It sure would have slowed them down, but their original proposal is no longer the issue.

Now that we are having an HONEST discussion about the real fact that horses ARE being hurt by poor riding, it seems that there is room for us to at least support the Powers That Be in an effort to keep these riders from continuing to move up the levels before they are ready.

I hope that they come up with something that will be effective.

[canyonoak]

<<Obviously, the consensus here is that the original qualifying system that the DC proposed is not a way to stop these riders. It sure would have slowed them down, but their original proposal is no longer the issue.

Now that we are having an HONEST discussion about the real fact that horses ARE being hurt by poor riding, it seems that there is room for us to at least support the Powers That Be in an effort to keep these riders from continuing to move up the levels before they are ready.

I hope that they come up with something that will be effective. >>


I feel rather like Alice looking through the looking glass in the kingdom of the Red Queen.

No. , the proposal would NOT slow down the riders. The proposal in any form will not only not slow down bad riding, it PROMOTES the bad riding by allowing judges to continue to watch bad riding and still reward it with qualifying scores.

We have ALWAYS been having an honest discussion. We have ALWAYS been having a serious discussion.
We have ALWAYS been having the ONLY discussion.

So far as I can tell, the BBs talk to one another, offer information, discuss relevant findings, and craft responses and analyze and study data.

The DC talks to itself.

I've already said this next statement on a different thread here but will repeat it now:

"I guess the basic problem is that dressage in the U.S. has always been a hobby-sport.

And now, all of a sudden, the DC want it to become a business-sport, a la certain European countries.

The PROBLEM is that it continues to be a hobby-sport as well in those countries, and sheer NUMBERS of RIDERS have created a business-sport cadre of elite riders.

The reason the performance standard will not work is that it will effectively eliminate much of the revenue-producing (and growth-stimulating) less-than-elite riders.

and for what purpose?

it is all rather silly, not to mention mis-guided.

it is like lopping off an entire foot because you have a bunion on your toe."

[rebecca yount]

Penny Ridge, I in no way am saying that a Performance Standard rule would prevent these riders from riding their horses this way.

My point is that the rule would NOT stop this kind of riding. In no way will it stop it--because it is not being scored as deserved, and because a lot of it goes on in the warmup and would continue to go on at home. Our data has shown, and now that the USDF is finally going to release to us the full years' data that they already have organized for the DC, will FURTHER show, that if there is "poor" riding (and I did observe some of what I THINK the DC is referring to), it is NOT being scored as such.

I think the onus is on the judges and trainers. They need to score it properly using the existing system, and the trainers need to become MUCH better educated.

[rosinante]

It is VERY INTERESTING to me that the tone of the conversation regarding Performance Standards has shifted since folks are now taking a good look at what is going on at the shows. I REALLY appreciate Rebecca and the others who have posted that their eyes are now opened to the fact that there IS A PROBLEM and that horses are really getting mistreated by their well-intentioned riders.

Obviously, the consensus here is that the original qualifying system that the DC proposed is not a way to stop these riders. It sure would have slowed them down, but their original proposal is no longer the issue.

Now that we are having an HONEST discussion about the real fact that horses ARE being hurt by poor riding, it seems that there is room for us to at least support the Powers That Be in an effort to keep these riders from continuing to move up the levels before they are ready.

I hope that they come up with something that will be effective.

Where is the discussion? Seems like a bunch of BB posters posting to each other. There has not been an invitaion for a dialog from TPTB.

Anyone who attends CDI's can see bad riding at FEI levels. How is this rule going to cure that?

[rosinante]

......
It's easy to demand more education from judges and put more risk and weight on them. but everything comes at a price, if you want better judges, you need to find the way to either pay for their education or either give them a good salary at the end of their education - currently judges are spending a fortune for their education and ending up with a salary 1/2 of what they make as trainers. While this situation persists, it may be quite difficult to demand more and more from judges with out giving anything back to them.

So how is that for a thought: next time when somebody will see Hilda Gurney at C, remember that she lost about ½ of her income for that day by accepting to judge you and others. Please remember that when tempted to put even more demands on judges, yet complaining about the high cost of showing.

Judges should NOT be paid to make a career of judging. Lots of people devote time, energy and dollars to getting certifications that don't return an income.

The best judges I have scribed for were not "professional judges."

Barnabas Mandi, Hungary, O judge is a physician
Michael Handler, son of Hans Handler chief rider at the SRS was in the commercial insurance business

and...of course, our favorite rider, Reiner Klimke, was an attorney.

When you make horses your "business" the horses lose out. The term "amateur" meant "someone who does an activity for the love of the sport." When business intrudes, money trumps.

[PennyRidge]

Rebecca wrote:
<<Penny Ridge, I in no way am saying that a Performance Standard rule would prevent these riders from riding their horses this way.>>

I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear...I KNEW that you were saying that these riders wouldn't be prevented from riding this way. I am WITH you!

What I am trying to say is that it seems like (TO ME anyway) the tone of the conversation here on this bb has changed somewhat in regards to this issue.

Without looking back at the threads, I recall having the distinct impression that many of the posters here who spoke out against performance standards were using the argument that horses WERE NOT being "abused" at say, 2nd level. I also distinctly recall some posters who believe that it is OUR RIGHT as riders to show in any damn (can I say damn on this bb?) level we want. We are AMERICANS and we have our RIGHTS!!

Thanks to your brave report of your recent show experience, people are beginning to acknowledge that there is ADEQUATE evidence that riders are HURTING their horses by riding beyond their ability (unfortunately they don't think their scores reflect that they are having a problem). And if the purpose of dressage is to be GOOD for horses, then I see the need for TPTB to enact some means of protecting the welfare of the horse.

You have pointed out that there is BIG PROBLEM with judges who give these kinds of riders scores near 60 percent because it validates the riders' feeling about themselves that they are "satisfactory". And if the rider is receiving a FIVE for the RIDER's position in the collectives...then the judge is definitely telling the rider that he/she is "sufficient" in skill.

I don't know the answer, but I am praying for wisdom for the DC as they come up with their new proposal! I hope some of you will join me in this effort!!

[PennyRidge]

canyonoak wrote

<<No. , the proposal would NOT slow down the riders.>>

I don't know why you keep claiming that the proposal won't slow them down....we don't KNOW what the proposal IS.


<< The proposal in any form will not only not slow down bad riding, it PROMOTES the bad riding by allowing judges to continue to watch bad riding and still reward it with qualifying scores.>>

Just because you say it doesn't make it true. A qualifying system can CERTAINLY slow down riders from moving up the levels. I know of riders personally who would probably never have moved up to third level to torture their horses with the double bridle (and yes, I opposed the rule allowing a double at 3rd) if they had been forced to qualify first. I also know of a GP rider who fancied herself an Olympic contender who would never have gotten to that level. She broke down at least 3 horses along the way to GP. The DC's original proposal would have slowed her down by YEARS just waiting for her to get to THIRD level.

It is simply not true to state that a proposal in any form will actually promote bad riding and will not slow down bad riders.

canyon oak:
<<We have ALWAYS been having an honest discussion. We have ALWAYS been having a serious discussion.
We have ALWAYS been having the ONLY discussion.>>

Like I said, just because you say it doesn't make it true. This has been the ONLY discussion??? You're funny.


<<So far as I can tell, the BBs talk to one another, offer information, discuss relevant findings, and craft responses and analyze and study data.>>

No argument from me on that point. The BBs certainly Do that and I find it worthwhile to read the bbs.

Regarding your comments about dressage being a hobby sport...I agree. However, it has been my observation that more and more people are interested in partaking and a lot of them want to get to the top fast. The old standards of learning how to sit well take a back seat to the pursuit of "fun" and "ego boosting". With more competitors than ever and more shows every year it seems...more horses are paying the price. So what if it is a hobby sport? Does that lessen the need to protect the welfare of the horses?

You clearly have the idea that the DC is all about promoting themselves, their businesses and the elite riders. I completely disagree...while it may be true that these things ARE important to them, I think their motivation is to stop the kind of riding that they are seeing more and more at the shows. Just like those examples that Rebecca gave. This is their motivation, first and foremost...IN MY OPINION.

Horses are more and more bred for movement, riders want fancier and fancier horses before they can realistically ride them. Times...they are a changin'.

[SGray]

First point - the judges are charged with controling what happens INSIDE the competition arena. Much of the bad riding (likely a majority) happens outside the arena - in warmups. Perhaps the use of Warning Cards - see http://www.usef.org/documents/ruleBook/2008/2008Chapters/Chapter%2010.pdf page 16 of 36 for more details - should be expanded and encouraged.


GR1034 Warning Card - Stewards and Technical Delegates.
1. A Warning Card may be issued by a Steward, Technical Delegate, or Competition Official working in any of these capacities at the competition to any competitor, spectator or participant for improper conduct, or for noncompliance with the rules, provided the issuer considers the conduce not severe enough to cause the issuer to file formal Charge.....

[SGray]

Second point - it seems that there is much angst surrounding the double-at-third - perhaps the DC should propose that the use of the double have qualification criteria since they have stated that they don't want to recind the rule allowing it??

[SGray]

Third -- how about some type of sanction for the trainer/coach whose student shows abusive or boarderline abusive riding - it the person is signing on the entry form they are taking some responsibility/credit for the pupil --- so perhaps the trainer/coaches' name(s) should be out there in the show results

those with students who ride/place well will be proud and get well deserved good publicity - those with students who ride/place at the other end of the spectrum.....

and for those who talk of the students who ignore their trainer and show above their skill level against trainers advice - trainer does not sign, student signs as trainer and takes all responsibility.

[rosinante]

Second point - it seems that there is much angst surrounding the double-at-third - perhaps the DC should propose that the use of the double have qualification criteria since they have stated that they don't want to recind the rule allowing it??
Perhaps a coefficient for the "bridle" as part of the rider score. 5x for use of the snaffle.....1x for use of the double.

Any horse should be able to do a 3rd level test in a snaffle bridle....any horse that is properly on the aids should be able to do a GP test on the snaffle. Watch the SRS riders, the curb reins were looped on most of the stallions.

[SGray]

Perhaps the USEF could negociate some type of deal with an electronics company for bulk purchase of video cameras of some type that could be offered at discounted prices for TDs, Stewards and other show Officials - something small, easy to use and carry so that documenting the bad riding would be easy. They could set up a message center to receive video clips sent from the show grounds to be filed under the 'bad' competitors' USEF #.

[canyonoak]

SFAIK, "welfare of the horse" is the foundation commitment for judging dressage as a sport.

The phrase "welfare of the horse" is the underlying provision of EVERY national federation and internationa federation having anything remotely to do with horse sport, let alone dressage.

The reality is --there will always be a bell curve in any competition or human activity.

In dressage, this holds true whether here, Germany, Holland --even at the SRS (Spanish Riding School).
The reality is there will always be riders who are not wonderful.
Most of them are not abusing their horses.

They are ineffective, they do not have enough timne left in their lives to become an elite rider.
BUT--they are NOT abusing their horses.

They ARE concerned with the welfare of the horse.

The problem is that the DC is looking in the wrong direction.

In order to understand how to ride better, riders need education.

Education that presumably comes from their trainers and riding instructors.

The Standards Proposal would be better directed at figuring out how to educate the segment of the the dressage sport world that directly influences what we see in the arenas--ie, the trainers and instructors.

[oldschool]

The reason this judgement of who should be "allowed" to show is fruitless because ,like figure skating, it is a subjective sport. In jumpers, you make the time, go clear, you win. end of story. Dressage , on the other hand , hsa so many schools,(French, Spanish,German, etc.) there will always be someone that says a differing school is "Bad" riding. That is exactly why this proposed system is for the birds. I've seen Hilda Gurney ride all my life. Do I want to look like her or ride like her? Heck no. I'd rather ride like Steffen Peters if I could. Does this mean she's a "bad" rider? No. She is one of the hardest working and most dedicated trainers around.She has her own style and it has served her and clients well. My point is, that the powers that be should be grateful to us mere plebians(sp.?) that are willing to spend $$ we could probably put to better use according to our accountants. There as many bad trainers and judges as there are bad amateurs. Leave us simple peasants to enjoy our horses, be humiliated in the show ring if need be, take our $$ and go on with your usdf lives.

[SGray]

Judges should NOT be paid to make a career of judging. Lots of people devote time, energy and dollars to getting certifications that don't return an income.......

well if we want to emulate all things European then don't we take away pay for judges? change to hotel, travel and lodging?

[ideayoda]

Good idea as far as I am concerned. Imho, the judges should be assigned by lottery as well, and take good use of the local judges (as they do in the va/md area). And in figure skating, the skaters 'test up' (with three evaluators) before they compete at the next level.

[oldschool]

I stand corrected ideayoda. Maybe that is why figure skating is so full of anorexic hypertense little girls who do it only to make their stagemoms proud after the initial joy has been sucked out of them. Plus, the majority of dressage in America is supported by proffesional middle aged amateur women, plus the occasional one here and there with supportive husbands. I think if you can be a CEO, lawyer, doctor, etc., one should be able to ante up, ride their horse in whatever G.D.level they want and accept the score. Why does verything have to be so friggin' regulated? Things were just fine the way they were. Do the powers that be have so little to do with their time they have to come up with this nonsense? What are they? politicians? Rant over. This topic has touched a nerve . Sorry.

[poltroon]

Rebecca wrote:
<<Penny Ridge, I in no way am saying that a Performance Standard rule would prevent these riders from riding their horses this way.>>

I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear...I KNEW that you were saying that these riders wouldn't be prevented from riding this way. I am WITH you!

What I am trying to say is that it seems like (TO ME anyway) the tone of the conversation here on this bb has changed somewhat in regards to this issue.

Without looking back at the threads, I recall having the distinct impression that many of the posters here who spoke out against performance standards were using the argument that horses WERE NOT being "abused" at say, 2nd level. I also distinctly recall some posters who believe that it is OUR RIGHT as riders to show in any damn (can I say damn on this bb?) level we want. We are AMERICANS and we have our RIGHTS!!

Thanks to your brave report of your recent show experience, people are beginning to acknowledge that there is ADEQUATE evidence that riders are HURTING their horses by riding beyond their ability (unfortunately they don't think their scores reflect that they are having a problem). And if the purpose of dressage is to be GOOD for horses, then I see the need for TPTB to enact some means of protecting the welfare of the horse.

You have pointed out that there is BIG PROBLEM with judges who give these kinds of riders scores near 60 percent because it validates the riders' feeling about themselves that they are "satisfactory". And if the rider is receiving a FIVE for the RIDER's position in the collectives...then the judge is definitely telling the rider that he/she is "sufficient" in skill.

I don't know the answer, but I am praying for wisdom for the DC as they come up with their new proposal! I hope some of you will join me in this effort!!

Pennyridge, I agree that the tone has shifted again, but I'm not sure if you were here at the beginning. Indeed, the very first reaction was that the riders getting in the high 50's who would be stopped by the rule are the riders on limited horses who have tests covered with "needs more fwd" while riders who are just hanging on to their more bombastic horses are getting over 60 while they bounce.

Worse - what will those riders end up doing to get "more fwd" to get those elusive move up scores? The trainers will get out the whip and spur - and the formerly happy, slightly dull, 58% horse becomes an unhappy, more electric, 63%. I've seen it happen again and again. The judges don't intend this, but they end up encouraging, rewarding, almost requiring a less happy horse.

Rather than these elaborate schemes of scores to move up that add paperwork and inconvenience, we need to give inappropriate riding the 3's and 4's. Riders who get 3's and 4's will know that they've made a mistake and need to go back. If you give them 5 and 6 and wring your hands and talk about them behind their backs, they'll never even know that they ARE considered a problem.

We lack clear communication between judge and exhibitor just as we lack clear communication between horse and rider.

[SGray]

......Now that we are having an HONEST discussion about the real fact that horses ARE being hurt by poor riding, it seems that there is room for us to at least support the Powers That Be in an effort to keep these riders from continuing to move up the levels before they are ready......

PennyR - I've been meaning to look this up for a while

it is a previous thread on the rule change proposal

I think if you read it you may better understand how some posters came by their opinions

http://chronicleforums.com/Forum/showthread.php?t=128570&highlight=rule+change

page one of five

[PennyRidge]

Poltroon wrote:

Pennyridge, I agree that the tone has shifted again, but I'm not sure if you were here at the beginning. Indeed, the very first reaction was that the riders getting in the high 50's who would be stopped by the rule are the riders on limited horses who have tests covered with "needs more fwd" while riders who are just hanging on to their more bombastic horses are getting over 60 while they bounce.

Worse - what will those riders end up doing to get "more fwd" to get those elusive move up scores? The trainers will get out the whip and spur - and the formerly happy, slightly dull, 58% horse becomes an unhappy, more electric, 63%. I've seen it happen again and again. The judges don't intend this, but they end up encouraging, rewarding, almost requiring a less happy horse.

Until the DC gives us their new proposal, it seems a waste of time to keep rehashing the old one, but I want to continue to reiterate my position that riders scoring 58% on average are not just there because their horses are limited movers. I am of the STRONG opinion that an effective rider CAN score in the low to mid 60s ROUTINELY. If a horse has 3 pure gaits and isn't too terribly conformationally challenged, then there is no reason that they should be scoring in the 50s.

What I have observed is that most of the riders who claim that their horses aren't moving well enough due to "genetics" are VERY MUCH IN DENIAL that the movement would be much improved if they rode the horse better.

There are people TODAY who are competing on non-warmbloods (quarter horses and the like) at fairly high levels and they are scoring above 60 percent.

This is not the argument at hand, I know, but I get very tired of hearing riders complain that the judge is unfair to them because they are on a quarter horse or a non-warmblood. It's not JUST THE HORSE that is limited...many times it's the RIDER. Those same riders who are getting in the 50s on a non-fancy horse would probably score in the low 60s on a fancy horse (when they ought to be scoring near 70% given the horse's gaits). YEs, the fancier moving horse beats the lesser mover when the riding is equal. But the average moving horse isn't "done for".

The riding simply needs to improve.

Did you guys read the post from the person who wanted to know if a baucher was a legal bit? She was looking for a bit to help keep the horse from pulling on her. She said she didn't want a riding lesson, just an answer about the legality of the bit. That same poster admitted she didn't know if she was on the correct diagonal about a month ago in another thread. And she now wants a stronger bit to keep her horse from pulling....this is a classic example of what so many people are like who ride dressage...they want to SHOW, not really develop their seats.

aaargh..I might be ready to blow soon:D:eek:

This talk about giving riders 3s and 4s is just a LOT of talk. Many of the posters who claim that they want judges to give these scores would be OUTRAGED when the score was given to them. My prediction is that they would simply QUIT riding dressage because they would be so discouraged. Most of them will not say, "gee, I must need more lessons"...they will say, "that judge is biased against me....doesn't know a good horse from a hole in the head, etc, etc"

Too many adult amateurs live in total denial of their limitations. Perhaps we ALL do. I use to think I was a much better rider when I was at the lower levels. Then the more I learned, the more I realized that I knew VERY LITTLE back then. The more I learn, the more I realize I didn't know.

Already these "bad" riders who are getting a "5" for rider position get comments from judges that tell them that their "effectiveness of the aids" are the problem and they smile and go on to the next level! Giving them a
"4" will just demoralize them, in my opinion.

[sm]

The riding simply needs to improve.

And the judges need to score fairly when they see insufficient. Neither one of these were adressed adequately in the first proposal, maybe will be adddressed in the next.

[ideayoda]

But the qualification necessity will be negated by the (proposed)new meaning of 5=marginal. Scores will go up to 60%, and everyone will be qualified/happy. Right?

[oldschool]

Is it just me or is this a circular logic kind of thing? If you're right, and everyone starts getting 60's regardless, then why don't we just keep it the way it is? My head hurts.

[poltroon]

Until the DC gives us their new proposal, it seems a waste of time to keep rehashing the old one, but I want to continue to reiterate my position that riders scoring 58% on average are not just there because their horses are limited movers. I am of the STRONG opinion that an effective rider CAN score in the low to mid 60s ROUTINELY. If a horse has 3 pure gaits and isn't too terribly conformationally challenged, then there is no reason that they should be scoring in the 50s.

I'm all right with that. My problem isn't actually that people scoring in the 50's can't advance. If they had to stay in 2nd until they could get two scores above 60 by riding well (ie, doable in one or two shows if you've nailed it), I'd be all for it. No problem. (20 scores was ridiculous.)

My problem is, that from what I've seen, that riders/trainers stymied in this way, under the current judging system, are rewarded by the judges when they take the horse home and crank it and spank it and ride more aggressively and more abusively. The horse is less happy, the rider is worse, and the scores are better.

THIS is my problem.

[canyonoak]

So dressage will become the only sport in which everyone will do well?

The only sport in which there will be no bell curve?

My head hurts from the spurious logic being applied here to a non-problem.

We have a sport that may be growing, but for sure it is not growing strongly at this time.

We have a sport that is hurt more than some other by economics and service economy crunch.

And yet--the most important thing our steering committee can come up with is a proposal that is guaranteed to cause a drop in the ranks .

This whole notion of horse welfare and the abuse of such--please. Anyone wants to see horse abuse, I am sure anyone who has mastery of Google can point them to much better targets than some over-achiever in a double bridle zipping about an absolutely flat arena from one letter to another.

Please--where is that great quote from the Colonel: 'ladies telling other ladies what to do.'

yes--that is exactly what this amounts to.

[Dressage Art]

Judges should NOT be paid to make a career of judging. Lots of people devote time, energy and dollars to getting certifications that don't return an income.

The best judges I have scribed for were not "professional judges."

Barnabas Mandi, Hungary, O judge is a physician
Michael Handler, son of Hans Handler chief rider at the SRS was in the commercial insurance business

and...of course, our favorite rider, Reiner Klimke, was an attorney.

When you make horses your "business" the horses lose out. The term "amateur" meant "someone who does an activity for the love of the sport." When business intrudes, money trumps.

There are judges for whom horses are not their business and who are amateurs and USEF allows judging dressage and still maintaining an Amateur status. Most of AAs who judge do that to share their time and knowledge. Most of pros who judge do that to uphold the dressage standards and give back to the community. I personally don't know any judges who are doing judging to make a living on that. However, there are always less people who are ready to volunteer than people who are ready to benefit from other people volunteering.

[oldschool]

I agree whole-heartedly with canyonoaks. This is getting nuts.

[DJ]

I had an interesting weekend that I learned a lot in. First let me say, I was one of the people chiming in, saying that the judges have a scale, they should judge the rides accordingly. I've shown schooling shows in front of r and R judges with decent scores, so I felt ready to finally jump out there and show recognized. Also, the qualification discussions here have been a catalyst to me to pull up my big girl panties and just do it.

I took an mare that was not in GREAT condition, but we have been schooling second level movements at home and she has been under saddle for 6 years so I felt like we should be able to do training level in our sleep. Ususally at schooling shows we score in the 60's. This weekend I rode T-1 and T-2 on Saturday and Sunday. I rode with one judge on Saturday and another on Sunday

On T-1 on Saturday, my mare was "up" and slightly tense, compared to how she can be. T-2 was better, but I still didn't have her complete attention because she was busy whinnying. :rolleyes: mares. My scores were 51 and 53 percent. I was okay with the actual scores, the tests felt inaccurate and not as big as this mare can do. But I was SO confused by the commentary...most of it was "above the bit" . I was saying around to my friends, I get the score, but I don't understand the comments. She was up, but her face was on the vertical. :confused:

Then I rode on Sunday. I focused on the half halts and getting crisper transitions . I also spent time making sure that she was using her hind end more. The mare, for her part, was much more relaxed and attentive to me. My scores were 59 and 62. Different judge, and the comments were different. These actually were giving me direction to go in. But suddenly after all the negative stuff I had said on Saturday , I remembered our discussions here. I said to the girl who got a 3 for a bad transition from my Sat judge: "well if we want them to score it how they see it, we are going to have to buck up and accept that they didn't like something about how we did it. I am going to go home and look at my videos with my test and see if I can figure out what she meant. " That didn't please my cohort much as a 3 really stings. My 4's didn't feel too awesome, but I think a 3 would feel A LOT worse.

Sunday night I was home and sat down with the tape to try to figure out: good judge/bad ride, or bad judge/meh ride. OMGosh. She was ON TARGET 100% in fact, she actually was kind, really. I don't have mirrors at home, and I have been riding by myself, and the mare had been faking me out with her nose about 2" or so "above the bit" I could still "feel" her, it wasn't totally upside down, but it was enough to be obvious. The other judge was right too. The difference between the two days was very apparent.

I learned: I need to not be so quick to pass judgment on the judges. Just because mare can have 7 movements, doesn't mean she is. That being rewarded with the numbers on that scale appropriately doesn't feel very good, but it helps me ride better. That the judge had to have a lot of integrity and courage to stand in the face of some VERY disgruntled riders. My kudos to her! And that the difference between judges and their scores isn't always that one is good and the other is bad, it could be your ride....\

Oh. To get back to topic, my collective marks were on the money too. I didn't like getting a 5 for the rider, but she circled "effectiveness" What it said to me was that I was doing the right things, but I was not having the desired effects. That was actually a perfect description of what was happening. I think overall the collective marks actually work, if the judge indicates the areas of that section that bring the score down.

I hope this helps some of you all too. When I go to the next show, I am going to with hold judging the judge until I see the test. I can't really see what is happening and he/she can

[PennyRidge]

GOD BLESS YOU, DJ!!!!

One thing I would like to add, and you probably already know this, but for the benefit of anyone reading...please don't think that "above the bit" and "on the bit" is completely related to a horse's head position. From what I know, the L program is teaching new judges not to use those terms because riders hear "above the bit" and go home determined to crank their horse's heads down! "above the bit" usually means that the back is dropped and the horse's neck is tight and rigid and that they are not moving correctly from behind. It's not just about head position. The head position is only a small symptom.

And don't forget that a horse can be BEAUTIFULLY "through" and the nose still in front of the vertical. A nose in front of the vertical is a good thing when everything else is in place.

I just want to caution you not to get too concerned about head placement.

But, again...may God truly BLESS you in your riding endeavors!!!!

[Pony Fixer]

I prefer a test in which the judge uses the range. I'd much rather get 4s-8s on a test than the "straight 6/7s". It very clearly identifies my weak areas (which I usually have an inkling of ahead of time);), as well as let me know what we are doing well.

For instance, in the last show I got a 1. On a collective movement. My horse broke during a massive half halt (he was spooking), and I never did a flying change, but instead just picked up the new lead. He was generous, actually, since it was not shown I assumed I was getting a 0. Clearly I knew what I was getting and deserved, and since the rest of the test was darn good, I still got over 61%. But I would have had over 64% had I even had a bad change (a 4 or 5).

It's not usually a surprise to me when I see a 4 on a movement. Either because there was a big mistake, or a big resistance or whatever. But sometimes it is, and then the vid or pics never lie. So glad I get those!

I say, bring it on. If I suck, gimme the gutter score. It FOR SURE motivates me. I've never gotten below a 6 on rider in the last 2 seasons, but if I'm hanging on the curb, feel free to let me know. Promise it won't happen twice!

[PennyRidge]

I wholeheartedly agree that judges should use the full range of scores. Many of them treat an "8" as if it is a 10!

And surely, they see more things that could be called "fairly good" (7) than what they actually score as such.

Once, when the planets and stars were all perfectly aligned, I rode a medium canter that I will never forget. The judges' comment for that movement was "Bold! Very Good!"(It seemed as if she felt as happy with the movement as I did.)

I got a 7 for the movement.

Perhaps it was because he was only a "7" mover, and she didn't think he could score higher than what his gait was worth, but I don't think that was it. I think that she saved 8s for what she deemed to be "excellent". Even though a 10 means "excellent".

If a 9 means "Very Good", then why didn't the score mesh with her comments? Judges definitely need to keep up their judging training and skills.

Don't you wonder...surely there are horses out there that a judge would say, "that horse has EXCELLENT gaits"... but do they really ever give a TEN for gaits? What about thinking, "Darn, that horse has REALLY GOOD gaits!". So, do they give it a NINE? I think not very often.

With all the range of movement we see out there in the horse shows...as a frequent scribe I can tell you that the gait score in the collectives range from 6 to 8 most all of the time. On occasion, a NINE.

[DJ]

Penny Ridge: I agree, she wasn't just above the bit in location of her head, it was more than that. Her neck was short, and her back was dropped (I was posting, I have a harding time feeling the back when I do that) and she wasn't using her hind end like she is capable of. My concern when I read so much of "above the bit" was exactly the same as yours. Was she looking for a head set? Maybe she had seen so many rollkur horses that her imaginary ideal had been affected? While it is more painful to my pride, I am relieved that the problem was exactly as she described and not a trend toward rewarding horses that are BTV. :)

[SGray]

All the discussions about Performance Standards -- the issues behind the proposal and possible alternatives -- caused my brain to start meditating on the Collective Marks.

Currently, the Collective Marks for T-4th are:

Gaits (freedom and regularity) x 2

Impulsion (desire to move forward, elasticity of the steps, suppleness of the back, engagement of the hindquarters) x 2

Submission (attention and confidence, harmony, lightness and ease of movements, acceptance of the bridle, lightness of the forehand) x 2

This is a total of 60 possible points for the horse.

Rider (position and seat, correctness and effect of the aids) x 3

Here there are a total of 30 possible points for the rider.

With the 2-1 ratio favoring the horse, it's easy to see how riders can overlook their role in the equation.

So, here's your thought experiment for the day: let's redefine the Collective Marks into a format that puts more emphasis on the rider and less on the horse.

How about something like:

Gaits (freedom and regularity) x 1
Impulsion (desire to move forward, elasticity of the steps, suppleness of the back, engagement of the hindquarters) x 1
Submission (attention and confidence, harmony, lightness and ease of movements, acceptance of the bridle, lightness of the forehand) x 1

A total of 30 possible points for the horse

Rider Position and Seat (correctness of posture, stability of seat, suppleness in the saddle) x 3

Rider Effectiveness (correctness and effectiveness of the aids, use of the bridle and leg aids) x 3

This would be a total of 60 possible points for the rider.

Would these kinds of Collective Marks give judges more tools to convey information to riders ... both negative and positive?

Is there another Rider Score that could be added?

What say you?

*star*


I like your wording but I'd go more with evening up the horse/rider verses reversing the horse/rider balance

Gaits (freedom and regularity) x 2

Impulsion (desire to move forward, elasticity of the steps, suppleness of the back, engagement of the hindquarters) x 2

Submission (attention and confidence, harmony, lightness and ease of movements, acceptance of the bridle, lightness of the forehand) x 2

Rider Position and Seat (correctness of posture, stability of seat, suppleness in the saddle) x 3

Rider Effectiveness (correctness and effectiveness of the aids, use of the bridle and leg aids) x 3

thus moving from 60/30 to 60/60


{obviously the above is for Training - Fourth only}

[slc2]

'Gaits, freedom and regularity' i feel is ALSO a rider score!

[Eclectic Horseman]

'Gaits, freedom and regularity' i feel is ALSO a rider score!

To some degree. To a greater degree the score reflects the inherent value of the horse. They are not paying a million dollars for 3-4 year olds at auction in Verden because they have good riders..... :rolleyes:

[ShotenStar]

'Gaits, freedom and regularity' i feel is ALSO a rider score!

But I'm thinkin' that is a minority view for most riders ...

*star*

[sm]

when we have our independant survey [hint hint] can we include SGrays' comments in post 79 and suggest it as a counter proposal? It's close enough...

Be interested to see if it holds up to an overall vote. I think it's a beautiful solution...

[ShotenStar]

when we have our independant survey [hint hint] ......
Ouch.... I just got poked .... *Star*

[Holly Jeanne]

No thanks! Even growing up in 4-H I did better in pleasure classes then equitation. Ironically, I was showing a horse I trained. The one and only time I've shown dressage so far, it was also on a horse I trained. Total score was 74. something and one of the lowest scores was my rider effectiveness score. I must be pretty darn ineffective since my horses seem to be outscoring me. :lol:

[SGray]

I like your wording but I'd go more with evening up the horse/rider verses reversing the horse/rider balance

Gaits (freedom and regularity) x 2

Impulsion (desire to move forward, elasticity of the steps, suppleness of the back, engagement of the hindquarters) x 2

Submission (attention and confidence, harmony, lightness and ease of movements, acceptance of the bridle, lightness of the forehand) x 2

Rider Position and Seat (correctness of posture, stability of seat, suppleness in the saddle) x 3

Rider Effectiveness (correctness and effectiveness of the aids, use of the bridle and leg aids) x3

thus moving from 60/30 to 60/60


{obviously the above is for Training - Fourth only}


Gaits (freedom and regularity) x 2

Impulsion (desire to move forward, elasticity of the steps, suppleness of the back, engagement of the hindquarters) x 2

Submission (attention and confidence, harmony, lightness and ease of movements, acceptance of the bridle, lightness of the forehand) x 2

Rider Position and Seat (correctness of posture, stability of seat, suppleness in the saddle) x 2

Rider Effectiveness (correctness and effectiveness of the aids, use of the bridle and leg aids) x 2

[Dressage Art]

Collective gait score is judged based on the quality of the 3 pure gaits presented before a judge at a given moment in time. This is a so called "horse score".

If judge feels that a rider is negatively influencing quality of horse's gaits, then judge should reflect that in the "impulsion score", "submission score", and "rider score", but not in a "gait score". Dressage is a 50/50 team effort between rider and her horse. "Horse score" is not punished b/c of the detrimental rider. Just like "rider score" is not punished b/c of the detrimental horse.

"Impulsion score” and "submission score" clearly reflect that dressage is a team sport: those scores come from both horse and his rider.

[ToN Farm]

I am very opposed to any further breakdown of the score for RIDER. What is the point to nit-picking apart equitation so long as it is effective?? If a rider wants to ride looking down, heels up, piano hands, etc., that should not be penalized or even considered in any of the marks. Actually, I'd like to see the score for Rider removed. Also, I hope that those of you that are coming up with all these ideas are people that show. I don't like the idea of railbirds making up rules for those of us that are doing the showing. And something else......there are some very strong riders out there with tight seats and great upper bodies that have their horses in a vice grip, but they are so talented that it is not obvious to most of you.

[Dressage Art]

B/c some riders are confused that there is actually two parts:

1. How rider sits on her horse
2. How effective rider's aids are

How many times do we read on BBs posts about appearance of rider's seat? Sitting picture pretty or not? Visible aids? ----- A lot.

How many times do we read on BBs posts about if the aid came thru the rider's horse and made a positive difference? ----- Hardly ever.

I feel that there need to be more emphasis made on how rider is AFFECTING her horse - not how PRETTY she is sitting on her horse.

Though, I think that two separate rider's scores don't have to have any coefficients. It's a message that is more important than a number.

And something else......there are some very strong riders out there with tight seats and great upper bodies that have their horses in a vice grip, but they are so talented that it is not obvious to most of you.
true.

[slc2]

"minority view":

that warmbloods aren't born on the bit, don't automatically win, that showing is not intrinsically judged unfairly, that the tests aren't incorrectly designed, that rich people don't buy fancy horses and beat everyone and don't care about learning to ride, that quarter horses aren't always judged unfairly, that tests aren't all about the price of the horse, judges are not blind, etc etc etc.

[ShotenStar]

"minority view":

My statement referred to the idea that the gaits score was also a rider score -- my sense is that many riders do not interpret the score that way ... they see it as solely a horse score.

*star*

[slc2]

i think it's really both - just by not going forward, one can get a really crappy gaits score.

[Fairview Horse Center]

I would only like to change one thing - the #3 title "Submission" to "Harmony". They can inlclude submission in the sub language, but using Harmony as the title word would take the awful feeling out of the "crank and hold" score.

[SGray]

I am very opposed to any further breakdown of the score for RIDER. What is the point to nit-picking apart equitation so long as it is effective?? If a rider wants to ride looking down, heels up, piano hands, etc., that should not be penalized or even considered in any of the marks. Actually, I'd like to see the score for Rider removed. Also, I hope that those of you that are coming up with all these ideas are people that show. I don't like the idea of railbirds making up rules for those of us that are doing the showing. And something else......there are some very strong riders out there with tight seats and great upper bodies that have their horses in a vice grip, but they are so talented that it is not obvious to most of you.

it is only put out there as an alternative to the proposal for rider qualification - with the intent of trying to address the problems that have been articulated by members of the DC as what that change is aimed at

[sm]

I am very opposed to any further breakdown of the score for RIDER. What is the point to nit-picking apart equitation so long as it is effective??

To address the DCs comments of abusive riders. The top two problems seem to be (1) the bounce-jab-bounce riders and (2) those competing with horizontal curbs.

Anyway, it's not judging "equitation," it's judging effectiveness of aids. Which has everything to do with dressage=training.

Take away dressage = training and what you have left is a gaited test.

[Eclectic Horseman]

To address the DCs comments of abusive riders. The top two problems seem to be (1) the bounce-jab-bounce riders and (2) those competing with horizontal curbs.

Anyway, it's not judging "equitation," it's judging effectiveness of aids. Which has everything to do with dressage=training.

Take away dressage = training and what you have left is a gaited test.


Ah, but trained by whom?

[ideayoda]

As far as submission, harmony is already there: #3 already has 'attention and confidence, harmony, lightness and ease of movement, acceptance of the bridle, lightness of the forehand'.

[Fairview Horse Center]

As far as submission, harmony is already there: #3 already has 'attention and confidence, harmony, lightness and ease of movement, acceptance of the bridle, lightness of the forehand'.

Yes, I know, but the title is submission, which is much more powerful as a title than the descriptive phrases. It makes people crank and hold to DEMAND that submission. (You WILL cower to my whim). Submission is a POWERFUL, forceful word. Key word force.

I thing putting the emphasis on Harmony would change many riders thinking.

[ideayoda]

Imho each word of the general impressions IS defined both in the rules and in the ( ) beside the words, so how can anyone mistake what the definition is??? Albeit the rules did take replace 'truckling obedience' recently (although that is what we see in some horizontal curbs in horses). And what is light, balanced or free???Hmmm. That part is problematic if we cannot even sustain judging of 'purity of the footfalls'. Just mho.

But for certain the rider scores would be more exacting if the rider definition was divided into parts. Effective no matter what the alignment (8 for effectivity, 5 for alignment, etc).

[SGray]

"truckling subservience" was one of my favorite phrases

it was so very descriptive

[Dressage Art]

But for certain the rider scores would be more exacting if the rider definition was divided into parts. Effective no matter what the alignment (8 for effectivity, 5 for alignment, etc).
YES!
or 5 for effectivity, 8 for alignment, etc. That gives a deeper picture of two different riders. Currently both of them can score the same mark with no insights.