Have you taken the USEA competition survey?

[deltawave]

Just finished it (the link came in an email just this evening). Here is a direct link (https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=jJIfynHaTZNZYOtPpxjH6w_3d_3d).

They are contemplating a "medal" program. JUST what I've been saying for the last 5 years! :winkgrin:

Speak up. :yes:

[Firefox]

I just did it!! should be interesting!

[GiGi]

I liked this one much better than the last. This one I felt like we were getting somewhere with the actual organization and what they can do for me!! I would LOVE a medal program!!

[JER]

This one was a step in the right direction, although some of the choices were a little odd.

For instance, 'adequate' dressage comments were defined as comments that 'neither helped nor hindered' you.

'Adequate' comments should be comments that give you appropriate feedback for the level you're at.

[Wee Dee Trrr]

I took it!
As a college student with a major in a very research oriented field, I thought it was a fairly well designed survey...
I'm pretty excited about the Medals too!

[Dr. Doolittle]

Though I agree with JER (some of the questions were a bit :confused:), I just took it; 45 minutes later (I wrote a LOT), they have my opinions--and I gave them quite an earful--honest, positive *and* negative!

I appreciated (and utilized) the opportunity to give them detailed feedback, and did so with great enthusiasm :D

[tx3dayeventer]

I thought we already had a medal program. I have certificates from earning my Silver medal (which is placing top 3, or winning 3 or 5 Intermediates), my Bronze medal (Prelim), and then Blue Ribbon (Training?). I dont remember the lower awards but I really did think we already had this program.

Going to take it now.

[RoeVee]

I took it! I thought we had a program like this too? Like an award of 'Achievement' or something w/ 5 novices?

[canterlope]

I took it! I thought we had a program like this too? Like an award of 'Achievement' or something w/ 5 novices?The program you're thinking about is the Rider Awards which are still offered by the USEA. The medal program mentioned in the survey is similar, but much more extensive and challenging.

[tikidoc]

I took it too. I found several of the responses quite limiting, so I did a fair amount of writing. A big improvement over the last survey!

I also wrote in that I am more likely to compete at unrecognized events these days both for economic reasons and out of principle.

[Janet]

I thought we already had a medal program. I have certificates from earning my Silver medal (which is placing top 3, or winning 3 or 5 Intermediates), my Bronze medal (Prelim), and then Blue Ribbon (Training?). I dont remember the lower awards but I really did think we already had this program.
They are a bit different. The existing program is based on placing. The new program is based on performance, (dressage score less than X, clear XC. ec.). The new program originated on this board, with a committee including VCT, pwynnorman,and others.

I said that I didn't bother to participate in the "old" program, and I was unlikely to bother to participate in the new one.

There have been several threads on it here.

[LLDM]

Though I agree with JER (some of the questions were a bit :confused:), I just took it; 45 minutes later (I wrote a LOT), they have my opinions--and I gave them quite an earful--honest, positive *and* negative!

I appreciated (and utilized) the opportunity to give them detailed feedback, and did so with great enthusiasm :D

My thoughts exactly!

For the most part, I thought the survey was pretty darn good. What bothered me immensely though was the way the multiple choice answers were phrased on many of the answers. As mentioned above, there were many that were phrased like this:

- Rating, followed by definition of rating, followed by some qualifiers

The qualifiers often (for me) did not go with why I picked that rating at all! For example, often "adequate" was followed by something like 'because I don't use that service or participate in that program' - bat is NOT why I chose "adequate"! I did liberally avail myself of the the comments sections!

Also (and maybe this is a limitation of the free survey program) there were only four choices and they oscillated between 2 goods, a medium and a bad, and one good, a medium and 2 bads. Maybe, if the limit is 4 answers there should a one good, one bad, one medium and one don't care?

Oh and I wish they had asked more about the rated vs unrated HTs this year. It will be a very big deal for a lot of people.

So there are my nit-picky comments on a survey that I thought was MUCH better than the last one. Thanks GreyDun! :D

SCFarm

[scubed]

My problem was that they asked for everything "overall" I'd rather see, "what % of the time was ______ excellent, good, adequate, etc" and then you could say 80% excellent, 10% good, and 10% totally unacceptable, which is more how I feel a bunch of those things are (and yes, I did put that in a comment field). I think they are trying to figure out what is working for members, so that is great.

[tx3dayeventer]

They are a bit different. The existing program is based on placing. The new program is based on performance, (dressage score less than X, clear XC. ec.). The new program is pwynnorman's idea.

I said that I didn't bother to participate in the "old" program, and I was unlikely to bother to participate in the new one.

There have been several threads on it here.

Ah. Haven't read much about it so thanks for the clarification. I am ruled out of completing the survey b/c I haven't evented in 2 years.

But I did figure out today, that I have been a USEA member for 17 years :D since I was 10 :cool:

[Catalina]

I just took it :D. I think the medal program is a great idea.

[Hannahsmom]

I took it. My only negative was that there was a case or two where we should have been able to say "other" and then list. I used comments as best I could in those cases.

[Janet]

They left out a key consideration on chosing between competitions- who the officials are.

[Hannahsmom]

You make my point exactly Janet. There were a couple of those radio buttons choices where there was not the choice I would have liked to have picked and would have preferred to put something in "other" and then filled it in in a comment. Since USEA is trying to gather data vs. just summarizing numbers, that means some information couldn't be conveyed. A shame, but oh well.

[GreyDun]

We really appreciate everyone taking this survey, and we're making notes of your concerns for future surveys. We do realize that we didn't put comment boxes on every single question, but if you do have more suggestions or comments, please feel free to drop them in the "USEA Suggestion Box (http://www.useventing.com/aboutus.php?section=suggestions&id=1829)."

All of this information will be shared with organizers and the appropriate committees. Thanks, again!

[Janet]

I just put it in the next available comment box, even if it was supposed to be for a differend question.

[Janet]

I thought we already had a medal program. I have certificates from earning my Silver medal (which is placing top 3, or winning 3 or 5 Intermediates), my Bronze medal (Prelim), and then Blue Ribbon (Training?). I dont remember the lower awards but I really did think we already had this program.
Here is the thread about the new program. See post 154
http://chronicleforums.com/Forum/showthread.php?t=139352

[badawg]

I took it, enjoyed it, and added my comments as I thought appropriate. I, personally, was pretty excited by the horsemanship proposal they put forth in the survey. Being "judged" on how you rode a designated portion of the XC, and then having feedback on that. Brilliant idea, I think. More feedback is always valuable to us. My question is who would be judging that portion? I'm not excited by the possibility of "winning" as much as being able to be more educated, and being safer out on course. Any other thoughts on this?

[deltawave]

My one-word response to the question about the optional horsemanship/judging portion for Horse Trials was "BRAVO". :yes: Except I wish it were mandatory.

[zagafi]

Good survey design is *hard*. I think they're doing a pretty good job, actually! This one was much better than the first, so they're already learning.

[ottb]

I just put it in the next available comment box, even if it was supposed to be for a differend question. I also used the next available box

[ottb]

I took it, enjoyed it, and added my comments as I thought appropriate. I, personally, was pretty excited by the horsemanship proposal they put forth in the survey. Being "judged" on how you rode a designated portion of the XC, and then having feedback on that. Brilliant idea, I think. More feedback is always valuable to us. My question is who would be judging that portion? I'm not excited by the possibility of "winning" as much as being able to be more educated, and being safer out on course. Any other thoughts on this? I also thought its a great idea. And would value the critque. Almost like a free clinic, eh?

I did express my concern that if it was optional - that questionable riders may opt out for fear of being flagged for dangerous riding and therefore those that may receive the most benefit....but maybe I'm over analyzing.

[VCT]

They are a bit different. The existing program is based on placing. The new program is based on performance, (dressage score less than X, clear XC. ec.). The new program is pwynnorman's idea.

I said that I didn't bother to participate in the "old" program, and I was unlikely to bother to participate in the new one.

There have been several threads on it here.

Here is the thread about the new program. See post 154
http://chronicleforums.com/Forum/showthread.php?t=139352

Just a minor correction...

Actually if you look at post #22 in the "medal idea thread" you'll see that the basic foundation for the medal program was my idea. The desire/idea to have *something* that would show mastery of the levels was Wynn's.

PWynn, and a couple other COTH Forums members (I will leave it up to them to comment or not) and I worked on a committee together about this idea with a USEA rep. All four of us worked on this program for quite some time.

I was excited to learn that the program is being implemented at my area's meeting earlier this month. I hope it fulfills its ideal.

[Janet]

My apologies.

Ok, committee including VCT, pwynnorman, and others

[SevenDogs]

My one-word response to the question about the optional horsemanship/judging portion for Horse Trials was "BRAVO". :yes: Except I wish it were mandatory.

DW: While I think your intentions about wishing the horsemanship program was mandatory are pure, I must dissent. As has been discussed on numerous threads, that treads dangerously close to what some call the possible "hunterization" of eventing and would change our sport in a negative way. I think USEA did a nice job choosing to categorize it as "optional".

I took the survey and my answer was "it depends on who the assessor is", which I thought showed that USEA understood the issues when they offered that as one of the responses. I also voiced the concern that this program not be allowed to lead into "judged" cross country rides becoming the sport, which it has never been and I hope it never becomes.

Edited to add: The proper use of Dangerous Riding penalties is the appropriate way to penalize poor riding and accurately affect the competition outcome.

[VCT]

My apologies.

Ok, committee including VCT, pwynnorman, and others

Heheh, no problem.

I just don't want to be subject to additional people who are happy about the program giving me a long explanation about what they've heard about it and when I try to tell them I was involved in creating it so I know all about it, they tell me "No, you must be thinking of something else... this was created by the lady who bred Teddy" and then they proceed to talk AT me about it for 10 minutes. That just sorta rubs the wrong way. I'm sure you'd feel the same about something you worked hard on.

[Janet]

Definitely.

[bornfreenowexpensive]

I took it, enjoyed it, and added my comments as I thought appropriate. I, personally, was pretty excited by the horsemanship proposal they put forth in the survey. Being "judged" on how you rode a designated portion of the XC, and then having feedback on that. Brilliant idea, I think. More feedback is always valuable to us. My question is who would be judging that portion? I'm not excited by the possibility of "winning" as much as being able to be more educated, and being safer out on course. Any other thoughts on this?


I was sort of indifferent about it and probably wouldn't participate. I guess I would see what was the cost and who was judging. It just seemed like another "competition". (I don't really care about the medal program either). I'm there to do the best I can and to improve my horse...wouldn't matter to me if I got an award or not. I think that there is more value to just buy the video of my xc. Also, my horses are pretty darn good at letting me know if I'm riding well or sucky!

[SevenDogs]

I was sort of indifferent about it and probably wouldn't participate. I guess I would see what was the cost and who was judging. It just seemed like another "competition". (I don't really care about the medal program either). I'm there to do the best I can and to improve my horse...wouldn't matter to me if I got an award or not. I think that there is more value to just buy the video of my xc. Also, my horses are pretty darn good at letting me know if I'm riding well or sucky!

Yup... sometimes those videos of the "not so good" rides are definitely the most valuable! I always learn a lot by watching my dressage and stadium, as well.... and not necessarily very flattering things!

[deltawave]

DW: While I think your intentions about wishing the horsemanship program was mandatory are pure, I must dissent. As has been discussed on numerous threads, that treads dangerously close to what some call the possible "hunterization" of eventing and would change our sport in a negative way. I think USEA did a nice job choosing to categorize it as "optional".

I took the survey and my answer was "it depends on who the assessor is", which I thought showed that USEA understood the issues when they offered that as one of the responses. I also voiced the concern that this program not be allowed to lead into "judged" cross country rides becoming the sport, which it has never been and I hope it never becomes.

Edited to add: The proper use of Dangerous Riding penalties is the appropriate way to penalize poor riding and accurately affect the competition outcome.Points very well taken. However, although I'll freely acknowledge that I am not and never really have been a "hunter person", I do think that a LITTLE BIT of "hunterization" would not necessarily be a bad thing. For example, emphasizing and rewarding (maybe not in the final scores but some other means) a smooth, flowing round, excellent jumping style and a very well-schooled and athletic horse has no down side IMO. Maybe I'm dating myself a bit, but I have in mind OLD FASHIONED hunters, where "brilliance", a good gallop, etc. were what would win the big classes. :yes: If you ever have a chance to watch these new Hunter "derbies" they have, you might cry. BIG, SOLID-looking (OK, they fall down but they look SOLID) jumps, banks (small ones, for sure) and ridden out of a beautiful hand-gallop, with STYLE. They're absolutely great and I enjoy them SO MUCH. Horses doing what comes naturally, without the scary-scary freak show that you see on XC a little too often. :eek:

Form follows function. That expression can be interpreted many different ways. To me, it means if you're doing the job and doing it very well, it is a thing of beauty. If a pair is getting the job done with style, safety and the trip makes you smile or gives you goosebumps (in a GOOD way!) then why not reward this? Even this lowly Smurf can tell the difference between good, effective, stylish riding and "equitating". I daresay anyone who'd be call on to judge this type of venue would know the difference as well, and reward the proper one. :yes:

By all means the scary rides should be penalized, but what about the other end of the bell curve? The really, really brilliant and breathtaking ones? Why just single out the negative aspects? Who wouldn't LOVE to come off a great XC round and have someone who is a well-respected BNR (are there any of those left?) :sigh: go out of their way to tell them "great ride"? I would float on air for a WEEK if that ever happened. Heck, even if my own trainer says it I'm in heaven. ;)

Of course a big variation on this is the "rider's license", which I've always stumped for. You must demonstrate competence XC before being allowed to move up. Definitely an idea with more holes than structure, but it's one of my pet things to wrangle with when I'm stuck in the car for 8 hours. :) That and spending the $50 million Lotto winnings that will never come since I don't play the Lotto. :p

[asterix]

Haven't done the survey yet, but DW, I think you make a really good point.

Couple of years ago a pretty BNT sat at the water complex of one of our HTs for most of Training and basically gave a clinic to some friends of mine who were with her, critiquing the rides through.

I had totally misridden this complex the year before, had a stop and a slo mo fall (in front of my trainer, who was TD. Quelle disaster!!!:lol:). This year my parents had come across the country to watch me compete, and were ensconced at that same dang water complex.

Guy before me crashed, I mean CRASHED at the water. I was held in the start box. Came down to the water bound and determined to DO it RIGHT. Did it RIGHT. I was so thrilled, I could barely ride the rest of the course (luckily, horse thought he was cat's pajamas too and did it for me). Best part of the whole thing? BNT told my friend, "that was textbook."

The feedback I got from both my trainer the first year and the BNT the second year was a HUGE learning experience for me.

[GotSpots]

If you ever have a chance to watch these new Hunter "derbies" they have, you might cry. BIG, SOLID-looking (OK, they fall down but they look SOLID) jumps, banks (small ones, for sure) and ridden out of a beautiful hand-gallop, with STYLE. They're absolutely great and I enjoy them SO MUCH. Horses doing what comes naturally, without the scary-scary freak show that you see on XC a little too often. :eek:

...

By all means the scary rides should be penalized, but what about the other end of the bell curve? The really, really brilliant and breathtaking ones? Why just single out the negative aspects? Who wouldn't LOVE to come off a great XC round and have someone who is a well-respected BNR (are there any of those left?) :sigh: go out of their way to tell them "great ride"?

Agree on both points. The Hunter derbies are gorgeous, and I think alot of us would do well to watch and learn from the folks who can get a horse to the perfect spot at every jump with style and flash. I honestly believe alot of BN-T SJ rounds are so much more scarier than your average 3' AA hunters in part because eventers don't spend enough time trying to get that polish. I don't care so much about the perfect lead change, but boy would I love to have the ability to hit the perfect distance consistently like some of those folks!

I also agree on the benefit of the positive compliment: I was on air after the three day when someone I really respect who I barely know commented positively on our ride through the water (ok, I was on air anyway - but that was the cherry on top). I just don't want it to turn into a battle of favoritism or a way to score interpersonal points, or even from someone not so educated who just rewards "pretty" over correct.

[SevenDogs]

DW and others: Don't get me wrong -- IF, and that is a BIG IF, it were done correctly, it is a fabulous idea. As I answered in the survey, I would likely participate, DEPENDING on who the assessor was. However, I think it is a slippery slope if it is made mandatory and the chances of it being done CORRECTLY are slim (Sorry to be such a pessimist on this one!).

Anytime you open anything up to more subjectivity, problems will arise. It sounds great to have a big name that you respect give you a compliment, but what happens when it is a name you DON'T respect, but it is mandatory so you are stuck. What happens when the wrong person gets rewarded and what happens when someone forgets down the road why this program was started and now it becomes a part of the regular scoring. Again, I am not usually so pessimistic, but this concerns me greatly as it could drastically and negatively affect our sport.

As an optional program, it is a nice perk for those that want it. I would bet that if the appropriate people are used, most riders would sign up for it. There will always be THOSE riders and THOSE riders either probably wouldn't sign up or would ignore the comments given. They are the ones that should be netted through Dangerous Riding Penalties.

The other issue I continue to have, is that we should not be focusing our attention so much on the lower levels. It is too easy to get distracted from the REAL CHANGES needed at the upper levels in course design, safety, etc. It becomes really easy to get everyone distracted on changes to the lower levels (speed faults, judged XC rounds, banning watches, etc.) while nothing is being done about the true issues. Time and resources are always limited and I want to make sure we keep our eye on the ball and the ball is not bouncing around BN-T!

[deltawave]

Ah, but I would argue that the sport IS the lower levels now. The real sport, I mean, not the one the ULRs are playing. :sigh: Where do 90% of the entry fees come from, after all? I feel like we deserve 90% of the USEA's attention and that 90% of program development should be for "us". ;) The Darrens and Laines of the world can go squat on eggs as far as I'm concerned. (I am thinking a lot about chickens lately, forgive the poultry analogy)