Can score 60 on little horse (prospect) but Qualification only for $$$ horse?

[slc2]

Ok...I'm just trying to understand this....we just looked at a prospect, a nice little horse, an Arab, but not a big mover or fancy looking, let's say it's more a nice family horse and good 'learner horse'...and ah...the kind of horse that most of us have(survey here gave the majority of purchase prices of horses here as between 2k and 8k, I believe...)...and the comment was made he could score a 60 or so and be a nice 1st, 2nd level horse, and that he'd go for under 5k....

But...qualification is bad because it would descriminate agains those who don't have warmbloods and give the lead to the rich and privileged, and people with smaller moving horses don't score high enough to qualify so can never ride 3rd.....

But the score you have to get at train, 1st, 2nd would be a 62 (or points, with points for better score)....

On the one hand we look at a nice smaller horse of a non warmblood breed and reasonable price like most 'grassroots' dressage people pay for, and say he could easily score within 1-2 pts of what's needed, but qualification is unfair because only the warmblood $$$ horses can manage to get the scores needed?

I get the part that says that going to a lot of shows is expensive, but I don't get this part.

I know it's a little Stuart Blackish to say so, but did I turn off the appliance that makes me understand this? :yes:

[Anselcat]

I thought the proposed qualification scores to move up were only for Third level and above? Or are you talking about something else entirely?

Plus, why are you assuming that only $$$ warmbloods can get a 62% score? It may be easier on them... but that's exactly why they cost more. Just like a horse that's proven at second level will usually cost more than a prospect.

[Whisper]

Test scores at 2nd are required to qualify for 3rd. Here (http://www.chronicleforums.com/Forum/showpost.php?p=3107238&postcount=359) is the post I wrote earlier with a summary of the proposed qualifying standards, and a link to the full version.

60% is the average, not likely to be the score every time out. If another horse scores an average of 64.5%, and a 3rd horse scores an average of 67%, she will take ~ 37 classes to qualify, the 2nd horse will take ~10, and the 3rd around 7 classes. This is assuming that each average is +/- 2.5% with an equal likelihood of any score within that range, rather than a bell distribution (see spreadsheet (http://www.flickr.com/photos/82782698@N00/2385161895/)).

Non-WBs can still get good scores, but many WBs do tend to score higher on gaits. If all three horses have the same rider, or riders of equal quality, and are close to the same stage in their training, gaits easily make the difference. Sometimes you can find a great bargain - I know I've seen them, and feel the horse I am riding right now is one. He's an OTTB, but has had scores in the high 60's and 70's at 4th Level and YR with his owner's daughter a couple of years ago. I can't ride as well as she can, so I don't expect to duplicate those results right now, but I'm working on it. :D I've also seen a few quality WBs for part-lease, and some good deals on horses for sale. Driving a junk-heap that breaks down constantly, or getting a loan for 20k or more isn't mandatory.

[poltroon]

Sorry slc, but I couldn't tell which side of the issue you were arguing there.

[slc2]

I don't actually have to be 'arguing for a side'. I'm asking a question, which is, are we making a lot of assumptions that are groundless?

are our expectations of what our horses can score off? are we giving too much importance to a perceived advantage fancy gaited horses have?

I think there's a discrepancy between saying an average little horse can score near well enough to qualify yet qualification is unfair because it discriminates against average horses.

The answer with the calculations is helpful, it shows the lower scorer has to show more to qualify and that costs more, which has always been my concern since the qualification plan was announced, that people with average horses would have to show far more than they could afford, or was good for their horses, in order to qualify.

Most 'average' people can't afford to show more than once a month during a summer show season that lasts from may-august, and probably wouldn't show in that many classes per show. For me it would have meant only showing in about 9 or 12 classes in a year, and the math above doesn't support qualifying with that unless all your scores in every class you go in, are routinely high.

but either the predictions about an average horse prospect scoring up 60 are off or qualification isn't really discriminatory against the average horse. i think saying a limited family type horse can score around 60 or a little more is probably too optimistic, for one thing. i think it's more like 55-60, well ridden.

I think it's possible, but I am curious as to whether people will say an average horse can qualify if ridden very well. in other words if you can't get great scores for gaits, can you get the scores just by riding well and qualify without going in 200 classes?

do we overestimate the effect of fancy gaits and underestimate the significance of riding well?

We have so many people here say 'i kicked warmblood ass because i rode my little horse better than them', but we say an average horse can't qualify...

[canticle]

Why not get rid of the gaits score? Keep it in the FEI classes though so WBs still feel special. :winkgrin:

I think the fancy gaits that some DQs ooh and ahh over are flat out incorrect for many breeds (not talking about WBs). I'd rather lose knowing that my horse is a typy representative of his breed, rather than win on a generic, mediocre horse who happens to appeal to the judges.

It is really abuse to ride a horse that the judge doesn't prefer?

[Thomas_1]

What level are you ordinarily competing at?

What other horses do you have in competition?

I ask those questions because the best horse in the world will just turn out a mediocre performance with a mediocre rider.

Whereas a mediocre horse can turn in a good competitive performance with an outstanding rider.

[AnotherRound]

I know it's a little Stuart Blackish to say so, but did I turn off the appliance that makes me understand this? :yes:

You might, I'm not sure but I probably am not wrong, you MIGHT have meant LEWIS Black. :cool:

[oldschool]

Did you mean Stuart Little? or Lewis Black? anyway, I'm against the whole "qualification" fiasco on principle. If someone wants to make a fool of themselves and hey, have entry fee $$ who cares? If a judge is "tired of seeing bad riding" she needs to get a new job. I hear Starbucks is hiring. When did this sport start getting so nuts? Some of us just love the sport and art of it. Do we need to start a whole other league or association for the people who aren't so obsessed? Actually, that's not a bad idea. Let me know what you all think!

[Lambie Boat]

depends on the competition and where you are showing. if all the horses in a class a x breed, somebody has to win the class. And a 62% is not all that stellar so shouldn't be so hard to qualify. Might have to go to an extra show or 2 to get the needed scores.

for instance, a 1st level class at LEAC or Devon full of 6 digit WBs schooling 3rd level at home will beat the Arab or Appaloosa or whatever even if they go off course. A 1st level test in Montana or Idaho, where everybody rides an Arab or Appy, and the only dressage trainer around only got up to 2nd level herself, well......I see an easier time qualifying and riding in the year end championships.

purely hypothetical. don't taz me, bro

[slc2]

when i can't remember LEWIS, I know I need more estradiol.

yep feisomeday i won't taz. if the qualification is by points based on placings, i think that kind of scenario just gets really unfair. what it winds up with is the weakest riders do the best!

[Whisper]

I don't really see the discrepancy. If an average horse is in a class with fancier horses, but has better training and a better rider, it may be able to win, but it's likely that none of the horses will score very high. If the horses are roughly at the same point in their training and have riders who are equally good, the one with the fancier gaits has an advantage. In the specific case of the proposal, a rider who has a horse that is a "5" mover is at a serious disadvantage to move up, even if they ride very well, and the horse is well-trained.

[NMK]

Here are some points to ponder from my experience::

1 A fancy horse with an average rider may elicit a harsh score from a judge sympathetic that horse is not being ridden better.

2. An average horse with a good rider may elicit a better score from a jugde sympathetic to the rider that he/she does not have a better horse.

I've had both scores myself. What is enlightening is that the "average" horse has taught me to be a better rider. The fancy horse got the scores, and I did not work so hard to be a better rider.

The fancy horse is gone.

Just some thoughts.

Nancy

[Dancinglite2]

but either the predictions about an average horse prospect scoring up 60 are off or qualification isn't really discriminatory against the average horse. i think saying a limited family type horse can score around 60 or a little more is probably too optimistic, for one thing. i think it's more like 55-60, well ridden.

I think it's possible, but I am curious as to whether people will say an average horse can qualify if ridden very well. in other words if you can't get great scores for gaits, can you get the scores just by riding well and qualify without going in 200 classes?



The answer is yes they can and yes it has been done. I can't say my 15:2 hh half arab was exactly a world beater with movement. Nor can I say that I am a fantastic rider. I got the job done on a very willing horse that tried to please at every turn. Did he get 60 plus score..yup.

Did he qualify for championships..yup. Did he GET champion in those championships..yup. Did he compete against warmbloods..yup. What were his collectives scores for gaits. Mostly he got 6 or 7 and the odd time 8. Did he cost a ton of money..nope.

And I am pretty sure I am not the only one who managed this.

[Eclectic Horseman]

In many cases (except for breed aficionados) the person riding the non-WB buys a less expensive horse because he has less money. If he needs to go to more shows to get qualifying scores, then he needs to spend more money that he doesn't have, and will be likely to give up.

I am not just talking about breeds here either though. The person who has the wherewithal buy a schoolmaster kept in full training will also have the ability to get qualifying scores more quickly than the person who can least afford to do so.

Without qualifying standards, the more financially restricted person can still work her way up the levels with an "average" horse, by taking lessons and going to clinics and going to one or two shows per year. Post qualifying standards, this may not be possible. People will be priced out.