What are they teaching in the "L" judges program?

[sabryant]

I've notice in the last few years that lower level judges scores (what they reward) are diametrical to everything that is classical or competitive dressage. Please, there is not that much difference between the height of the poll carriage at Training and First levels. Horses at these levels have forehand tendencies, not that they are heavy and running but rather it is their natural/beginning balance becuase they have not yet started the long process of longitudinal supple-ing which brings the poll up naturally through developing strength behind. Horses at First Level don't, just all of a sudden, have the poll height of an FEI horse...foregoing all else, like whether or not the horse's back is up or a semblance of looking round. Judges seem to be rewarding everything that is counter to the process of correct balance in lower level horses. I wonder if this mistake in judging is not part of the problem of the "bad riding" seen at Second and Third Level?

[friesian4me]

As an L grad , I suggest you audit the course and see for yourself. You might just learn something!

[ideayoda]

A horses poll is naturally up, the horse is naturally open. Look at foals. What they are not naturally is steadily able to do is sustain a steady connection without preciptious flexion/roundness because of the energy it takes to support the rider. They must be slowly brought to light flexion (through figures/etc) and slowly allowed to offer minimial flexion as well as easily able to chew and seek fdo. Over time they allow a shorter base with energy (which allows for slightly more degrees of lifting/arcing of the neck which includes degrees more of flexion at the poll because of the greater compression of the hindleg joints).

While I might agree that the stages are misunderstood, the guidelines/rules are corrrect. But there is nothing correct about lowered per se (or low and round). That is much more problematic because the horses learn to lean on the forehand.

[ToN Farm]

I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying that judges are expecting Training and First level horses to be more up and together and penalizing the more 'hunterish' look?

[FriesianX]

I'm also not sure what your question is? As a fairly recent L grad, I can tell you we are NOT looking for FEI carriage in a Training (or First) level horse. In fact, some of the examiners even ask questions such as "at what level do you expect the horse's head to be consistently at the vertical and poll high"? And the answer is NOT 1st level, I can tell you that!

It is actually a fairly good education - lots of info on biomechanics, on what correct and incorrect gaits are (emphasis on purity), good review of rules, etc. As F4Me points out, it is well worth auditing.

Maybe you can give us some specific examples of what you are bothered by?

[Tiligsmom]

I've found that our local "L" judge graduates are all over the place with their judging. Some are overly strict, others are inconsistent, others are OK. Interesting, many, many of them judge more harshly than most R and S judges :eek:

I think it's because they are still very new and don't have the experience to be consistent and fair.

[WindsongEq]

Is there a question in here somewhere? I have passed the "L" and it is all about correct basics.
The purpose of training level is to insure that the horses muscles are supple and loose and that it moves freely forward in a clear and steady rhythm accepting contact with the bit.
The purpose of first level is in addition to the requirements of training level it has developed thrust and has achieved a degree of balance and throughness.
The purpose of second level in addition to the requirements at 1st, carries more weight on the hindquarters (Collection) and it shows the thrust required at medium paces and is reliably on the bit. A greater degree of straightness, bending, suppleness, throughness and self carriage. (Increased balance)
Maybe you should attend the sessions before knocking the program.....

[CapitolDesign]

I rode for the L program as a demo. In both cases, the instructors were on track about our strengths/weaknesses... matching test comments and what we were working on at home.

Am I wrong to assume the graduates were expected to judge similarly to their instructors' style in order to pass?

[hoopoe]

I would not automatically assume that every "r" judge is a recent graduate. Many have been "r" for many , many years.

Newly minted ones still need time to develop a consistent and experienced eye. So many shows don't use them since they are not versatile enough to be fully useful at a multi ring multi day show. L grads ditto, they need time to develop methodology, particularly beyond the schooling show ring.

I don't fully understand your original comment but will say I feel our judging here has been quite consistent and fair in the lower judges. Where I see a lot of disagreement is at multi ring shows between the senior judges. You can sometimes tell when someone is pushing an agenda. This is particularly true when you sit all day every day.

[sabryant]

No question really. Just musing my own question and realizing that maybe it's not the contents of the L program but the inexperience of the people coming out of it. It takes years to develop an eye so I do think the inexperience of the lower level judges is, in part, the reason why so many competitors are getting stuck at third level.

Ideoyoda....there are riders who can train a horse in a lower frame and keep them well balanced and without being on the forehand. Because most riders/trainers are not skilled enough to balance a horse there, low/round gets a very bad reputation.

[TouchstoneAcres]

In the dog obedience world judges must have trained to the Utility level. What training requirements do dressage judges have?

[sabryant]

If I could have things my way, I would not let anyone go through the program until they had trained, successfully, a horse or two from the basics to GP. And NOT allowing them to get the scores needed to enter the program on a horse that has been trained/made up the levels by someone else.

[FriesianX]

To enter the L program, you must have scores through 2nd level at USDF competitions. To enter the "r" program (able to judge through 2nd level at rated shows) you must have scores through 4th level (8 scores > 65% if my memory serves correctly) at USDF competitions, as well as many letters of recommendation, hours of work w/ judges, etc, AND have passed the L program with distinction.

I went through L and scribed for others going through programs in the area as well, so I've seen three different groups of hopeful judges (including my own group :winkgrin:), and can tell you, MOST are already trainers (there are a handful of us, including DressageArt and myself who are Ammies), and so they already have some ability to look and assess quickly, but as trainer, not as judge. Some of those trainers had also gone through the USDF Trainer program.

One of the other requirements to qualify to test for the L program is sitting and scribing with R or higher judges. Those who were serious about it sat many extra hours. I still jump at the chance to scribe for USDF Faculty members when they are judging in the area - it is great ongoing education :yes:

It is true, all candidates need to learn a consistent methodology and develop their eyes - and some are better at this than others. In fact, that is what flunks the most people - the inability to react quickly with a relevant comment, score, and move on.

Realize, not all L graduates got scores that passed with distinction - and without those scores, they can not move on to the "r" program. Also, not all intend to move on - and we are NOT judges until we are at least "r" - USDF is very firm in letting us know we are not official judges, we are "L graduates" ;). In most cases, L graduates spend a lot of time judging schooling shows and working toward their 4th level scores before applying to enter the "r" program.

The requirements are pretty stringent - USDF and USEF have worked together to really make it tough for people to get into the judging ranks. A lot of hoops to get through, and the need for both time and money. By the way, there is no requirement a person TRAIN a horse - although several of us in L got our 2nd level scores on horses we had brought through those levels. Judging is not about training - it is about assessing what is going on at that moment, and applying a consistent methodology of scoring in relation to the basics, movement criteria, and any modifiers. Those who confused training with judging did NOT pass the program, and in the mid-program evaluations, that was made very clear, this is NOT a training event. Do not train, do not coach, simply note what went right, what went wrong, score it and move on.

If any of you get a chance to audit the program (auditing is much less expensive and time consuming than entering the program), give it a try, it really is a great education!

[sabryant]

[QUOTE=FriesianX;3240709]. By the way, there is no requirement a person TRAIN a horse -
Judging is not about training - it is about assessing what is going on at that moment, and applying a consistent methodology of scoring in relation to the basics, movement criteria, and any modifiers.


This is where I have the biggest problem with the judges program. It was not until I got into the FEI levels that I really had a grasp on how I got there. My feelings are; if you cannot train what is correct, it is harder, still, to see what is correct. I know how long it took to learn what I have learned...a life time and some. I dare say the person trying to learn by watching would need a couple or three life times.

[FriesianX]

[
This is where I have the biggest problem with the judges program. It was not until I got into the FEI levels that I really had a grasp on how I got there. My feelings are; if you cannot train what is correct, it is harder, still, to see what is correct. I know how long it took to learn what I have learned...a life time and some. I dare say the person trying to learn by watching would need a couple or three life times.

In the past, training and competing at the FEI levels was the standard to become a judge. And there were (and are) huge differences in agreement in scoring methodology, standards, etc between judges. So USDF and USEF attempted to create a formal training and screening program for JUDGING which is not training and riding a horse, it is judging. Most will tell you it is an improvement on the old method - although it isn't yet perfect, of course!

I actually, respectfully, disagree with what you said - many who train to GP are not effective judges, and many very good judges are not GP trainers. There is a HUGE difference between sitting on a horse and feeling what is going on and what needs to be fixed, and sitting in the box at C and SEEING and judging the movement at that moment. I also AGREE with what you said in many ways, just not specific to judging skills (training skills, yes, yes, YES!!!, can I emphasize YES again, I agree!).

Sabryant, it sounds like you've been bothered by some of your local L judges (or r judges?) - perhaps you should look for an L program and get an idea of what is going on in the program and see how few people actually do pass with distinction? If you are dealing with some of the longer term "r" judges, you may be dealing with people who didn't go through the L at all! Another thing to do is let USEF and USDF know what is bothering you. Personally, I have been saddened at the huge emphasis on big gaits = big scores. I think if more of us get involved and let our voices be heard, well, maybe our voices will be heard!

[sabryant]

FriesianX, thanks for your very nice posts and your earnest thoughts. I see dressage here, in the U.S., as a the never ending circle going nowhere. Until knowledgeable people are in place, judging will continue to be an area of discontent for me. Have a nice Memorial Day...off and running for now. Thanks again!

[Capriole]

PVDA just ran an L program, and I thought the quality of the instruction was great. I was impressed and pleased with the vast majority of what was taught and how the candidates were being directed. sabryant, I'm surprised you didn't attend -- it wasn't that far from you, right? You could have judged for yourself.

[sabryant]

OH MY Capriole, I wouldn't last a half a day in one of those programs before they would kick me out due to my outspoken ways.

[Dressage Art]

OH MY Capriole, I wouldn't last a half a day in one of those programs before they would kick me out due to my outspoken ways.
I'm VERY outspoken and my fellow "L" program graduates can attest that I asked numerous questions and disagreed on some issues with our instructors. All of my questions were answered with detail and attention. None of them were swept under the rug. USDF "L" instructors really do take their time to explain and deliver their knowledge to those who are seeking it ;) However, I didn't "argue" instead I was "curious". I heard of some people who come to "L" programs to argue and that doesn't go very far ;) there is a difference between being "curious", asking questions and "arguing".

[Dressage Art]

"What are they teaching in the "L" judges program?" you can read some of my "L" program blog:http://www.dressageart.com/l_dressage_judge.htm Unfortunately some of it still under construction…

Judges are just eyes... + quick ability to spit it out useful verbal comments/numbers. Judging is different than physical (aka riding) abilities. Yes, FEI experience helps and most of successful graduates rode/trained FEI... but that could off been a while ago already, not everyone is lucky enough to have an FEI horses all the time. There are times that we all have to start again from Training level ;) No way can I afford to buy another FEI horse and it'll probably will take me years to bring up my current mare back to where I was again - IF she will stay sound!!! And that's a big "if" since my mare was already diagnosed with a mild navicular and had 9 months off last year...

In fact, that is what flunks the most people - the inability to react quickly with a relevant comment, score, and move on. Those who confused training with judging did NOT pass the program, and in the mid-program evaluations, that was made very clear, this is NOT a training event. Do not train, do not coach, simply note what went right, what went wrong, score it and move on.

***

I actually, respectfully, disagree with what you said - many who train to GP are not effective judges, and many very good judges are not GP trainers. There is a HUGE difference between sitting on a horse and feeling what is going on and what needs to be fixed, and sitting in the box at C and SEEING and judging the movement at that moment. I also AGREE with what you said in many ways, just not specific to judging skills (training skills, yes, yes, YES!!!, can I emphasize YES again, I agree!).

***

Personally, I have been saddened at the huge emphasis on big gaits = big scores. I think if more of us get involved and let our voices be heard, well, maybe our voices will be heard!

Ditto. I think out of 20 people who ended up taking final exam from both our "L" programs, only 8 (?) graduated with distinction? And out of those 8 people, as I know only WindsongEq currently in the small "r" program!!!! If that is not pre selection, I don't know what is...

[PiaffeDreams]

OH MY Capriole, I wouldn't last a half a day in one of those programs before they would kick me out due to my outspoken ways.

I was a demo rider in one of the sessions that DressageArt and FriesianX did, auditted some, and seemed to always be riding 2nd test 4 at the "D-sessions" they did (my horses got very used to a large group of people in folding chairs sitting close to the ring!). I was very struck by the HUGE difference between seeing what is going on in relation to the standards (judging) vs. seeing what is going on in relation to progressing through the levels (training) Not many people get that difference and now that I understand it, I see that more often than not a person's "discontent" with how they are judged stems from not comprehending that difference. There is another translation that has to happen from the test sheet and what it says about the ride that happened within that court for that 5 minutes and what it means in regards to the training of THAT horse by that rider and her trainer.

I really want to do the L program now. The little exposure really opened my eyes and taught me a lot. I wish they were more available because all riders and competitors would benefit. Not everyone there needs to become a judge and not everyone there will make the best judge, but for those who are open minded to what they don't know yet even if they think they do will really figure out a lot. I was very enthralled by the meaningful and detailed discourse that went on between participants and instructors that I heard. Outspoken isn't so much a problem, but sometimes you meet someone who is so busy speaking out they can't hear. :lol:

[Capriole]

Not many people get that difference and now that I understand it, I see that more often than not a person's "discontent" with how they are judged stems from not comprehending that difference.

The little exposure really opened my eyes and taught me a lot. I wish they were more available because all riders and competitors would benefit. Not everyone there needs to become a judge and not everyone there will make the best judge, but for those who are open minded to what they don't know yet even if they think they do will really figure out a lot.
I am biased, but I couldn't agree more. Honestly, I was shocked that everyone in our area didn't audit the program. I really believe if they did, there would be a dramatic decrease in the griping about shows and judging.

[sabryant]

Piaffedreams and Capriole, I would be so appreciative if you would explain to me this huge difference and thanks in advance!

[Dressage Art]

I was a demo rider in one of the sessions that DressageArt and FriesianX did, auditted some

WindsongEq http://www.chronicleforums.com/Forum/member.php?u=109450 was in our program as well. -- there are 3 of us here on COTH
I can't recall your tests, everybody looks the same in helmets, but I just want to thank you for being brave enough to ride affront of so many "judges". It takes so many volunteers to make this program. by the way, another "L" program is going on now with San Francisco chapter, but now USDF requires 2 years for it's completion, since so many complains that "L" program is too intense for only 1 year to finish it.

[sabryant]

Piaffedreams and Capriole, I guess it is a hard thing to explain. At this point in my career and being a professional for a good amount of years, I would not waste my money or my time entering a show unless I knew pretty darn well that I was going to win the class or come pretty darn close to it. I set my own STANDARDS very high, probably higher than most judges. I try to do this for my students but that is sometimes an impossible thing to do. I would have to say to you both that if you are not getting information about THE STANDARDS incorporated into your daily/weekly instruction (and maybe you are not listening to your instructors,) then your instructors are not worth their weight nor the amount of money you are paying. them.

[PiaffeDreams]

Piaffedreams and Capriole, I guess it is a hard thing to explain. At this point in my career and being a professional for a good amount of years, I would not waste my money or my time entering a show unless I knew pretty darn well that I was going to win the class or come pretty darn close to it. I set my own STANDARDS very high, probably higher than most judges. I try to do this for my students but that is sometimes an impossible thing to do. I would have to say to you both that if you are not getting information about THE STANDARDS incorporated into your daily/weekly instruction (and maybe you are not listening to your instructors,) then your instructors are not worth their weight nor the amount of money you are paying. them.

It must be hard to explain. Or at least I don't get it. Since I have no control over who enters a show, I only enter based on my plans and goals for my horse and I. If that means I'm the best one there, so be it. If I'm the worst, so be it. That's the wonderful thing about riding to a standard- winning is about achieving greater degrees of excellence to that standard not the standard of the others in the class.

I've had enough scores in the high 60's and into the 70's and not won a class and never considered it a waste of money. I go to shows where I don't even anticipate to place, and not for an unrespectable score. Maybe that's just the shows I go to. Either way, I just have more to learn and the experience I've gained in those competitions is more valuable than the cost of my entries. Perhaps thats the difference. I'm young and still learning at this point in my career. Fortunately, I have fabulous instructors whose standards are impeccable as both an FEI "I" judge and a USET competitor. I'll admit however to always needing work on my listening skills. As a professional educator, I've never met a single student who couldn't work on their skills in receiving, processing and comprehending information.

[PiaffeDreams]

WindsongEq http://www.chronicleforums.com/Forum/member.php?u=109450 was in our program as well. -- there are 3 of us here on COTH
I can't recall your tests, everybody looks the same in helmets, but I just want to thank you for being brave enough to ride affront of so many "judges". It takes so many volunteers to make this program. by the way, another "L" program is going on now with San Francisco chapter, but now USDF requires 2 years for it's completion, since so many complains that "L" program is too intense for only 1 year to finish it.

I really wanted to do the SF Chapter program, but it was just falling on all the wrong weekends with family, and business commitments. It was amazing the time you all had to dedicate. All the shows at CNDC, Starr Vaughn, Woodside.... from 2005 onward it seemed I was always riding one of my boys at 2nd and thus all of you were always there! Unfortunately, my horse who was a demo (he and I are pictured in last years USDF connection article on the L program in a sidebar about being a demo rider- big black bay Hanoverian at the halt/rein-back) was actually injured THEN but diagnosed not long after with an SI ligament tear. Last summer I finally got him back to regular training and showing doing Starr Vaughn at 2nd again. He was so happy and "there" that we went back to just training and moving up the levels before I show him again.

Did you do the "Upgrading the Judges Eye" course last year? the one with Trenna Atkins? There were just a couple of us non-L local trainers there. I really started to click on the distinction between judging to the standard vs. assessing the 'training issue' at that seminar. Her whole presentation was fascinating with the pics, vids etc. She asked for a lot of feedback from the participants and the "trainers" among the group wanted to make training related comments vs. training scale related comments. I found myself wanting to do the same. By the afternoon when there were live horses and riders in front of us it became so much more apparent and easy to formulate the comment that would be accurate, relevant, and explain the score.

[Dressage Art]

PD,
Yes, I was busy either scribing, sitting or doing “L” program 3 weekends out of the month most of the last year. (you have to have scribing hours and “sitting” hours to graduate) Since my mare was on re-hab – it worked out OK for me, but I have no idea how others did it, like WindsongEq who is a pro with about 40 students or FriesianX who is an AA, but an avid breeder with a whole herd of mares, babies and a handsome stallion waiting for her at home. I have many friends who really wants to do “L” program and was really encouraged by my positive experience, but when they looked at the schedule: it’s mostly on the holidays and during local shows – then many had to delay their plans just like you. Oh, I remember trying to find an experienced scribe during the weekend of Easter!!!! Holly cow!!! My friends are dedicated and very helpful, but to give up family plans of Easter weekend for the weekend away from your family scribing for somebody… that was a lot to ask! Thank you to 3 of my supper dedicated scribes! I couldn’t off finished “L” program with out you!

I missed "Upgrading the Judges Eye” course, but I really clicked with they way Trenna Atkins teaches. She was one of my instructors including final exams. I also know that she lurks here and wish she will come out and weigh on some of the conversations (even under the incognito name). On one of my schooling shows my scribe told me that I judge and give comments just like Trenna – that was a very nice compliment for me to hear.

[oldschool]

I guess the biggest problem{but one without a resolution} is the qualification process versus the subjectivity inherent in this sport. Any idiot can have their husband buy them a schoolmaster, learn to ride at 40, and at 45, do the "L" program, get their little "medals", have their logo embroidered on jackets, etc. and voila! they'e an "insta-expert!" It is up to the student and potential competitor to have due diligence. The "L" program, while certainly informative to those open to education, is not a guarantee of knowledgable graduates, much like our public schools.

[Capriole]

Piaffedreams and Capriole, I would be so appreciative if you would explain to me this huge difference and thanks in advance!
It would be less important for you -- I was talking more about lower level riders. Although I do think it would still be interesting for you. Also interesting is to sit at C or E/B and try to judge several tests in a row, with a real score and comment for each movement. It's harder (more tiring) that I would have expected. I often "score" rides as I watch them, but to do so formally and not miss anything is pretty demanding.

Even Linda Zang, for whom I have the greatest respect, has said that if she just spectating at a show, she may find herself surprised at some of the scores. She said spectating is very, very different from judging.

[Pely]

While being a good judge does require a good eye, and quick thought process, I agree with several of the above posters that there can be no substitute for experience.

Only a judge who has "been there, done that", can feel by watching and decide what is forgivable and what errors will be detremental to future training. That isn't something that can be learned by watching.

I find it hard to have a lot of respect for judges that haven't trained their own horses, or trained students, or worse, have to borrow someone elses horse to get the scores because their own is so poorly trained.

The current judges program is very, very well run and offers the best training that it can, but without experience, judges are really only seeing the surface, not the depth of the training.

[AZ TD]

I guess the biggest problem{but one without a resolution} is the qualification process versus the subjectivity inherent in this sport. Any idiot can have their husband buy them a schoolmaster, learn to ride at 40, and at 45, do the "L" program, get their little "medals", have their logo embroidered on jackets, etc. and voila! they'e an "insta-expert!" It is up to the student and potential competitor to have due diligence. The "L" program, while certainly informative to those open to education, is not a guarantee of knowledgable graduates, much like our public schools.

I audited an L program in AZ recently, not one of the participants was an idiot that learned to ride late in life on a school master, most were young professionals who trained their own horses, and the older participants had done the same. I think the person who buys the school master to get medals is not interested in becoming a judge. It is a lot of hard work. In session D they have to judge orally and justify their scores in front of the group. It is not for the faint-hearted.
Theresa

[FriesianX]

I guess the biggest problem{but one without a resolution} is the qualification process versus the subjectivity inherent in this sport. Any idiot can have their husband buy them a schoolmaster, learn to ride at 40, and at 45, do the "L" program, get their little "medals", have their logo embroidered on jackets, etc. and voila! they'e an "insta-expert!" It is up to the student and potential competitor to have due diligence. The "L" program, while certainly informative to those open to education, is not a guarantee of knowledgable graduates, much like our public schools.

I can tell you right now, those idiots are NOT passing the L program. We had several people who signed up for the program that might meet your criteria, but all of them either dropped out or were washed out by the D sessions, and NOT recommended for the exam! Only a few of us AAs survived the program and passed. And most of us had trained several horses and had been under the tutalege of GOOD instructors and trainers for many years. Yes, I am an AA, but I've brought along several horses now (never had the money for a schoolmaster, heck even for a BROKE horse), and my instructor/trainer has helped my eye tremendously over the 8 or so years I've ridden with her. And she is also an L grad and USDF certified through 4th level.

So, I don't think you're going to see many of those "idiot" people PASSING the L. We started with 20 people in the group, and about 1/3 of those never tested. Several others never passed, and others passed but NOT with distinction. And we were told that is was a very strong group - that our statistics were better than average.

You can buy your medals - especially the bronze, but you really can't buy a passing score from the L program. And - those who aren't dedicated aren't going to pass. The time involved - sitting, scribing, homework, studying, it is very intense. Like DA, I took a year off riding - and prior to that, delayed taking the test a year because I didn't feel I could commit the time to study that I needed (typical AA, I also have an office job besides breeding horses). Most AAs are NOT going to pass this test. Many trainers are NOT going to pass this test.

PD points out there is a huge difference between training and judging. And it is almost impossible to try to explain that in a posting here - you really need to go through the whole program as a participant, so you hear the faculty work one on one with the particpants. That comes out in huge doses in the D-1 and D-2 sessions as well!

We were also very lucky to have lots of ongoing education provided by our local dressage chapter (such as the Trenna Atkins clinic), and 3 different L programs and testings going on in the same region, so we could "double up" on our training! And, of course, we had some really GOOD demo riders (thank you PD and all the others who put themselves out there for a bunch of "wanna be" judges to chew you up in their efforts to learn).

Having said all that, I KNOW we don't graduate from L and are "insta-judges" - it takes time, time, time, practice, practice, practice. But training a horse to Grand Prix is NOT helping a person become a judge. Sitting with other judges, going to ongoing education with other judges, practicing judging - that is what it takes to become a judge. Training a horse to Grand Prix is what it takes to start the road to being a trainer (another long, tough road to travel).

[swgarasu]

Just a quick note to say thanks to DressageArt for posting the link to your experience in the "L" program- I really enjoyed reading it and I learned something! :)

[slpeders]

Not to get too sidetracked here, but our L program is going on right now -- the 2nd weekend was just recently. A friend of mine who is participating mentioned that she was surprised when they were told that in the 'stretchy circle' the movement should be counted down if the horse's nose goes below the shoulder. I said "you mean like straight down between his legs?" and she said she had asked that too and was told even if the stretch is forward, if it goes below the shoulder they were to take points off. Does that jive with what you all have heard in your sessions? It seemed wrong to me. How can the horse effectively stretch the back muscles if it can't go down?

[sabryant]

Not to get too sidetracked here, but our L program is going on right now -- the 2nd weekend was just recently. A friend of mine who is participating mentioned that she was surprised when they were told that in the 'stretchy circle' the movement should be counted down if the horse's nose goes below the shoulder. I said "you mean like straight down between his legs?" and she said she had asked that too and was told even if the stretch is forward, if it goes below the shoulder they were to take points off. Does that jive with what you all have heard in your sessions? It seemed wrong to me. How can the horse effectively stretch the back muscles if it can't go down?

Stretching with the nose poked out is not stretching in my book and lends itself to making the horse appear strung out. I would hope the most important thing they would want to see, in this exercise, is that the horse does not change his stride but is in self carriage. I think the exercise is more effective if the horse's nose stretches down toward the ground and does reach below the shoulder/wither.

[FriesianX]

Self carriage is not expected at Training and First level, where the stretchy circle is shown. What was emphasized is that the horse must stretch DOWN and OUT to CONTACT. No firm "cut off" line was given (such as no lower than shoulders, or no lower than bottom of abdomen), but it was important that the horse remain balanced and the rider maintain even contact. The stretch OUT is important so you don't get a horse that curls down. They don't want the nose poking out, they emphasize stretching DOWN and OUT following contact.

When the stretchy canter circle was expected at 2nd level (and I did L in that final year of the old tests), the emphasis was on self carriage in the circle and that the horse really couldn't go lower than it's shoulders and maintain uphill balance and self carriage. They also pointed out that very few people and horses were executing this movement correctly, and everyone was happy that is was removed from the tests ;) We actually some some REALLY good demo riders (FEI trainers) who were struggling with the 2nd level stretch canter circle.

One interesting thing about the L faculty - they all teach a little differently. It is really good that we get an assortment over the course of the program, so you hear the different tips and ideas they have to offer.

[sabryant]

I've know idea where they get this curling problem for the reason for stretching movement?? It should be to show that the horse is reaching over his back and seeking the bit with his hind legs as well as to make sure the horse doesn't fall on his face or change his stride when the reins are lenghtened. Self carriage doesn't just happen at second level. It's why no one can accomplish it. It should be in place before you go down the center line for the first time at Training Level.

[lorilu]

There is an article in the new DT or Connections... about the L program. I was a bit alarmed to see the part about riders needing to show "elegance" to get good rider position and effectiveness of the aids scores. I am not a little bitty size 24 rider, so "elegance" is something I aspire to but never quite achieve. I would hope that the new judges are not countng "elegance" too much, maybe just as a modifier, rather than a big part of the score (since the coeff for it is 3 now).

As an aside, I scribed for a candidate a few years ago. She passed with distinction. It was a wonderful experience and I highly recommend it to anyone. As a scribe, i saw more of the program than regular auditors do... well worth the effort.
L

[Pely]

Elegance is the ability to quietly move with your horse's movements, and apply subtle aids.

It doesn't matter if you are 90 lbs or 250. you can still sit still.

[Dressage Art]

Just a quick note to say thanks to DressageArt for posting the link to your experience in the "L" program- I really enjoyed reading it and I learned something! :)
You are very welcome, glad that you enjoyed reading it.

[Dressage Art]

One interesting thing about the L faculty - they all teach a little differently. It is really good that we get an assortment over the course of the program, so you hear the different tips and ideas they have to offer.
All of them look at the scores thru slightly different lenses: one arrives at the score intensely watching the biomechanics of horse and rider, another one arrives at the score asserting the quality of the horse’s gaits, next one judge the influence of the rider’s seat and so on... Ask them "why" and you'll get slightly different answers: it's b/c horse is not reaching/over tracking,... it's b/c the rider is restricting the movement with her/his poor seat/hands,... it's b/c horse's back is not freely moving in a relaxed manner,... --- all of those answers could be correct ones, but judges do tend to focus on particular signs that they are looking for...yet, all of them would come up with the same score and appropriate useful comment. It's like in a saying that there are many roads to Rome...

[sabryant]

Yikes, guess I have to eat some crow here! My student called last night to say that the show secretary had contacted him to say that the scorer had not added the rider collectives on his test which upped his score 21 points (7 and change percentage points.) that's more in line with where I wuold have scored his test so all's well and sorry about the complaints. I'd left before the class was placed so have yet to see the test sheet. An inoccent mistake and can happen anywhere/anytime...sorry L program grads!

[Capriole]

Verging far off topic now, but I am amazed at how often mistakes like this happen. Scorers make mistakes all the time. It's so easy, especially at the end of the day if you are tired. I was just at a recognized show where the scribe got two test sheets switched around, so that rider A got rider B's scores/comments and rider B got rider A's. The show was over before this was figured out. It makes me wonder how often this happens. I'm afraid it's way more common than I think. :confused:

[lorilu]

I think "elegance" is MORE than just sitting still! IMO, judging this falls into the same category as judging the non-traditional horse who does not LOOK like a dressage horse BUT HAS GAITS AND TRAINING AND ETC AND IS CORRECT, but since he is 15.2 pinto (maybe even DWB), he is scored lower.
L

[FriesianX]

I think "elegance" is MORE than just sitting still! IMO, judging this falls into the same category as judging the non-traditional horse who does not LOOK like a dressage horse BUT HAS GAITS AND TRAINING AND ETC AND IS CORRECT, but since he is 15.2 pinto (maybe even DWB), he is scored lower.
L

I don't think elegance has anything to do with the rider's figure - it has to do w/ being in harmony w/ the horse, not working against the horse. A rider who flops around on the horse's back is NOT elegant, a rider who follows the horse's motion is. I've seen plenty of big women who were very elegant riders in this way, and plenty of long legged slim riders who were NOT. I think it is aids that flow subtly, instead of being crude. I know there is a lot of concern w/ judges about riders who inhibit and hinder the horse's movement, so this is probably aimed at that concept.

Many of us ride "non-traditional" looking horses - my boy is pinto, very baroque (almost cobby), and scores quite well. I've only run into one or two judges who held his non-Warmblood look against him. Hehehehe, one judge even used the term "elegant" to describe him - WHAT - he is stout, sturdy, powerful, studly, cute as can be, but ELEGANT? Elegant is in the eyes of the beholder :yes:

[lorilu]

I hope so! But let's face it, when you say "elegance", one does not automatically think of a chunky rider with short legs, no matter how harmonious she looks. Or how invisible the aids, Or how sublte the corrections.

Hope your interpretation is getting thru to the L candidates.
L

[slc2]

It seems we are much more eager to have the judges qualify than to have riders qualify.

I feel that most of the judges are not wholesale incorrectly judging; a few make mistakes, that's life. I feel most have the understanding and score well.

I feel that when one sees only an overall score one can draw some misleading conclusions.

I don't feel the L program is teaching the wrong things. The instructors are very good for the most part.

If the L instructor looks at 2 horses, and says 'in this case, this one would score higher', and 'this one' happens to be a little poll low, that doesn't mean the instructor is saying, 'i like the poll to be low, the more the better'. It means in this case that horse will score higher.

Many things are scored, not just the position of the neck.

Too, I don't feel there really can be a 'correct training level position' or a 'correct first level position'. It just can't happen. Horses have different postures at different stages of training. A training level lipizanner may have a very different posture at training level than a warmblood. That doesn't make either of them wrong. A lipizanner is going to stretch out of HIS natural position, a thb is going to stretch out of HIS natural position.

I think many people assume at the lower levels the judge wants to see all the horses with the head and neck LOW, ideally, on quite a long rein. I don't think that's how it works (or the corrollary, the horse that stretches the lowest wins).

A good judge can see what posture is working for each horse, and what posture is an appropriate one for a given level. He can see when the horse is tight and held in and not thru his neck, vs too stretched out and low in the neck, which can also happen.

There IS a kind of guideline - at the top levels, the horse's nose needs to be at least about level with the point of shoulder. That comes about as his balance improves, and some will be a little higher and some a little lower. I think there's a point at which an upper level horse just can't have his head that low or he can't balance (Clayton's research showed that the height of the head and neck DOES affect balance).

I feel that a horse can still score very well even if he is a little tight or btv. The main thing at the lower levels is the horse is developing thrusting power. I know some feel a horse can't have any thrusting power if their neck is not just so, but I think it's important to watch with an unbiased eye and question that. There can be some things not perfect and the fundamental things still are good. The fundamental thing at the lower levels is developing thrusting power.

I think a lot of people get disgruntled when they don't score as they had hoped, and they look for some judging principle being wrong. I also think that when some people see a horse drop his poll a little they want the horse to get an overall score of about 22. I don't think that's realistic.

I think it's important to go talk with the judge instead of immediately assuming he or she is wrong. One may not like the answer but one may learn something.

I also don't think it's fair to expect an L graduate or little r judge to always have everything right. When one shows under an L graduate or Little r judge, I think one has to come to an agreement that they are going to be trying to sort everything out and make sense of it.

I think it's easy to pick and find fault with a horse and rider that score higher, but harder to see the overall picture. A horse can get too low in the poll occasionally and still be doing a lot of good work. At the same time, the horse can't get behind the leg and not forward, and still be doing a lot of good work.