Why not give numerical score for all rounds?

[gasrgoose]

As a pony dad, I'm curious. Why do you only get a numerical score for your classic rounds? It would be helpful to have a number for your hunter rounds. Particularly for younger/ less experienced riders it would let them know immediately if the round was bad, ok, good or great. Has it always been this way?

[ExJumper]

In big classes it would be a major pain for the judges. Lets say you have 30 horses in the class and 8 ribbons to give out. Once you have your top eight, all you have to do is watch a horse until they do something that drops them out of the ribbons, then you don't have to judge them anymore. Rail? Stop watching. Miss a change? Stop watching? Bad jumper, bad mover, refusal? Stop watching.

I think that if you made judges score every round you'd have some useful numbers near the top and then a bunch of 45's and 50's which aren't going to tell anyone anything useful.

[findeight]

Can't give you a good answer, we just don't. Never have and probably never will.

Trainers take care of the good, bad or OK part and most riders know very well how they stacked up pretty early on.

Not sure the beginners need to hear that 43 announced, some things are best left unsaid.

Comes up for discussion every so often, consensus is maybe at the higher levels someday. But likely not going to see some judge forced to sit through 40 bad 2'6" trips tear their hair out over whether to give the one that stopped and blew all the leads 25 or 35 just so they could give a score to be announced when they already had 6 or 7 in the 80s and only 6 ribbons.

Too much bookeeping without a scribe is another thing.

Sorry, these can be a little lame but, like I said, we just don't score every round.

[Triplicate]

I dislike the number system just for the reason noted above.

Your trainer should be the one telling your child how good or bad the round was.

The best practice a horse show parent could have is to sit at the ring and judge the rounds yourself - use a pencil and paper.
Find a friend who judges and ask him/her to teach you the symbols most often used to mark the judge's card.

Attend Judges' clinics and learn about judging and horse showing.

Buy a video camera and drive your child and trainer with the replays of classes.
Video the lessons and listen to what the trainer is saying.

Read the USEF Rule Book and learn what goes into the judging process.

One thing you have to realize is that judging is one person's own opinion.
When you show hunters and equitation you are being judged as a comparison to you competition in THAT class.

Showing is like taking an exam.

Enjoy and learn.

[gasrgoose]

Thanks for the input. I actually thought all the rounds were scored and they just they weren't annouced. But I understand the reasoning.
To a 10 year old a third place is the same as all other third places. But this past weekend around a 70 was third place and a month ago at a different show @ a 70 would not have been in the top 8. I would have loved for her to hear the 79, 80, 81 or whatever it was that placed third at the other shows. I guess that is why we always enter the classics.

I agree it is up to the trainer, but to the younger kids the numbers could be very telling.

Again thanks.

[Janet]

The thing you have to remember is that, in hunter judging, the PRIMARY judging focus is "ordinal" (I liked number 123 better than number 256 but not as much as number 245). When they use numerical judging, hunter judges simply use the "score" as a way of documenting the order.

So the judge uses a numerical range based on what they expect to see in this class. it is less tied to any absolute definition.

This is very different from dressage, where the test is judged against a standard, without addressing direct comparison with other rounds.

Thus, it is not uncommon, at a dressage show, to see the JUDGE walk up to the score board to see "who won" the class she just judged.

I do not think any hunter judge would be happy with simply scoring, with out directly DECIDING "who won".

[dogchushu]

Bear in mind that--in hunters--numerical scores aren't consistent from show to show (or even from class to class). They have some guidelines (e.g. for a rail or refusal), but most of it is relative to the competition. So the same trip may get a 70 at one show and an 80 at the next.

In hunters, a "75" means only that you did better than anyone scoring below that. It's not like dressage where the numbers reflect a certain standard. In fact, you can have a better trip at a competetive show and get a lower score than you would at the smaller show.

Edited to add: What Janet said. She put it better than I did!

[gasrgoose]

Wow. I'm learning alot. So, in the classics when they use the numerical system if the judge really likes the first horse they see and thinks it could be the winner they might give it an 84. But if another comes along that is better then the judge would just make the better round's score is higher than an 84, right? And it might or might not be actually worth a 86 at another show.

At Pony finals they use the numerical system with three judges. Are they scoring against a standard? Or again just scoring them in the rank they prefer, which would explain why some of the scores are so high at pony finals?

Thanks for educating me.

[Figment]

Read Anna Jane White Mullin's book Judging Hunters and Hunter Seat Equitation. It will help you a lot.

[ExJumper]

Wow. I'm learning alot. So, in the classics when they use the numerical system if the judge really likes the first horse they see and thinks it could be the winner they might give it an 84. But if another comes along that is better then the judge would just make the better round's score is higher than an 84, right? And it might or might not be actually worth a 86 at another show.

Yup!

I was standing by the ringmaster when the judge scored a classic round over the walkie talkie. It was brought to the attention of the judge (again over the walkie talkie) that the second round score that he had just given the last rider would result in a tie. The judge said "Well, we can't have that, now can we..." He paused for a moment and you could hear him thinking and then he said "Okay, make that a 74.5 instead of a 74."

The judge knew which horse was better than the other, he just had to make the scores come out right.

Sometimes you'll see a lot of fractions of points, too, especially when there are a lot of nice horses. Even in classics, the judge is thinking, as Janet said, in an "ordinal" way. He's thinking 1st 2nd 3rd. He just has to make the numbers come out right to a certain extent.

Most judges/many judges use an element of scoring on their cards just to keep things in order, but they aren't scoring to an extent that they would want those numbers announced.

[findeight]

At Pony finals they use the numerical system with three judges. Are they scoring against a standard? Or again just scoring them in the rank they prefer, which would explain why some of the scores are so high at pony finals?

Thanks for educating me.

Again, there is no numerical system with specific deductions for specific faults. Yeah a rail is usually this or that as is a stop-they are major and you are out anyway in all but the suckiest of competition. But a late lead change behind? Swap at the base? A little wander down the line? A hard look at the base? Slight twist over the top? Busy tail? Those are deductions but all weighted against the overall quality of the round. They are not going to hurt a Pony laying down a 90 as much as one churning out a 76.

Multiple judges also have them at different places-one may come up with an 80 because of that late lead and a swap at the base while another has it a 93 because they did not see them. likewise when standing by the rail, you can't see what the judge does and the judge is not seeing what you are.

Also, and this can be a tough one for beginners, the better horse is usually going to beat one of lesser quality. When you go against a 10 mover with a 10 jump? They are ahead of you from the moment they go over that first fence if you have a 7 mover and jumper. They can make a few minor mistakes beacuse the quality of movement and jump are always going to put them up over mediocrity. That is proabably a better reason why we don't put so much emphasis on numerical values for every minor bobble. It simply does not give you the total picture when movement and jump quality are the point of the class.

[MHM]

Also remember that different judges may score higher or lower. You could have two judges watch the same class and end up with the same ribbon winners in the same order without the same scores.

One judge's scores for the winners might range from 70-78, while the other judge might have scores of 75-88 for the same ribbon winners in that class.

Welcome to the wonderful world of hunters. :)

As a practical consideration, it can be hard for judges and announcers to keep giving scores all day. If an announcer is covering multiple rings, which is very common at bigger shows, it's hard enough to keep up with everything else on the walkie-talkies, even without announcing the scores for every round.

[SilverBalls]

It's just as easy to give numerical scores as it is not to... my opinion. I am an advocate of numerical scoring.. it promotes accountability.

[LetsChat]

It's just as easy to give numerical scores as it is not to... my opinion. I am an advocate of numerical scoring.. it promotes accountability.

I agree with you here, plus it allows the riders to know where they stand. For whomever said about scoring every round, if it's a big class and there is a cut off, towards the end you will hear scored below the cut off so once there is a big chip or refusal or missed change, then they don't really have to worry about the numerical. Also, the judges know who they like and if they like a horse more they will give say 78.75 vs. the 78.5 vs. the 78 so that the horses are placed in the order they see fit. Plus they are writing on a judges card anyway so it isn't THAT hard to just put a number to it. I do think it allows for fairness in pinning because you know right at the end of the trip how the judge felt about it.

[TSWJB]

It's just as easy to give numerical scores as it is not to... my opinion. I am an advocate of numerical scoring.. it promotes accountability.

I agree with you! for the 25 to 50 bucks a class we pay for approx. 1-2 minutes, a judge can come up with a score. if your embarrassed by your score, you probably dont belong in the division anyway!

[Go Fish]

I actually read somewhere that a lot of judges start out with a perfect score when the horse enters the ring, and then deducts points for every mistake. Some mistakes weigh more heavily than others...for instance a late change vs. a stop. That's up to the judge. I know when I showed cutting, the standard was to deduct, not add on scores. Ties don't surprise me, especially in large classes. At the end of a round, the judge may have some personal comments/symbols on the scorecard that indicate something special that may serve as a tie-breaker, if necessary.

[Sing Mia Song]

I actually do give a numerical score to every round. It helps me keep them organized on my card so I don't have to do it in my head.

One of the best pieces of advice I ever received about judging was to score the first round, and then score the other rounds relative to that first round. Was it better, or worse?

There are a few "automatic numbers" that I use for major faults. A refusal automatically means you can score no higher than 40. Second stop, 20. Break, 55. That's just for my personal system.

[Hopeful Hunter]

I only judge verrry small 4H shows, but when I do, I also "rank" the riders. What I've learned is that the top and bottom usually sort themselves out very quickly -- it's the middle that's the challenge.

Judging is HARD work, and I can't imagine how the judges at the top shows sort through that much perfection. Numerical scores would be better, I agree, but you might need to catch up with some technology -- a scribe, laptop for notes so the judge can score, etc. Otherwise, I'd worry a bit about the judges being too concerned about marking down numbers and not actually watching the whole round...but that could just be from my less than great judging skills....

As to crushing the kids' spirits, why not have the numerical scores available, but not read out loud unless it's a classic? That could be a big help, I think.

I will tell you I've just taken up ballroom dancing -- which is even more political in its judging than the hunters, if you can believe! -- and saw a scoring mechanism I now LOVE. They have multiple judges, and each judge ranks each couple on an ordinal basis for their heat. The cool thing is that the score sheets are collated and posted in a big ole' binder throughout the day, and you can go and review your score sheet for that heat and see where the judges placed you and the competition, and which judges put you where. I found it very helpful and informative, and that might be a model to consider....

[gasrgoose]

I think it would be good for the kids to hear their score. Maybe they could be annouced when the placings were announced. 1st place 85, 2nd 81, 3rd 77 etc..... and then hopefully you wouldn't hear any really low scores. But I think it would be good for a 6th place to know they scored a 75 and were just in really good company or for the kid that got 6th place with a 65 in not such good company to know how they did. I would not worry about the kids embarassment. As a former gymnastics coach, I've seen some ugly scores (3.45 out of 10). And yes the kids were embarassed, but it was great motivation to work hard. And all those kids turned out just fine, they actually have great perspective on life.

It sounds like this isn't going happen but it makes for interesting discussion.

[MHM]

The judge's primary responsibilty at a horse show is to pick the ribbon winners in each class. If the judge is so busy deciding what exact score to give to the horse in 25th place that s/he misses something pertinent in the next trip, that means the judge's primary job is diluted.

Giving a clinic is an entirely different job.

[carrie_girl]

I am an eventer/dressage rider, but I think that scoring all rounds is an excellent idea. They do it for every dressage test and it's no big deal, you just need a scribe and a laptop. The judges don't miss things because it is the scribe who is doing the writing. Also, generally people are very willing to volunteer to scribe because they learn so much in doing so. As in dressage, there will always be some measure of the judge's personal preference involved, but it does seem that it would make the whole process more fair. Looking over a dressage test after your ride is a great learning tool as well. I'm sure the same could be said of a hunter score card.

[dab]

I like numerical scoring of hunter/eq rounds because, as SB says, it does promote accountability -- I don't think it would be as useful as it is in dressage where I tracked my scores for each movement over the course of the season -- Sure, some dressage judges score a bit higher/lower than others, but you could see the trends and the things you needed to work on --

[MLP]

The judge's primary responsibilty at a horse show is to pick the ribbon winners in each class. If the judge is so busy deciding what exact score to give to the horse in 25th place that s/he misses something pertinent in the next trip, that means the judge's primary job is diluted.

Giving a clinic is an entirely different job.

Well I think this is going a bit far, first we know the numerical scoring does work and is used at some pretty big shows and some pretty big classes. Second, once 10 or so have gone the judge can just say, below the cut off. I mean if the horse is horrible by the third fence the judge pretty much knows it ain't coming close to the already top group where the cut off is 82. They already ARE judging and paying attention to the rounds, I don't think it is THAT much effort to assign a number that they won't be able to concentrate on anything but the numbers....

[MHM]

I don't think it is THAT much effort to assign a number that they won't be able to concentrate on anything but the numbers....

Really? How many shows have you judged?

Announcing scores is not impossible, but it's not as easy as some think.

[dogchushu]

I think it would be good for the kids to hear their score. Maybe they could be annouced when the placings were announced. 1st place 85, 2nd 81, 3rd 77 etc..... and then hopefully you wouldn't hear any really low scores. But I think it would be good for a 6th place to know they scored a 75 and were just in really good company or for the kid that got 6th place with a 65 in not such good company to know how they did. I would not worry about the kids embarassment. As a former gymnastics coach, I've seen some ugly scores (3.45 out of 10). And yes the kids were embarassed, but it was great motivation to work hard. And all those kids turned out just fine, they actually have great perspective on life.

It sounds like this isn't going happen but it makes for interesting discussion.

That's the thing. A 75 from one judge is not the same as a 75 from another. It only means you did better than everyone below that. Likewise, a 65 may not mean you were in such a bad class. It could be a low scoring judge or one who gave out a higher score earlier on.

Yeah, a 75 and 65 are probably different enough, but the point is you shouldn't evaluate your trip based on your score. Hunter scores just don't work that way.

The only time it really helps is when you get a 77 and the person ahead of you got a 78. That means you were really close. But, now that I think about it, it could mean no more than you have a really crowded class and the judge had to fit you in between a 76 and the 78.

[GreystoneKC]

Just a few thoughts...

- The judge's job is to JUDGE the class, not give the exhibitors a clinic. That's what your trainer is there for. You want to know what you did right or wrong, ask your trainer.

- I do not think giving scores holds the judges accountable. There is too much variety to scores for that. If horse A pins over horse B and horse C, but you think B and C had better trips and you suspect the judge wanted to pin horse A over them anyway... what is the difference if you heard that the judge gave horse A a 92, horse B a 90, and horse C an 87?? You'll still feel the same way and have no more information as to *why* the judge pinned the class as such.

- I feel that if anything, the best way to make judges "be accountable" for their performance as a judge would be to have them surrender their judge's cards. That would be interesting...

- I do NOT like the idea of always using open numerical scoring for most of the reasons already mentioned. I know I would be quite irritated myself. I do usually use a loose numerical scoring as I judge a class to help me keep my class straight. I will use the numbers to file "top", "middle", and "bottom" trips to be adjusted into their pinnings at the end of the class. However, when taking my last looks at my card, I may adjust those pinnings according to my overall impressions looking back at the class.

- I also agree that most judges, including myself, judge on a "what you see and feel" basis rather than a specific set of deductions for mistakes. The overall caliber of the horse WILL affect the horse's starting point in the class. The scores WILL differ from judge to judge.

[Seven-up]

What if the first horse gets an 82, the second gets a 78, and then the next 15 horses' performances fall somewhere inbetween those two rounds? Is it reasonable to expect the judge to figure out scores like 80.3749, all in the time it takes for one round to end and the next round to start? Should the judge score the early rounds abnormally low, just to avoid this scenario? Imagine if you had a stellar round and get a 70 because the judge isn't good with a decimal point?

While I think that it could be beneficial in some instances to have a clearer view of how your round went, the beauty (and the madness) of hunters is that it's someone's opinion. If you want to take opinions out of it and want concrete scores, trot on over to the jumper ring.:winkgrin:

[hillary again]

Wow, this is an interesting thread.
There are plenty of sports where the judges give a score. Examples include: figure skating, boxing (I think), gymnastics, and yes, dressage.

The idea that this is too much work for the judge is not valid. Yes, I have judging experience. It is DIFFERENT and judges would need to get used to it.

The idea that competing is so involved that a score is a bad idea, and you need a trainer to interpret your round: uh, no. This is does not sound like a sport - it sounds like something artistic.

I think we OWE riders a score. They came and competed: we should give them a score. Hey, teachers give you a grade on your essay, painting, ... science fair project - right?

[Addison]

Thanks for the input. I actually thought all the rounds were scored and they just they weren't annouced. But I understand the reasoning.
To a 10 year old a third place is the same as all other third places. But this past weekend around a 70 was third place and a month ago at a different show @ a 70 would not have been in the top 8. I would have loved for her to hear the 79, 80, 81 or whatever it was that placed third at the other shows. I guess that is why we always enter the classics.

I agree it is up to the trainer, but to the younger kids the numbers could be very telling.

Again thanks.


After working in the secretary's stand I have seen that a number of judges do score every trip. I agree with Janet, not everyone needs to know what number the judge gives their trip. I think it could detract from their overall experience. Their trainers should be able to assess their trips and what they need to improve on.

[MHM]

Hey, teachers give you a grade on your essay, painting, ... science fair project - right?

Yes, but probably not in a 5 second window before they have to grade the next thing. And the next. And the next. And the next....

Think of it this way. Say the judge is giving scores for every round. Then the announcer has to announce the hack and then results from another ring for a few minutes. When the announcer tries to catch up on the last several scores over the radio with the judge, the judge gets distracted and doesn't see a horse cross canter 6 steps in the far corner.

When that horse ends up winning the class with a big late lead change, everyone will accuse the judge of being political or incompetent, simply because the judge was distracted from the judge's primary job, which is placing the ribbon winners in the correct order.

[gasrgoose]

Just a few thoughts...


- I feel that if anything, the best way to make judges "be accountable" for their performance as a judge would be to have them surrender their judge's cards. That would be interesting...


- I also agree that most judges, including myself, judge on a "what you see and feel" basis rather than a specific set of deductions for mistakes. The overall caliber of the horse WILL affect the horse's starting point in the class. The scores WILL differ from judge to judge.

My intention in asking the question was not to hold judges accountable, however I would love to see the judges cards for the educational benefit. I like the idea someone mentioned of having a clinic that provides this for riders.

Based on the comments of "overall impression", "what you see and feel", etc. could entering the ring after a couple of bad rounds help you place higher? I'm sure it could, but I guess that is why we have professional judges.

[luvs2ridewbs]

They shouldn't announce scores. They should do what dressage shows do and post them somewhere. And yes trainers offer alot of insight but not exactly what the judge was looking for. I'd like to know what the judge I was showing in front of perfers. ex: Does he or she weight a rub severly or no? There are constantly threads asking about how a judge would pin certain things. If there were posted cards, no one would need to ask on COTH. They would already know that Judge X pins a rub hard and likes round bascule a little more then square knees.

[ExJumper]

All the examples people have given are cases where the performance is divided into specific elements. The other similarity is that all those sports are judged against an ideal.

To address my second point first, there is no ideal in the hunter ring. Sure, there are things that are clearly wrong, and things that are clearly better than others. But much in the middle is personal opinion. Most would agree that leaving short is better than leaving long (because it's usually safer, and I think Anna W-M said so in her book :) ). However, what if you are only a LITTLE long, and another horse is a little MORE short than you were long? Or the long distance horse still jumped better than the short distance horse. Some like a WB look, some like a TB look. Stylistic reaching is looked at differently by different judges. Judges might feel differently about a bold horse with a little fire in him, or a horse that looks super safe.

The come back to the first point, I suppose we would could break the course down into specific elements and give a score for each jump and a score for each lead change, but I really wouldn't want to see that. I think it would really be a detriment to the sport to break it up into chunks. I know what judges cards look like, but it's still judged as an overall round and not as a cumulation of individual exercises.

In figure skating, you can fall on an element and win an olympic medal if the rest of the routine was good and maybe you threw an extra move in to compensate, or your level of difficulty was higher than your competitors. I wouldn't like to think that a horse could win with a rail or a ghastly chip in the hunters -- no matter how fancy it was.

[findeight]

With no etched in stone set of specific deductions for specific errors, you can NOT score a Hunter round like a Figure Skating short program.

The numbers are not like the numbers posted in Dressage or some other sports, just a ranking on a curve compared to others in that class, in that round, on that day.

Used to feel different coming from Western disciplines with specific (more or less) deductions for specific faults. Changed my mind as I learned it's all about where you fall in relation to the others in that class, not against a set standard that never varies.

[RockinHorse]

They shouldn't announce scores. They should do what dressage shows do and post them somewhere. And yes trainers offer alot of insight but not exactly what the judge was looking for. I'd like to know what the judge I was showing in front of perfers. ex: Does he or she weight a rub severly or no? There are constantly threads asking about how a judge would pin certain things. If there were posted cards, no one would need to ask on COTH. They would already know that Judge X pins a rub hard and likes round bascule a little more then square knees.

I don't know how you would necessarily derive that information from the cards and score. The horse with a hard rub might not have been dinged for the rub but rather for having a mediocure jumping style or for being crooked in the lines, or for having an unhappy expresion or for reminding the judge of the nasty horse they hated riding when they were a kid.

[luvs2ridewbs]

Well if the case was that the horse jumped poorly, the judge would write it down. The rider would know he or she placed the way they did b/c of poor jumping not the rub. Right now, its anybodys guess.

[RockinHorse]

Well if the case was that the horse jumped poorly, the judge would write it down. The rider would know he or she placed the way they did b/c of poor jumping not the rub. Right now, its anybodys guess.

But, how much of the score is based on the jumping style, how much is based on the rub, how much is based on overall impression? Unless you are going to have the judges write out detailed comments, you are not going to know all that comprised the score and how the various items are weighed.

[chunky munky]

So what you are telling me is that you think that most riders don't recognize when their horse just went in and jumped badly? I would hope that this is not the case. If that is the case then they should go home and take some more riding lessons instead of spending their money at the horse show.
I know several judges that are very offended by rubs, particularly in front. And there are rubs as opposed to "clubs" that rock the standards.
There are some horses that will never score out of the 70's on their best day, yes even if the rider finds all the jumps and gets all the lead changes and makes no major errors. There isn't much to say on a judges card here, except "Not a show hunter". In fact I use a mark that says "NAH". If I posted my card and you saw NAH, would you have any idea why I didn't like your horse? I thought not. So that posting the cards thing was first proposed in the around 1980. It didn't happen then and don't count on it happening now. I don't think that many judges mind giving scores. The main problem which you wouldn't necessarily understand as an exhibitor is as another poster stated it can be a logistical problem at a show. One announcer, two rings, two judges, two walkie talkies, gate man on a third walkie talkie, office on another. You call in your score, announcer is on another channel, doesn't hear it, your next horse is in the ring and you are being questioned for a score that you threw three rounds ago, taking you away from full attention to the one you are currently scoring. I think scores are great if only one of the two rings are giving them. Another way to handle it would be to post a list of horses numbers and their scores after the class. Later when I have more time to write here I'll post another view why hunter shows as they are run cannot score like dressage shows.

[carrie_girl]

The more I think about this, the more I think they really should all be scored. I can't think of a single sport that is subjectively judged (figure skating, gymnastics, dressage, etc...) that isn't scored. I think that a lot of the people who are saying that not all rounds should be scored sort of feel that way because it would be a big change, and changes are always hard.

I agree that there should be some "ideal" that horses should be judged against, even though it pretty much never exists. Even the olympic dressage horses rarely score a 10 on movements, and certainly there isn't a horse in history that has gotten ALL 10's (100%). There is pretty much always room for improvement, and dressage is judged very much on style and overall impression as well. That is what the collective marks are for.

Hunter judges would have to come together and agree on a format for these though. If it is widely accepted that a big chip should be out of the ribbons, find a way to ding the horse hard enough on both the jump score and the "distance" collective mark (make it a x3 or x4) that there is no way the horse could ribbon in good company.

I also agree that scores do not need to be announced. In dressage they are only announced for FEI rides, probably the equivalent of classics.

[MLP]

Just a few thoughts...

- The judge's job is to JUDGE the class, not give the exhibitors a clinic. That's what your trainer is there for. You want to know what you did right or wrong, ask your trainer.

- I do not think giving scores holds the judges accountable. There is too much variety to scores for that. If horse A pins over horse B and horse C, but you think B and C had better trips and you suspect the judge wanted to pin horse A over them anyway... what is the difference if you heard that the judge gave horse A a 92, horse B a 90, and horse C an 87?? You'll still feel the same way and have no more information as to *why* the judge pinned the class as such.

- I feel that if anything, the best way to make judges "be accountable" for their performance as a judge would be to have them surrender their judge's cards. That would be interesting...

- I do NOT like the idea of always using open numerical scoring for most of the reasons already mentioned. I know I would be quite irritated myself. I do usually use a loose numerical scoring as I judge a class to help me keep my class straight. I will use the numbers to file "top", "middle", and "bottom" trips to be adjusted into their pinnings at the end of the class. However, when taking my last looks at my card, I may adjust those pinnings according to my overall impressions looking back at the class.

- I also agree that most judges, including myself, judge on a "what you see and feel" basis rather than a specific set of deductions for mistakes. The overall caliber of the horse WILL affect the horse's starting point in the class. The scores WILL differ from judge to judge.

I agree with what you said, and yes just like pinnings, scores will vary among judges and yes they are there to JUDGE, so whether they do it via a number scheme or via cards, they are still going through the motions of judging. Where I think it would be beneficial is for the animals of divisions that jog. So they don't have to stand around because my trainer thought my round was awesome but until the pinnings I don't know that the judge hates purple coats and I wore one. If I walk out and they say 65. I send my dear horse back to the barn with the groom and go get a drink. That is where I see beneficial so you know at the end of your round whether they liked it or not. Not that I think it is going to change the outcome of who ribbons. JMO

[hsmom101]

:)As a pony dad, I'm curious. Why do you only get a numerical score for your classic rounds? It would be helpful to have a number for your hunter rounds. Particularly for younger/ less experienced riders it would let them know immediately if the round was bad, ok, good or great. Has it always been this way?


If you attend a World Champion Hunter Rider show, the hunter rounds have to be announced. It is very compassionate of some to announce the score "out of the ribbons" or something like that if it was a pretty bad trip. As a mom to a former pony rider, I understand where you are coming from as we parents don't always see what the trainers and judges see and cannot answer our children as to why one trip was better than the other. Not that we should anyway as we are supposed to let their coach do that. :)There are a few of us parents from different barns who sit up in the stands and "bet" on what the score will be when announced. You will be surprised at how close we are at this point, after watching over several years. Go to the Judges clinics that are free to attend. They are listed I think at the USHJA site... Please correct me someone if wrong there. Read the the book mentioned earlier, has great insight into judging. A lot of the judges do give a numberical score, but they are not annouced - and place them in order on their desk. Some give them an A,B or C etc and place them in order on their desk. There are some automatic scores for a rail, refusal, etc. I do remember a couple of years ago hearing the trainers in our area wanting the scores to start being announced at all the shows, but it never came about. It will come as to whether they know that they had a "good trip" or not. I have to tell you, some of the best trips my daughter had were not her best in the ribbons and she was very happy.:D

[Midge]

It's just as easy to give numerical scores as it is not to... my opinion. I am an advocate of numerical scoring.. it promotes accountability.

Well, no, it's not. Hunters are judged against each other, not against an ideal. Every 80 is not the same, even from the same judge on the same day. The hunter judge's job is to pin the class, not tell you what you did right and wrong. Look at the places numerical scoring is used: classics and WCHR classes, to name a couple. These are not classes where the gate guy is sending the next horse in while the previous horse is doing it's closing circle. The horse is being judged from the minute it walks into the ring until it leaves. The more I have to do to pin the class, the more I am going to miss.

I also don't understand how it would promote accountability. A number score isn't going to change the placings.

[Fluffie]

As someone who deals with scoring (essays and presentations rather than horses :)), I can say that giving a number versus a letter versus a placing does NOT affect accountability. As scary as it sounds, I can "make" an essay/presentation come up to essentially any grade I want to (which I don't--promise!) by simply altering how easy/hard I want to evaluate even if I have the confines of a rubric. The same thing is true of dressage: a human is evaluating the degree of movements that are gone in an instant, and one person's 8 mover may be another's 7.5 (or however the incriments go). That's why, despite the chatter to the contrary, dressage scores from one class cannot be compared to others even if it is the same judge because people are inherently inconsistent. Human failings aren't as easy to mitigate as totaling up a bunch of numbers.

But how to explain that to ss kids is a whole other issue. :winkgrin:

[Seven-up]

If you want to see what's on the judge's card, you ask to see it. Of course, you will have to learn what the notations mean. But after all the classes are done, many judges are still happy to explain what they liked/didn't like about your round, and they usually remember it pretty well. Remember to ask, "what can I do to improve" not "why didn't you like my daughter's round?" Make sure the kid is with you (and trainer, if possible) so the judge can explain it directly to the kid, and the trainer can translate it into the way he/she teaches.

Knowing what makes a good round and a bad round comes with learning more about the sport. As you learn what to look for, you don't need a score to know what went wrong. You can't ask someone to oversimplify things just because you don't understand yet.

Hunters are not about technical scores. It's not that finite. You can't assign a specific penalty to many things because they can be minor or major. Everything isn't black and white.

[splash]

For me, numerical scoring is just a filing system. I throw scores for the classes that it's required (medal finals, WCH, hunter classics, and special classes), but otherwise I just use a number to help me keep everyone in order. Say I have a large class and have already found my 8th place horse that has a 70. I may have 5 horses with a score of 65 because they are below the cut-off. I'm not going to differentiate between the 5 horses.

I had to throw scores in a class once that included a 2, 5, 15, 40, and 55. Those were the first 5 rounds. My announcer mercifully thought better of announcing the scores until I had a round that warranted a 65. We caught a lot of heat from management, but I certainly didn't think that everyone on the showgrounds needed to know that the first 5 riders had such poor rounds.

If you want scores for every round, go to Pebble Beach. Everyday, every round. I have judged there once and they were moderate days, so it wasn't too bad. I have heard from other judges that the summer shows are huge and a marathon as a judge because of all of the scores.

As for reading my judges card, good luck. Lot's of abbreviations, symbols, and scribble (which sometimes I can't read!). At a USEF show, you will have to go through the steward to see the card with the judge.

Reining is one discipline that is scored numerically. I have judged it in the past, and it's very specific as to 1/4 point, 1/2 point, 1 point deductions or additions. Every horse starts with a 70 and goes up and down on each movement. It takes a scribe to keep score, because there is NO WAY a judge could do it and watch the ride. I wouldn't want to judge it all day, let alone more than the one class I had to judge at a few open shows.

I think this is a subject that will come up for years to come, but I don't think you will ever get the judges that have been in the sport for years to change over to a standardized scoring system.

[Seven-up]

As for reading my judges card, good luck. Lot's of abbreviations, symbols, and scribble (which sometimes I can't read!). At a USEF show, you will have to go through the steward to see the card with the judge.

:lol::lol:

One time I was talking with a judge, and she stared at her sheet for a while, and finally said, "I don't know what you did at that fence...but it wasn't good!" :lol: I saw another who, along with the normal scribbles, drew little happy faces on some. :cool: