USA’s Jessica Ransehousen Speaks Out on Dressage Judging

[ridgeback]

http://www.dressage-news.com/?p=1723

Very interesting read...Nice to see a judge admit that some are so over scored because of who they are.

[Eclectic Horseman]

Word.

[Maren]

Applause. Great analysis and suggestions!! Thanks for posting this OP

[wbhorseusa]

Las Vegas is definitely a breath of fresh air because everyone except Isabell thought the outcome was fair. Isabell showed bad sportsmanship, especially during the press conference, she felt entitled to win no matter what. After all she has a background of being rewarded when it was not deserved and she expects that entitlement to continue.


Wow!!! Now that is brave! Good for you Jessica for calling it like it is! Bravo! I think this lady needs to *stay* as our new team coach! Wow wow! :yes:

[ridgeback]

With all these problems and the tension that this horse showed through the movements of the test, it is difficult to believe this horse could have finished with a score higher than a 66% or 67%. The tension along with some disobedience should have been reflected in the actual movement scores as well in the general impressions found in the collective marks. So how was it possible that this ride earned a score of 74.2%?


How about this where she talks about Anky's GP ride at the Athens Olympics.

[fiona]

It's a great site and a good article.

It's not just the Dutch and German riders that are favoured by the judges though - some countries can show a lame horse and get a good score.

[ridgeback]

It's a great site and a good article.

It's not just the Dutch and German riders that are favoured by the judges though - some countries can show a lame horse and get a good score.

Who??

[belambi]

It's a great site and a good article.

It's not just the Dutch and German riders that are favoured by the judges though - some countries can show a lame horse and get a good score.

sad.. but very true.

[slc2]

The British study I read said that 'who you are' accounts for about five points in a score (points, not percentage, I believe).

In this article, if I read right, Jessica was proposing that a 74% should actually have gotten a 66 or 67%, which is a far larger difference than the British study suggested on average exists.

I can actually see and even tolerate 5 points out of the total, that isn't bad. But if it is actually 7 percentage points wacked, that is very big.

I'm not sure everyone would agree with Jessica Ransehousen's (i'll never spell that right) scores, but I do think that this is the start of some good changes for the better.

I've been studying the scores at the big events for a long time, and the 'score gap' is largest (usually) in the top 1-2-3 placings in the major events, for the established prior winners. THat appears to be where the greatest difference of opinion usually concentrates and is probably where the focus has to be.

I think there is a way to address this without a complete overhaul and a valve job.

If the sport is actually progressing, no one individual should be able to keep winning for many years without also making some big changes.

[ridgeback]

She was very detailed about Anky's ride and since I didn't see it I can't comment on it but she sure explained herself. You are right not everyone will agree but when it comes to the big names I've seen scores that are several % points to high IMHO.

[slc2]

'several' i can live with. it is, after all, an opinion. But 7%, 10%, we have very rigid standards these days and that is not really welcomed. The days are gone when an American judge could give an American rider, a score radically higher than the other judges (let's keep in mind it was American that started the tradition of the big scoregap before getting too outraged at 'everyone else' - i saw a fellow qualify for the Pan Am games because one judge gave him a 10% higher score than all the others did, so we aren't immune at home either).

[ridgeback]

'several' i can live with. it is, after all, an opinion. But 7%, 10%, we have very rigid standards these days and that is not really welcomed. The days are gone when an American judge could give an American rider, a score radically higher than the other judges (let's keep in mind it was American that started the tradition of the big scoregap before getting too outraged at 'everyone else' - i saw a fellow qualify for the Pan Am games because one judge gave him a 10% higher score than all the others did, so we aren't immune at home either).

At least for me this isn't a them vs. us it's about judges overlooking mistakes in the top rides and scoring them to high.

[slc2]

Yes, and I think the judge's job is far easier at the lower levels, there is much more that separates individual competitors and it is easier to separate them score wise. This is a very difficult job, to separate A elite rider from B elite rider, and I have heard just as convincing arguments on the opposite side of this issue.

[meupatdoes]

Yes, and I think the judge's job is far easier at the lower levels, there is much more that separates individual competitors and it is easier to separate them score wise. This is a very difficult job, to separate A elite rider from B elite rider, and I have heard just as convincing arguments on the opposite side of this issue.

Well, as Jessica Ransehousen pointed out, at the Olympics there was failure to halt, spooking, backing up, bucking and generalized blowing up to help the judges decide between one elite rider and the other.

Sadly all of them collectively must have been distracted by the hot dog stand at those moments.

[slc2]

Gary Rockwell is a very good judge and a very decent chap, and he gave one of those blowups a six, and I doubt it's because he wants to get into Isabel Werth's pants. Again, this is subjective opinion being offered based on the rules as they understand them; these people are not distracted by the hot dog stand and they are not the spawn of satan.

In my line of work what is to be done is determined by a very vague, poorly designed set of requirements. When things go badly, one points fingers at the people trying to execute the requirements, rather than the requirements themselves.

They are human beings and it very well may be the scoring guidelines and the rules that have to be adjusted, rather than these people excommunicated for their sins or called names on a public bulletin board.

[meupatdoes]

Gary Rockwell is a very good judge and a very decent chap, and he gave one of those blowups a six, and I doubt it's because he wants to get into Isabel Werth's pants. Again, this is subjective opinion being offered based on the rules as they understand them; these people are not distracted by the hot dog stand and they are not the spawn of satan.

In my line of work what is to be done is determined by a very vague, poorly designed set of requirements. When things go badly, one points fingers at the people trying to execute the requirements, rather than the requirements themselves.

They are human beings and it very well may be the scoring guidelines and the rules that have to be adjusted, rather than these people excommunicated for their sins or called names on a public bulletin board.

Before you get all a-flap, please blue quote ONE name that a judge has been called by anyone in this thread.

[slc2]

I'd say yours qualifies. 'Distracted by the hotdog stand'.

If they are distracted by a hot dog stand, exactly how seriously do you think an FEI judge prepares for that job, how long do you think it takes, how much do you think it costs them, how long do you think it takes them to get to be an O judge, and how hard do you think they work to get there? I don't agree with everything they do, but I don't accuse them of being so stupid they are 'distracted by the hotdog stand'.

[meupatdoes]

I'd say yours qualifies. 'Distracted by the hotdog stand'.

If they are distracted by a hot dog stand, exactly how seriously do you think an FEI judge prepares for that job, how long do you think it takes, how much do you think it costs them, how long do you think it takes them to get to be an O judge, and how hard do you think they work to get there? I don't agree with everything they do, but I don't accuse them of being so stupid they are 'distracted by the hotdog stand'.

For serious?
"Distracted by the hotdog stand" is a name tantamount to calling somebody stupid?
You are reeeallllllllly reaching on this one.

But if you are going to call my phrase a name, at least get it straight and call it the right one.
It's not a 'name'. A "name" would be a noun. Such as, for example, 'idiot'.

It's a participle phrase (verb used as adjective ='distracted' followed by prepositional phrase).

Ooohhh, a participle phrase.
Them's fightin' words.
(Ugh, "fightin'." There I go again.)


ETA
I should note that if you quote the ENTIRE sentence, "[they] must have been distracted by the hot dog stand", it is actually a verb ('must have been distracted,' comprised of three helping verbs 'must,' 'have,' and 'been' plus main verb 'distracted') followed by a prepositional phrase.

Again, in the interest of calling things the right name.
Also an example on how only quoting half of something can change things.

[Eclectic Horseman]

I don't think that it is an issue of being distracted or that judges are stupid.

The system isn't working for some reason and that is detrimental to the sport. Judges may be scoring 100% correctly as Rockwell and others have argued. It doesn't matter. When the judging makes large numbers of knowledgeable participants and spectators turn cynical, then the system needs to be changed.

[merrygoround]

Gotta love Jessica, even when she's killing you with her dry comments when teaching.

[Quest52]

I think you see it everywhere... even on your local levels if you're looking for it.

If you've got a big named trainer that is well known in the circle, and they ride, or their child rides, even if its crap there seems to be an increase in the score.

I feel most sorry for those who go right after these people, because I feel like they judges then find clarity.

[grayarabpony]

I am very happy to see this article.

When I read Axel Steiner's article in the Chronicle, I remember thinking that he left out score inflation as a recent trend.

[canyonoak]

Is this the week that each country is going to stand up and thump its chest?

It still comes down to good riding or bad riding.

Not classical or new or post-modern or anything else.

I am not going to re-hash Anky's ride at Athens. I thought the 74 was a gift, but that it was far better than a 66-67 ride. Period. The commentary on that ride is highly subjective and rather biased, IMHO.

And the reality of Isabell at Hong Kong is this: the ride was being scored at well over 80, something like 86,out of reach of mere mortals, new record, etc etc--when the horse bronked/spazzed.

And it is the wonderfulness of Isabell (and other great riders) that within a movement or two, she got the ride back on track, got the horse focused,and out there at the end of her rein, and carried on.

THAT is what competition riding is all about: not smooth, smooth, no risk, lalalala, but taking the risk,making it look effortless, finding and then re-finding the focus. Getting as close to the line as possible without losing the special grace that is partnership, harmony.

As for Las Vegas, I thought Steffen's ride was beautiful and worthy of the high scores.

But I also realize how and why THREE of the FIVE judges saw Isabell's ride as just so technically wonderful, that they placed her first.

The Dutch judge gave Steffen a score that was NINE POINTS higher than anyone else's, and the result was still only a .4 difference in the average. That was why Isabell was upset.

And no, I did not think her scores were out of line.

[ridgeback]

Is this the week that each country is going to stand up and thump its chest?

It still comes down to good riding or bad riding.

Not classical or new or post-modern or anything else.

I am not going to re-hash Anky's ride at Athens. I thought the 74 was a gift, but that it was far better than a 66-67 ride. Period. The commentary on that ride is highly subjective and rather biased, IMHO.

And the reality of Isabell at Hong Kong is this: the ride was being scored at well over 80, something like 86,out of reach of mere mortals, new record, etc etc--when the horse bronked/spazzed.

And it is the wonderfulness of Isabell (and other great riders) that within a movement or two, she got the ride back on track, got the horse focused,and out there at the end of her rein, and carried on.

THAT is what competition riding is all about: not smooth, smooth, no risk, lalalala, but taking the risk,making it look effortless, finding and then re-finding the focus. Getting as close to the line as possible without losing the special grace that is partnership, harmony.

As for Las Vegas, I thought Steffen's ride was beautiful and worthy of the high scores.

But I also realize how and why THREE of the FIVE judges saw Isabell's ride as just so technically wonderful, that they placed her first.

The Dutch judge gave Steffen a score that was NINE POINTS higher than anyone else's, and the result was still only a .4 difference in the average. That was why Isabell was upset.

And no, I did not think her scores were out of line.

You are entitled to your opinion but I tend to agree with Jessica the judge and three time Olympian:D

[freestyle2music]

More and more of these old brags are jumping on their soapbox and telling the world how it should be done. These ODG's are desperately searching for recognition of their old rusted standards. Can you all remember Edward and Lingh at the WorldCup at Las Vegas ? Wooooow... the crowd loved his music and his performance, and this was only a few weeks after some judges told at the press-conference that Edward and Lingh could have been the winners if they used more suitable music :confused: And see what happens today ;)

Dear Mrs Ransehousen the world of dressage is involving and riders that can solve a problem in the ring are rewarded for this. Since you are (or have been ) an "I" judge you should know that there are 400 points to give, and you also should know that when a rider scores many 9's they can afford a 3 or 4. Next to this , when you are focussing on mistakes or movements that scored toooooo high you should have also commented on the canter-pirouettes of SP and Ravel during LV.

[Eclectic Horseman]

But canyonoak and Theo, you are first arguing that the judging was correct and that the judges were just doing what they were supposed to do.

Then Theo you are arguing that the sport is evolving and the judging is changing.

BOTH of those things may be true. But if they are, and things continue on this way, then it is going to be a very, very small sport with perhaps only Anky and Isabell competing. Don't you get it?

It is not about what is correct in the present system. It is about whether the present system is a benefit or a detriment to the future of our sport....

[Coreene]

My only question is this: if Anky had ridden the test Steffen did in LV and placed first, would her comments be the same?

[freestyle2music]

My only question is this: if Anky had ridden the test Steffen did in LV and placed first, would her comments be the same?]

Coreene do a search on this BB and you find my answer to this. When exactly the same rides of LV were performed in Aachen, Isabell would have won, and when the same rides where performed in (for example) Den Bosch, Anky would have won. IMHO this omission in judging has more importancy than all the blabla of Mrs. Ransenhausen.

[Ambrey]

So what about her point that the submission issues should have been reflected in the overall scores, but weren't? A rider can have a 2 or 3 on one or two movements and win, but a low overall score is going to hurt her.

And what were the movement scores for the movements in which Anky mis-counted or did not halt? (we already know the answer to this... didn't one judge give her an 8 for a halt that never happened?).

Understanding that bias is there doesn't make Anky and Isabell not great riders. But ignoring it if it is there is bad for the sport as a whole.

[wbhorseusa]

And it is the wonderfulness of Isabell (and other great riders) that within a movement or two, she got the ride back on track, got the horse focused,and out there at the end of her rein, and carried on.

THAT is what competition riding is all about: not smooth, smooth, no risk, lalalala, but taking the risk,making it look effortless, finding and then re-finding the focus. Getting as close to the line as possible without losing the special grace that is partnership, harmony.



Frankly, if anyone other than Isabell or Anky, Edward had that kind of a blow up in the ring, their scores would reflect it.

I think the real problem is that their is a real issue with the judging *at all levels* in this country, and not only at the International level. All too often I feel, and I know others at shows feel that if there is a BNT in the show, they get scored better even if they have obvious mistakes in their tests. I do not feel that risk taking is rewarded in the ring either.

Not only that, but one of the most disheartening things is that even average Warmblood horses just do not do well against fancy big moving $$$ warmbloods. So, who in their right mind would weekend after weekend subject themselves to spending $700 a pop to go to a recognized show only to score in the mid 50's and feel miserable about it? Lets not even talk about Joe Rider with his little Appy who has no hope at recognized shows, I am talking about your average moving, pretty, imported WB that cost in the $50,000 range vs the big, very fancy $150,000 range horse. Who wants to spend $50,000 on a horse only to get beat out constantly by someone who bought a more expensive horse? It happens all the time. I compete constantly, and have so for years. I see it happen all the time.

All I know is that there is a serious issue with how we are judged at shows currently at this time. I do definitely think that if something is not done about it, especially in these economic times, its going to do (or has already) done damage to how people view this sport.

Now the question is, what does the USEF and USDF and FEI do to the judging system to make it more fair and appealing to all riders and not just the handful?

[merrygoround]

Sorry Theo, Jess is right. Good riding, is good riding. Correct movements, are still correct no matter what her age. And last I heard, she was still riding.

[grayarabpony]

The commentary on that ride is highly subjective and rather biased, IMHO.




The same could be said of yours. :lol:

Anky's rides always look very tense to me, and not harmonious at all. And as a matter of fact, I didn't swoon over Peters' ride either.

JMO.

[freestyle2music]

All international judges do have the Email addresses of other international judges, so she could start by sending her questions and remarks to them.

But who knows; maybe she did this already but like Philippe Karl's letter to the FN her remarks ended in the same mailbox :D

[canyonoak]

<< Originally Posted by Coreene
My only question is this: if Anky had ridden the test Steffen did in LV and placed first, would her comments be the same? >>



To which I add "if Anky" -- or substitute name of other not-American rider --

LOL.

More seriously: EVERY time the tests are re-played and judges get to watch them, there are comments to the effect that they would change a score here, stand by a score there.

That is the nature of subjective judging.

But there is a difference to judging in real time, being impressed by the partnership, and watching the test in 3-D, with heart and knowledge and experience, as well as totting up deduction points.

Just about anyone can play judge, given the luxury of video, rewind, freeze-frame and bias.

Instant replay was tried at one point, and that does NOT produce scores that are any more satisfying.

What will produce satisfaction?

Here, I'm not really sure.

When nothing much is on the line, the judging is usually acceptable to the great majority of people (other than the riders who did not win).

It is when the judging matters--for teams, for funding, for support, for sponsors, for points and standings -- that the questions are raised.

Are these questions valid?

Who gets to decide that the questions raised are matters of manipulation and bullying? Who gets to decide that the questions raised reflect accuracy and truly reflect the nature of that performance?

None of the new judging systems used by the often-mentioned figure skating,let alone gymnastics, have improved the public perception of the judge scores. AT least not when team medals, funding etc is on the line.

ANd it is beyond me how those systems, aimed to watch the performance of human athletes, can accurately gauge the intangible nature of partnership between two alien species.

[claire]

All international judges do have the Email addresses of other international judges, so she could start by sending her questions and remarks to them.

I think she clearly states that there is an ongoing discussion between the FEI Dressage Task Force and "I" judges such as herself.

Katrina Wuest, a German judge who is also a member of the Task Force, is heading up the judging issues. Letters are flowing between FEI judges and Katerina concerning judging and other issues such as the size of the Olympic teams, etc.

Both Axel Steiner and J. Hinneman have written about the psychological difficulty of judging Dressage as it is so subjective. And judging a sport with such subjective parameters leads to the difficulty of politics and $$ agendas entering into the mix.


We hear a lot through the press and also from knowledgeable spectators about the political side of judging that occurs at big international competitions, such as World Equestrian Games and Olympic Games. There seems to be a political influence that has created a disparity between what the judges see in a given test and how the ride is actually scored.

[mbm]

why do i get this feeling that there are a very small few that want desperately to change the spart of dressage to their liking?

it is just so strange to read posts/articles etc by these folks.... they dont seem to get that no matter how they spin their story, the masses dont seem to be buying..... and in the end if they succeed in turning dressage into a cross between a costume class/park class/ dressage test/ circus ride that anyone can understand - most of the current base $$ will go elsewhere...

it is a very interesting thing to watch.... a classic study in propaganda and public relations / spin doctoring / double speak/ and a few trying to change something for their (monetary) benefit....

[TheHorseProblem]

Please fill me in on the history here. Wasn't 1996 the first time that the freestyles were included in the judging for the individual Olympic medals? Were freestyles always part of international competition?

I have the tape of the Atlanta games, showing the team Grand Prix tests. It's without commentary, and the tests are shown in the order or the scores, so one can see the progression. No controversy there.

[meupatdoes]

Dear Mrs Ransehousen the world of dressage is involving and riders that can solve a problem in the ring are rewarded for this.

OK, but...wouldn't it be nice if the apparent top 1% of the sport could, I don't know, not have obvious problems to solve in the ring in the first place?

The next time my horse blows a change on a hunter trip or blows up in the hack should I simply explain to the judge that I should be rewarded because I survived and "solved the problem in the ring?"

I too would like to be rewarded by the judges so if solving a problem in the ring is the new thing then I can easily create a problem and then solve it.
Should I deliberately light my horse up like a Christmas tree at the beginning of our dressage debut so that I can "solve the problem in the ring" for the extra Anky points? I mean, if I really wanted to I could gank him in the ribs with my spurs, create our very own Satchmo moment, and then ride him like a normal person and pat myself on the back for doing this "involving" dressage.

Aren't we meant to be ironing out the problems at home, and THEN loading up to go to the shows to demonstrate a well-prepared performance?

[freestyle2music]

OK, but...wouldn't it be nice if the apparent top 1% of the sport could, I don't know, not have obvious problems to solve in the ring in the first place?

The next time my horse blows a change on a hunter trip or blows up in the hack should I simply explain to the judge that I should be rewarded because I survived and "solved the problem in the ring?"

I too would like to be rewarded by the judges so if solving a problem in the ring is the new thing then I can easily create a problem and then solve it.
Should I deliberately light my horse up like a Christmas tree at the beginning of our dressage debut so that I can "solve the problem in the ring" for the extra Anky points? I mean, if I really wanted to I could gank him in the ribs with my spurs, create our very own Satchmo moment, and then ride him like a normal person and pat myself on the back for doing this "involving" dressage.

Aren't we meant to be ironing out the problems at home, and THEN loading up to go to the shows to demonstrate a well-prepared performance?

Maybe you should start reading, for example and to start with the post of CanyonOak.

But it seems that reading is not a very strong point on this forum.

[meupatdoes]

Maybe you should start reading, for example and to start with the post of CanyonOak.

But it seems that reading is not a very strong point on this forum.

I read, "the riders that can solve a problem in the ring are rewarded for this."

Please explain to me how else I should interpret that.

I understand that if you have a ton of 9's the odd 4 won't kill you, so I get how one could have a problem and have the other positive aspects of the ride make up for it, but I fail to understand the logic that the scores are so high since dressage is evolving and "solving problems in the ring" is being rewarded.

It is one thing to have a blow-up wash out scorewise in the face of endless nines one after the other, but quite another to start calling "solving problems in the ring" a rewardable event.

[poltroon]

I think it is human nature, when you are expecting a great ride, when you are expecting other people to see it as a great ride, and you have a short time to give a score, to be influenced by that expectation. But, dressage is supposed to be about harmony.

I think if a horse gives his rider the (metaphorical) finger - not just a shy but a big fat "YOU SUCK" moment, the score for that movement should not exceed 3 regardless of the recovery or other qualities of the movement. And I think there's an argument that the horse reacting violently and angrily to the rider (not a spook at something external) should see that reflected in the collective marks - either, or perhaps both of, rider score and submission, regardless of how nice the test was otherwise.

It may be that the overall score is still high enough to win; that's OK.

[freestyle2music]

I read, "the riders that can solve a problem in the ring are rewarded for this."

Please explain to me how else I should interpret that.

I understand that if you have a ton of 9's the odd 4 won't kill you, so I get how one could have a problem and have the other positive aspects of the ride make up for it, but I fail to understand the logic that the scores are so high since dressage is evolving and "solving problems in the ring" is being rewarded.

It is one thing to have a blow-up wash out scorewise in the face of endless nines one after the other, but quite another to start calling "solving problems in the ring" a rewardable event.

The differences between the topriders and the mediocre riders is mostly the fact that with the mediocre riders, when something goes wrong it has a negative influences on the rest of their ride, while topriders are able to pull out some extra motivation to get a better score for the rest of their test. This fact is also rewarded at the right side of the scoresheet. Next to this judges are humans too. Meaning when they see riders fighting back after some lesser movements they reward this. But I really don't have time to explain this all. I just wanted to tell this board that the biggest part of the Jessica Ransehousen article is B*llshit

[Ambrey]

So seriously, a ride with problems should score better than a ride with no problems because the rider had to "fight back"? Are you for real?

[Eclectic Horseman]

Under those criteria, maybe Jan Ebling should have won at Las vegas? :confused::no:

[poltroon]

The differences between the topriders and the mediocre riders is mostly the fact that with the mediocre riders, when something goes wrong it has a negative influences on the rest of their ride, while topriders are able to pull out some extra motivation to get a better score for the rest of their test. This fact is also rewarded at the right side of the scoresheet. Next to this judges are humans too. Meaning when they see riders fighting back after some lesser movements they reward this. But I really don't have time to explain this all. I just wanted to tell this board that the biggest part of the Jessica Ransehousen article is B*llshit

I guess I must be one of the 'topriders' then, because I certainly have plenty of tests where we've rallied to do well after some bad moments at the beginning.

However, I maintain that there is a difference between a lapse in concentration or a spook or an error of greenness, versus the horse saying to the rider, "I HATE YOU YOU SUCK", even if just for a moment. The first is no big deal, but the second... well, if the horse thinks his rider sucks, who is the judge to argue? ;)

[meupatdoes]

Meaning when they see riders fighting back after some lesser movements they reward this.

So now you are saying that the subsequent movements receive higher scores after a problem, than they would have had the problem not occurred, because the rider is "fighting back after some lesser movements," and it is this fighting back that is being rewarded?

So if I know that my horse normally would get a 7 on whatever movement, I should strategically plan a blowup before that movement so that when we get to it I can "fight back after some lesser movement" and get an 8 or 9 for a 7 quality movement?

I also assume you are expecting there would be enough subsequent inflatedly-scored movements (nines one after the other again) to make up for what should STILL imo be a piss poor score for the blow up.
Unless you are also arguing that the blow up should not be scored poorly in the first place, it would by your scoring logic be best to have the blow up at the beginning of the test to have more opportunity to get the inflated "fighting back" scores. Your "problem" would have to occur early enough that the subsequent inflated scores could still put you ahead of where you would have been with no problem but also no "fighting back" scores on the rest of the test.

So a rider whose horse stood up and waved hello at the beginning salute would do much better than a rider who had the same test except the horse stood up and waved goodbye.

That seems ...odd.

[Ambrey]

So if I know that my horse normally would get a 7 on whatever movement, I should strategically plan a blowup before that movement so that when we get to it I can "fight back after some lesser movement" and get an 8 or 9 for a 7 quality movement?



Be sure and plan the blow up for a movement you usually get a 6 on, then when they only score you a 5 because of the problem it's not a big loss.

[Eclectic Horseman]

So a rider whose horse stood up and waved hello at the beginning salute would do much better than a rider who had the same test except the horse stood up and waved goodbye.

That seems ...odd.

:lol::lol::lol:

[meupatdoes]

Be sure and plan the blow up for a movement you usually get a 6 on, then when they only score you a 5 because of the problem it's not a big loss.

*poises spurs above horse's flanks*

[mbm]

god i love logic!
:yes::yes:
:lol:

[freestyle2music]

Isn't it funny that the article says : The lady with the eyeglasses :D

Dear Mrs Ranshousen you can find all the rides you described on www.topdressage.tv

Please put on your right glasses and look again :yes::yes:

Steffen then rode his freestyle and everyone held their breath. This ride was a confirmation of the Grand Prix two days before. Ravel showed smooth transitions and wonderful piaffe and canter pirouettes with great engagement and carrying power. The freestyle showed a great degree of difficulty with no mistakes. Steffen and Ravel are so harmonious together. They have a true partnership – no subservience on the horse’s part, just a happy, elastic, horse. The horse is ridden with real swing from behind over the back and into a quiet contact remaining uphill. It is wonderful to see how quiet and low Steffen’s hands remain even through the most difficult movements in the test.

I hope you made these statements as the USA teamcoach and not as an international judge.:confused:

[Ambrey]

I hope you made these statements as the USA teamcoach and not as an international judge.:confused:

Why do you hope that? The international judges at the event agreed with her :winkgrin:

[merrygoround]

Isn't it funny that the article says : The lady with the eyeglasses :D

Dear Mrs Ranshousen you can find all the rides you described on www.topdressage.tv

Please put on your right glasses and look again :yes::yes:



I hope you made these statements as the USA teamcoach and not as an international judge.:confused:

And Robert Dover agreed with her and the judges!!!!

Sorry Theo, I'm with them! :lol: No! Not sorry!!!!!!!

[freestyle2music]

Why do you hope that? The international judges at the event agreed with her :winkgrin:

No the Dutch judge scored SP 9% higher as the rest.

But I am talking about the text of the article of JR and not about the outcome or scores. If she can see the mistakes in both the GP and GPF of SP and Ravel it's time she buy some new eyeglasses.:yes::yes:

Maybee she spend too much time with Klaus Balkenhol because he had the same habbit, and only saw the mistakes of riders from other countries.

JR would have shown some guts and sense of realisme when she has stated that the Dutch judge was a little to over enthousiastic.

@ MerryGoRound

NOOOOOOOO Robert Dover made the right remarks all the way. And with his EagleEye he pointed at all the mistakes (which RD ofcourse called hobbles). Look and Listen before you start barking.


Theo

[Ambrey]

Ah, OK... you meant specifically the "no mistakes" comment. I agree, every ride has mistakes. I think she meant "no major errors."

[freestyle2music]

Ah, OK... you meant specifically the "no mistakes" comment. I agree, every ride has mistakes. I think she meant "no major errors."

For me a canter-pirouette that looks like a working pirouette, a spook at the transition from trot to canter, a mistake in the first flying changes, a piaffe which is 3.5 meter forwards and a wrong start of the zigzag halfpasses are major errors. Furthermore I would like to talk with JR about her remark "smooth transitions".

Theo

[meupatdoes]

For me a canter-pirouette that looks like a working pirouette, a spook at the transition from trot to canter, a mistake in the first flying changes, a piaffe which is 3.5 meter forwards and a wrong start of the zigzag halfpasses are major errors. Furthermore I would like to talk with JR about her remark "smooth transitions".

Theo

Well, I mean, obviously Stephen made his major errors so that his subsequent "fighting back" could be rewarded.

I hear it's the new thing going around these days.

[canyonoak]

Let us pick Isabell and Hong Kong.

The ride was going great. Her running score was, IIRC, around an 85-86. Something amazing.
All judges were in basic agreement.

She had a major blow-up which destroyed the scores on that movement and the transition.
It lowered her submission score of course.

BUT after the blow-up, the horse went back to work and regained his focus and the ride regained its composure and quality.

What score do you think she should have gotten that the judges were so overly generous on?

I have the score sheets for a lot of the Hong Kong rides.

Just to go with the GPS: on the blown piaffe, Isabell/Satchmo received 1, 1, 2, 1, 2.
The transition score was 3,0,2,6, 0 .
Her next few movements received 6s and 7s and then she returned to 8s and a few 9s, and when all was said and done, mots of the 36 boxes for scores had a lot of 8s and a high proprtion of 9s.
Most of her test was on a level far above other competitors in terms of balance, rhythm, harmony and power and expression.

That is why her overall score remained so high.

Anyone who rides knows what it is to have a horse lose focus, go away, fight, blow up, spook,etc.

Most people lose the quality of the performance and do not really recover the level they had.

Most people do not start with a running score well into the 80's.

It was not blindness or prejudice that enabled the judges to give Isabell and Satchmo those scores.

[slc2]

I agree. Even when I recalculated the score without the higher score for the transition and an averaged score instead, she still won.

I don't think the horse said 'you suck', I think the horse is brilliant but has the odd moment, and as she said on camera when she was getting award with Anky, having beaten her, they both shrugged and seemed to say, 'c'est la vie'. Seems like the scores even surprise the experienced winners sometimes.

[Ambrey]

But what were her collective marks?

[slc2]

They should have been very high, and I believe they were.

One blowup doesn't blow up a whole test, fortunately for the rest of us. Twice and it sure does, but once, no.

[Plantagenet]

...that the collective remarks often determine the winner at the upper echelons. anyone else hear or believe this?

also:

a friend is a NCAA basketball ref and he tells me that as part of their job, they receive a video of the game with a sheet to be filled out requiring that they justify their calls. this is somehow (sorry I don't know exactly) evaluated by the powers that be later and the ref is given some sort of grade.

those with the highest grades get jobs and those with the lowest grades are phased out

could dressage adopt a variation of this?

[canyonoak]

The collective marks were:

Gaits 8,8,8,8,8
Impulsion 8,8,8,8,8
Submission 6,6,6,6,6
Rider 8,8,8,8,8

[Carol Ames]

PLEASE NO dissecting phrases; :eek:It's inhumane!
But if you are going to call my phrase a name, at least get it straight and call it the right one.
It's not a 'name'. A "name" would be a noun. Such as, for example, 'idiot'.

It's a participle phrase (verb used as adjective ='distracted' followed by prepositional phrase).

Ooohhh, a participle phrase.
Them's fightin' words.

[Ambrey]

Hmm, wonder what the author of the article would have wanted to see for collective marks? 6 seems pretty fair to me.

[Dressage Art]

Not only that, but one of the most disheartening things is that even average Warmblood horses just do not do well against fancy big moving $$$ warmbloods. So, who in their right mind would weekend after weekend subject themselves to spending $700 a pop to go to a recognized show only to score in the mid 50's and feel miserable about it? Lets not even talk about Joe Rider with his little Appy who has no hope at recognized shows, I am talking about your average moving, pretty, imported WB that cost in the $50,000 range vs the big, very fancy $150,000 range horse. Who wants to spend $50,000 on a horse only to get beat out constantly by someone who bought a more expensive horse? It happens all the time. I compete constantly, and have so for years. I see it happen all the time.
I see that all the time as well.

[Dressage Art]

...that the collective remarks often determine the winner at the upper echelons. anyone else hear or believe this?Yes, they are very subjective and actually collective marks make up even larger % on the lower levels. If you do the math at Training Level - it's depressing how much is left to biased collective marks with general comments. I think they should be deleted from the tests.

[slc2]

"I see that all the time as well"

I have never seen a 'nice average' horse, whether a 50,000 dollar warmblood or a 800 dollar appaloosa, get a low 50's ride for a well ridden, obedient ride, no matter what sort of crappy gaits it had.

If the test is forward and a decent ride and a hot air balloon doesn't land in the ring while the horse is doing his test, it isn't going to score that low. If the horse is not accepting the bit, has major repeated disobediences, is unlevel, doesn't perform a fair amount of the work, or spends most of his time at X doing caprioles, sure, but not a decent ride. Scoring low? Going forward could lead to a score as much as 10 percentage points higher.

And why do people go, score in the middle of the pack, don't get a ribbon and come back again?

Because they enjoy learning, enjoy the time with their horse, and most of all - because at a horse show, there is no house work.

[FriesianX]

I think at the big, international competitions, the fanciest moving horse often wins - but that horse is also ridden by the best rider in most cases. Brilliance and edge are worth points when well ridden. At the mid level shows, by 1st and 2nd level, the fanciest horses are not always winning. A few years ago, at the CDS Junior Championships, the 1st level champion was a little POA pony, 2nd place was my Friesian/Morgan cross (ridden by a teen who'd given up trying to show her fancy HOT Warmblood). It wasn't until 3rd place that a WB made it into the ribbons. And it was the same placing the year before at Training Level too! As long as you aren't gunning for the CDIs, I think you can be competitive with a "plain ol' horse". As long as it has 3 pure gaits and you can ride that horse well.

I do agree the collectives often spin a test up or down the ranks - and those scores are often subjective. In the L program, we were told the Collectives should reflect the overall scores of the test - yet I've gotten tests back where the collectives had NOTHING to do with what went on in the test.

At least at the FEI levels, the score for gaits has a coefficient of '1' - that should help those who are showing with the "average" horse. But the rider must still be a bit more accurate, a bit more technical to pick up points on the non-brilliant moves (such as the walk piro, the RB, etc.).

We don't always agree with judges - and I've seen situations where you can tell a judge was way out of line (for example, in a panel of 5 judges, ONE gives a 6, the others give 1s and 2s). But - I still think most judging quality is pretty good. I think you'd see a lot of consistency if you lined up several rides with large ground juries, and looked movement at movement. JMHO of course...

[Ambrey]

Yeah, but the reason they have a panel of judges is that it's so easy to blink or sneeze at the moment of the error ;)

Regarding the horse with the biggest/fanciest gaits winning... I don't know about anyone else, but I've seen enough situations in which a nice mover turns into a WOW mover with a very skilled rider to not write it off so easily. When you get a WOW mover like Totilas and the skilled rider as well, it's really something to watch, but discounting the role of the riding and training in the gaits is, I think, a mistake.

And as for why a person with a horse who will never have wow gaits would ride, the nice thing about dressage is that with the scoring system, you can ride against yourself rather than the rest of the pack :)

[Dressage Art]

the Collectives should reflect the overall scores of the test - yet I've gotten tests back where the collectives had NOTHING to do with what went on in the test.Yep, that is an unfortunate truth as well and you know that those judges just pulled those scores out of the thin air and did not base them on the actual ride. Breed bias, star-power, personal dislikes shows up a lot in collective scores!

After "L" I started to notice mistakes that judges do. Unfortunately, some of them do something not along the Book and it's really a question of to what degree they are not following it. There are so many rules that can be broken. That said, some of the rules that are not being followed are quite harmless, like chit chatting with riders about their horses... yet another judge doesn't follow the rules by not basing collective marks on the actual test... pick the least of the evil here... after "L" I don't really believe that there is such thing as a "perfect" judges = just like there are no perfect dressage riders who can score 100% on their test.

[Ambrey]

After "L" I started to notice mistakes that judges do. Unfortunately, some of them do something not along the Book and it's really a question of to what degree they are not following it. There are so many rules that can be broken. That said, some of the rules that are not being followed are quite harmless, like chit chatting with riders about their horses... yet another judge doesn't follow the rules by not basing collective marks on the actual test... pick the least of the evil here... after "L" I don't really believe that there is such thing as a "perfect" judges = just like there are no perfect dressage riders who can score 100% on their test.

But that's where the statistical analysis being suggested by some would really help. If you have a pretty good system and the judge education is adequate, but there are some judges not following guidelines... they are very easy to pick out when you crunch the numbers.

If the system is not working, there's not much agreement among judges, etc., that would come out too.

What would not come out from the analysis suggested is whether there is bias in the system, whether there is systematically favorable judging to particular people. BUT- I think what the analysis COULD shed light on is whether at the top levels, there is not enough range in the scoring to allow the judges to properly discriminate between rides. Although Edward Gal seems to be opening the range up somewhat...

[Dressage Art]

I have never seen a 'nice average' horse, whether a 50,000 dollar warmblood or a 800 dollar appaloosa, get a low 50's ride for a well ridden, obedient ride, no matter what sort of crappy gaits it had.

My point that it takes a fancy horse to score well on FEI. If you have a horse that can score 8 on gaits, it'll be much easier for you to score 60%. and 8 for gaits = $$$$$

Low 50% is really, really bad ride and probably had very little to do with horse's gaits. It's actually quite difficult to even judge the ride to come up with such a low score. Low 50% doesn't show quality dressage, so no point even talking about such low scores. I'm talking about scores 60% and up. Take a horse that scores a 6 on his gaits and see how easy it will be to score 60%+ on obedient FEI test?

Yes, at 2nd level I saw different breeds of horses. At 4th level I see mostly WB and even fancier WB. Lots of imported fancy horses or schoolmasters showing many levels below the levels that they showed (I had a GP schoolmaster in my 3rd level class, $$$$$ FEI schoolmaster bought from Steffan Petters, and so on - I don't think that I've ever seen a $800 Appy in my 3rd/4th level classes, yet).

PS: but if you know of an Appy that shows 3rd/4th level with 60%+ scores and is for sale for $800 = I'll be VERY glad to buy him/her today :)

[Dressage Art]

they are very easy to pick out when you crunch the numbers.I don't think so, since there are many ways to score 60% and since most of the judges are scoring quite conservatively and not using the range of scores, the chances are that most will be in the same ball park. Statistics are missing the human factor and I think that you have to sit right next to the judge to truly understand how he/she judges. The final % doesn't show much.

+ There are judges that are talking a high talk but not walking the walk and over-scoring or under-scoring some horses = not using fair scoring. How would you catch those?

+ Some judges score just fine 99% of the time, and then they show their bias: how do you thing NQR Brentina got 66% from the US judge? What can be done here?

+some of those judges are the very big wigs (gray-haired mafia) that has to implement the changes in judging. How they can possibly implement changes that will incriminate themselves? How the younger, rebellious judge can go up the ranks if he/she needs a dozen reference letters from the big wigs themselves to go up the judging ladder?

It's a vicious circle my friends ;)

[Ambrey]

+ There are judges that are talking a high talk but not walking the walk and over-scoring or under-scoring some horses = not using fair scoring. How would you catch those?

This is actually the easiest to pick out with statistics. Remember, even if the numbers are very close, stats can pick out the oddballs. The calculations being suggested are very complex but very useful.

+ Some judges score just fine 99% of the time, and then they show their bias: how do you thing NQR Brentina got 66% from the US judge? What can be done here?

This is also easy to pick out, since FEI tests are multi-judged. It's relatively simple to find out whether a judge regularly scores her own country's riders higher than others.

+some of those judges are the very big wigs (gray-haired mafia) that has to implement the changes in judging. How they can possibly implement changes that will incriminate themselves? How the younger, rebellious judge can go up the ranks if he/she needs a dozen reference letters from the big wigs themselves to go up the judging ladder?

Therein lies the rub ;) It won't happen unless the judges are willing to ask the hard questions and accept the answers.

[merrygoround]

No the Dutch judge scored SP 9% higher as the rest.

But I am talking about the text of the article of JR and not about the outcome or scores. If she can see the mistakes in both the GP and GPF of SP and Ravel it's time she buy some new eyeglasses.:yes::yes:

Maybee she spend too much time with Klaus Balkenhol because he had the same habbit, and only saw the mistakes of riders from other countries.

JR would have shown some guts and sense of realisme when she has stated that the Dutch judge was a little to over enthousiastic.

@ MerryGoRound

NOOOOOOOO Robert Dover made the right remarks all the way. And with his EagleEye he pointed at all the mistakes (which RD ofcourse called hobbles). Look and Listen before you start barking.


Theo

@ f2m- I think that was "bobbles" :lol: ;)

[freestyle2music]

@ f2m- I think that was "bobbles" :lol: ;)

Dat is korrekt en de broer van mijn zuster heeft een tuinman wiens vrouw tante moet zeggen tegen de grote kerk in Amsterdam.

[Coreene]

Dat is korrekt en de broer van mijn zuster heeft een tuinman wiens vrouw tante moet zeggen tegen de grote kerk in Amsterdam.

Ja hoor! :lol:

[Alagirl]

No the Dutch judge scored SP 9% higher as the rest.

But I am talking about the text of the article of JR and not about the outcome or scores. If she can see the mistakes in both the GP and GPF of SP and Ravel it's time she buy some new eyeglasses.:yes::yes:

Maybee she spend too much time with Klaus Balkenhol because he had the same habbit, and only saw the mistakes of riders from other countries.

JR would have shown some guts and sense of realisme when she has stated that the Dutch judge was a little to over enthousiastic.

@ MerryGoRound

NOOOOOOOO Robert Dover made the right remarks all the way. And with his EagleEye he pointed at all the mistakes (which RD ofcourse called hobbles). Look and Listen before you start barking.


Theo

Damn, and for a second I thought you had given up your German bias towards an equal opportunity hatred....


Maybe in another life.....

[exvet]

Yes, at 2nd level I saw different breeds of horses. At 4th level I see mostly WB and even fancier WB. Lots of imported fancy horses or schoolmasters showing many levels below the levels that they showed (I had a GP schoolmaster in my 3rd level class, $$$$$ FEI schoolmaster bought from Steffan Petters, and so on - I don't think that I've ever seen a $800 Appy in my 3rd/4th level classes, yet).


Well come to our neck of the woods. You will see at least one non-warmblood showing FEI. My scores range in the upper 50's to 62.7% as a high for our first year at PSG. For a VERY average mover with tension problems (as well as conformational challenges) I don't consider that too bad. In fact I won the class with the 62.7% against several warmbloods who were definitely fancier movers. Of course I've seen a lot of what the others and you have described as well but some of us do dare to dream with our low priced, average critters. We accept the judging for what it is and continue to work to improve our riding/tests.

[ise@ssl]

I wish she would have delved into the situations in THIS COUNTRY and the "stars" that have seemed to get preferential scoring for the selection of our teams.

[slc2]

I think people from every country, even sometimes, judges, have a little bit of an emotional bias, so that they always see the faults of their team's horses as less significant than those of the other side's.

I think most of the time (with obvious exceptions), the bias is shown not in judging, but in the comments people make after the judging. I think most of the time, judges make an effort not to bias their marks. I think that it is only under unusual circumstances that a judge thinks he can continue to show obvious bias. I don't think most competition organizers want to be accused of bringing in biased judges.

Note too, most people are satisfied with the judging when they win - it's only when they don't win that they are griping about the judging.

The people who win say the judging is fair and opine that it is fair, the ones who did not are the ones with the equally erudite opinions as to why the judging is wrong.

In other words, the evaluation of the judging has an element of subjectivity to it. More than an element.

I think in general, judges take their stewardship pretty seriously, and want to avoid being accused of nationalism. The problem has only improved over the years, there used to be huge and very obvious discrepancies early on in the history of the Olympics. Now the problem is far more subtle.

When we have a national competition, or a highly nationalized competition, such as the Olympics, we set up a foolishly biased environment, where there are 'medal counts' for each country, and where it is made extremely clear that it is a medal race. We have this extremely nationalistically organized competition, then we have a fit when we don't win, and accuse everyone else of being biased. But of course we are not biased. We see the truth. No one else does.

It shouldn't be. It should be about individual competitors.

Personally, I'd like the Olympics and the worlds more if all competitors competed under the same uniform and were not identified by country, and all teams chosen by a lottery, and teams that wind up with athletes of the same ranking would be re-drawn, but that's another story.

When individual competitors get overly generous scores, you can rest assured that while you may not like it, it is a temporary situation. Someone else will come along and beat that person.

[FriesianX]

INote too, most people are satisfied with the judging when they win - it's only when they don't win that they are griping about the judging.

The people who win say the judging is fair and opine that it is fair, the ones who did not are the ones with the equally erudite opinions as to why the judging is wrong.



Ahhhh, SLC, I think even when people don't win, they often are comfortable with their scores and placings. In general, I think MOST people are fairly happy with the overall judging system and judges. Sure, we've all seen an ocassional obvious bias or problem, but the majority of the time, I think people are OK with what is happening.

At many of the shows I attend, I don't hear a LOT of kvetching about judges - and often when I DO hear it, it is from those who really don't understand the scoring system.

Honestly, I see a lot more complaints about judging on the bulletin boards then I see at the actual shows:winkgrin:

[merrygoround]

Dat is korrekt en de broer van mijn zuster heeft een tuinman wiens vrouw tante moet zeggen tegen de grote kerk in Amsterdam.

Nicht sprechen sie Deutch,or in this case Dutch!!! :)

[FriesianX]

Well come to our neck of the woods. You will see at least one non-warmblood showing FEI. My scores range in the upper 50's to 62.7% as a high for our first year at PSG. For a VERY average mover with tension problems (as well as conformational challenges) I don't consider that too bad. In fact I won the class with the 62.7% against several warmbloods who were definitely fancier movers. Of course I've seen a lot of what the others and you have described as well but some of us do dare to dream with our low priced, average critters. We accept the judging for what it is and continue to work to improve our riding/tests.

Actually, at many of our CA shows (I'm not all that far from DA - I think we live about 100 miles apart), we do see other breeds - most often the Baroque horses. There is always at least a handful of Andalusians and even a Lusitano or two at the FEI levels, and my Friesian cross stallion is doing PSG this year too (also first year at PSG). An ocassional Arabian or Arab-cross also shows up (the Arab Sport Horse is a big thing on the West Coast). So we do see the non-traditional non-Warmbloods.

But - I think maybe DA meant we don't see many "less pricey" horses at the FEI levels. Very seldom do we see a QH or Appy or other "normally priced" horse at those levels. I had to laugh at the comment earlier about the "$50,000 inexpensive Warmblood" - in almost any other horse world, the thought of a $50,000 horse is, well :eek::eek::eek:!

[slc2]

Isn't there a gradual evolution in what one thinks an expensive horse is?

[pluvinel]

...that the collective remarks often determine the winner at the upper echelons. anyone else hear or believe this?

also:

a friend is a NCAA basketball ref and he tells me that as part of their job, they receive a video of the game with a sheet to be filled out requiring that they justify their calls. this is somehow (sorry I don't know exactly) evaluated by the powers that be later and the ref is given some sort of grade.

those with the highest grades get jobs and those with the lowest grades are phased out

could dressage adopt a variation of this?
A system such as you propose is EXACTLY what is being presented by the Nerd Herd in the June 5 COTH article.

The NCAA system is a way of educating judges. By having judges justify their calls, the judges are being "calibrated" as to what is acceptable or not for calls of travelling, fouls, etc.

All of the angst about judging subjectively is irrelevant. People are trained to make subjective judgements every day. There are statistical tools to evaluate this. The NCAA system is an example of such a system....

[sm]

A system such as you propose is EXACTLY what is being presented by the Nerd Herd in the June 5 COTH article.


Oh, how did I miss this! Went into archives and read article: beautiful.

[canyonoak]

To be fair to David Stickland, the researcher who has been reporting on possible avenues of judging reform to the Dressage Task Force...he was rather shocked to hear that most US shows have only one judge.

In Europe, there are usually multiple judges; one is 'head of the jury' and whenever judge scores are too far apart (usually 20 points or so) the head judge will call over the other judges during a break and ask for explanation RIGHT then and there.

This whole idea of self-policing the judging, of education-on-the-spot, is not new.

I have scribed for top judges,and have had actions such as those above occur several times, in the US.

ANd this does NOT mean that the score was changed or that the judge whose scores was questioned turned out necessarily to be wrong.
It simply is a way of keeping eyes fresh and education expanding.

[sm]

In Europe, there are usually multiple judges; one is 'head of the jury' and whenever judge scores are too far apart (usually 20 points or so) the head judge will call over the other judges during a break and ask for explanation RIGHT then and there...

ANd this does NOT mean that the score was changed or that the judge whose scores was questioned turned out necessarily to be wrong. It simply is a way of keeping eyes fresh and education expanding.

Accepting 20 point spreads, and then they wonder why dressage competition isn't more popular in the US :rolleyes: So the Task Force has been instructed that judging is a problem... ya think??

[canyonoak]

???

I just said that if the scores are too far apart--20 points or around there--they do NOT accept that but investigate.

There are some who want to go down the path of precision--that all the scores be basically the same, no matter where the judge is sitting, no matter that certain movements give very different views.

But the REAL answer has to be accuracy--that each judge has the knowledge and experience to understand what they are seeing and accurately report on the performance.

(I am quoting pluvinel of The Nerd Herd, of course!!!)

ALL subjective sports have similar problems when it comes to judging. And so far, none of them have come up with really solid solutions.

In dressage...this can be devastating with one judge: 20 points at PSG, say, is about 5 percentage points; at GP, about 4 percentage points.

But with multiple judges, this discrepancy is much less affecting of the final score--which is why figure skating/gymnastics have gone to more judges.

Of course, in Europe, judges get a nice hotel and a per diem. Here in the US, where S judges want to go up to $500/day and more...more judges would probably destroy show organization.

[exvet]

But - I think maybe DA meant we don't see many "less pricey" horses at the FEI levels. Very seldom do we see a QH or Appy or other "normally priced" horse at those levels. I had to laugh at the comment earlier about the "$50,000 inexpensive Warmblood" - in almost any other horse world, the thought of a $50,000 horse is, well !

OK, mine I bought for only $4000 as a 2 year old. Now he would sell for perhaps $10,000 tops and realistically due to what others are selling for of the same breed, probably only $7000-8000. He's 11, a gelding, sound, 15 hands tall and NOT a warmblood. Reality is that he's worth way more to me than anyone else. I would consider mine as less pricey.

I agree that there aren't many but they do exist. The thought that $50,000 is inexpensive is just well :eek: but then I was never "of the blood" myself either :winkgrin:

[Ambrey]

Accuracy is not possible when the if the winner is separated from the loser by .5 percentage points but the high and low scoring judges score 5 points different. It just makes no sense.

One of the things studied when measuring inter-rater reliability is ranking... if judges are regularly not ranking the riders the same, how is it possible that they are measuring the same thing? Yet we average all of their numbers together and think we have some estimate of something that can discriminate who is better than who?

If one judge scores a rider 55 and another scores him 75 (20 points different) how can you even think that the averaged score of 65 is a valid measurement of anything? One person thought he kind of sucked and the other thought he was great... so that averages out to he was pretty good? No, makes no sense at all. The two judges were clearly not using the same judging standard, so the two scores can't be combined at all.

[slc2]

It makes no sense because you want it to make no sense. In fact, when judging is subjective (based on a descriptive set of numbers) in any endeavor or sport, there is always at least that much variation in opinion at the top events.

[ise@ssl]

Also - another point...is it just me or does it seem that Judges go a little soft on other Judges when they are competing?

I would love to see 2 judges for each class though it would up the already outrageous costs for shows. It's just that sometimes when you have horses competing at the SAME SHOW - the disparity in the scores between judges is often difficult to understand. Even when you watch the rides or videos - it's hard to understand how they are scoring.

[canyonoak]

<< If one judge scores a rider 55 and another scores him 75 (20 points different)>>


NO NO NO.

20 points = roughly 4-5 percentage points at FEI.

What you are talking about would mean a discrepancy of... 80 to 100 points!!!!

[FriesianX]

If the two judges are consistenly 20 points apart, it is a totally different problem than if the judges are scoring pretty close, then suddenly, one judge is 20 points off. Each judge seems to have their own standard of what is 5, what is 6, what is 7, what is 8 (notice I didn't got into anything less than 5, more than 8, since MOST judges stay in that range).

So, if you have a ground jury of 2 judges, and the two are consistenly 15 to 20 points apart, you have consistent judging - but one judge is giving consistent low 60s, the other consistent mid to high 60s. Might make a difference in USDF HOY and All Breeds Awards, but doesn't make a difference for that specific competition - the first place horse was still placed FIRST by both judges, the last place horse, still last.

The bigger problem - and one where EITHER a judge shows a bias, OR a judge saw things differently (and both situations do occur), is where you have a class, and the judges are consistently scoring pretty close to each other, than all of a sudden we see a 20 point deviation. Or vice-versa, the judges are consistently 15 to 20 points apart, and all of a sudden, on one horse, they score identical (this happend to us earlier this year, big PSG class, one judge consistently 15 to 20 points higher, then dropped to identical score on my horse - found out later he HATES pintos:eek: - and this was a case of the collective scores not reflecting the overall test scores AT ALL).

So - how to address judging inconsistencies? And WHAT to address - are we worried that some judges are more generous than others - some are consistently 20 points higher? Personally, I don't think that is such a huge problem - everyone needs to establish a consistent base line, and as long as they can BE consistent, is it so bad that one judge rolls that 6.5 up to 7, and another rolls it down to 6? As long as they are consistent? All it really affects is USDF awards. And judges that are WAY too high are now being told they won't be allowed to move up in the judging ranks (i.e. from R to S) until they "fall in line". And the older ones are, well, older... They won't be around forever:(

But the judges that show inconsistencies such as the one who is suddenly 20 points higher on one ride, or suddenly 20 points lower. That is worth a discussion. And in some cases, it is due to the different view - one judge at the side, one in front - they see very different things! A half pass from the side looks MUCH different than a half pass from the front - one can't see bend and haunches leading well from the side - from the front, you can! Even the simple halt looks dramatically different from the side vs front (especially hind feet). So in, for example, a 3rd level ride, you could easily have a valid 10 to 20 point difference based on the trot and canter half pass and halt, couldn't you?

Self-policing by judges could be a positive first step - but how often do we see dual judging at the lower levels? For that matter, even at the upper levels in the national shows? Seldom. It is expensive. And I don't begrudge the judge their $500/day payment - most have given up another day to travel to the show and back - I don't see it as a very high pay for the work they do. But maybe USEF could identify certain shows and ensure some kind of dual ground jury (with USDF funding) so we can establish judging score patterns? As part of judging licensing? I don't know if that is a viable plan, but it would be interesting.

I get out to a lot of shows - and I scribe at a lot of shows. Honestly, I don't see a LOT of judging issues, and the few I have seen have been with a few of the older, very senior judges - and I chalk it up to perhaps eyesight not as sharp as it use to be, and occasionally, bias based on recent changes in what we see in the show ring now (different breeds, different colors, different types of riders). But I think less bias, more simply, the body ages, and perhaps isn't as functional as it use to be. But those senior judges still bring a huge knowledge base and history - would hate to see that lost because they miss a few scores here and there :confused:

[sm]

???

I just said that if the scores are too far apart--20 points or around there--they do NOT accept that but investigate.

You can investigate all you want: was the final score/result changed or was it more like a rubber stamp from an official okaying two scores 20 points apart? Semantics aside, lets look at the actual standing results.

I have no personal problem with the overall quality of judging in the US. There are quite a few judges I greatly respect, without them I would have never been able to bring my horse along correctly from Training 1 Test 1 to GP. That's what I need judges for afterall, not so much to walk around the showgrounds with a high number.

20 points difference and you really don't know where you are in the training, which is a waste of money. Theoretically, I could have gone to a couple of clinics instead for the same price -- instead of getting screwed up feedback from judges/shows.

[SaddleFitterVA]

20 points, as in TOTAL POINTS (Max: ###) given on the test.

Not 20 percentage points as scores are reported.

Training Level test 4 is in front of me, and has a Max 250. 20 points is a .08 difference in score at training level...(20/250 = .08 = 8%)

So, that would be the difference between 62% and 70%.

This is why math teachers used to mark off for not marking the units on a number.

[Dressage Art]

I think to have 2 judges judge shows will be great!

Idea: It's widely known that for small "r" judges it is almost impossible to find a job, yet they have to complete certain amount of hours to progress to large "R" = when suddenly it's easy to find a job. Most of small "r" judges are willing to judge rated shows free of charge to accumulate their USEF judging hours! So I would say make the 2nd judge a small "r" judge or call for any letter licensed judge who is willing to judge for cost (aka for covering his/her expenses only). Offer that at the larger shows that volunteer for USEF/USDF educational events be held at their shows (some shows do not welcome USEF/USDF educational events since it adds more work for them)

[Ambrey]

20 points, as in TOTAL POINTS (Max: ###) given on the test.

Not 20 percentage points as scores are reported.

Training Level test 4 is in front of me, and has a Max 250. 20 points is a .08 difference in score at training level...(20/250 = .08 = 8%)

So, that would be the difference between 62% and 70%.

This is why math teachers used to mark off for not marking the units on a number.

LOL, in Engineering you never get full credit without units! THat does make more sense, although I think an 8 percentage point difference is still far too much to make it a reliable score, especially if the difference between winner and 2nd is usually much less than that.

[pluvinel]

It makes no sense because you want it to make no sense. In fact, when judging is subjective (based on a descriptive set of numbers) in any endeavor or sport, there is always at least that much variation in opinion at the top events.

Subjective judging is done every day in industry, business and medicine. The judges/evaluators are trained to evaluate against a "standard." There are statistical tools to measure how well evaluators perform subjective evaluations....done every day.

Ever been on a phone call, "This call is being recorded for quality purposes."....well, what is going on behind the scene is attribute measurement.

Call center operators are evaluated on calls answered correctly/incorrectly on an ordinal scale....just like in dressage.
1 = perfect response
2 = good response
3 = average response
4 = poor response
5 = very bad response

A group of appraisers listen to the calls and rate the responses. To test the level of absolute agreement among appraisers, researchers often use the Kappa statistic. The Kappa statistic cannot discern a difference between 1 and a 5 as distinct from 1 and a 2. To assess the level of agreement when you have a ranking system, use Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance (KCC). KCC, unlike Kappa, accounts for the magnitude of the difference among scores.

This stuff is out there being used on a daily basis by industries who rely on having quality products and processes.

[slc2]

The example is not even tangential.

Subjective evaluation of phone calls also varies quite a bit. But usually only one scorer scores each call, and no one cares.

[pluvinel]

The example is not even tangential.

Subjective evaluation of phone calls also varies quite a bit. But usually only one scorer scores each call, and no one cares.

I suppose the person being rated would probably care if their job depended on getting good ratings.

I suppose the companies that fire people because of poor service ratings would want to have the evaluators trained so that they can put up a defense during a wrongful termination lawsuit.

Companies that value customer service do this stuff. Quality technicians that have to evaluate parts to a qualitative standard do it daily. I'm not making this stuff up. The statistical methods are out there to calibrate evaluators so that all evaluators are performing subjective judging to the same standard.

Dressage ain't that different.

The supposed psychological angst that judges are supposed to have because they have to pass subjective judgement is a bunch of hooey.....at least regarding the judging part.

If judges are suffering psychological trauma, it is probably because of the politics in dressage, and the potential/perceived risk to the judge when awarding points the way they see it.

[Ambrey]

The example is not even tangential.

Subjective evaluation of phone calls also varies quite a bit. But usually only one scorer scores each call, and no one cares.

Educational and psychoeducational testing is often about subjective evaluations or moderately subjective evaluations. Inter-rater reliability is one of the MAIN measures one looks for in such evaluations. It's nothing new.

If validity of testing is really so unimportant to you, then fine- but personally I prefer a test with a judging system in which judges are measuring about the same thing and tend to come up with similar rankings.

If they can come up with an IQ test with high inter-rater reliability, I can't figure out why it would be impossible to develop a dressage test.

[shanky]

If they can come up with an IQ test with high inter-rater reliability, I can't figure out why it would be impossible to develop a dressage test.

Well, I guess it is because a dressage test is rating how well you executed something. Items on an IQ test measure whether or not you did something (and, in some subtests, how many somethings you did in a certain amount of time).

I think you will also find that as ambiguity and the "gray area" of response options on an IQ test increase (in, for example, WISC-IV subtests such as Comprehension), inter-rater reliability decreases. The more that is left up to the examiner's (or judge's) judgment, the less reliability the measure will have.

[Ambrey]

Well, I guess it is because a dressage test is rating how well you executed something. Items on an IQ test measure whether or not you did something (and, in some subtests, how many somethings you did in a certain amount of time).

No, they are not. Most IQ tests have "scores" for answers. A 0 point answer, a 1 point answer, a 2 point answer.

That was why I used that example, because inter-rater reliability is a key component of IQ tests, so they have to make the directions, training, etc. so clear that the vast majority of the time, the raters agree on whether something is a 1 point answer or a 2 point answer. When there are specific, common questions or rater variations, they are addressed in the interpretation instructions.

[FriesianX]

Ahhhh, but there are so many VARIABLES to consider when coming up with the "perfect" in dressage. Which is one reason it is subjective. The idea that you start with a score based on the ideal, determine where the movement was based on the ideal (looking at the essence of the movement requirement AND the underlying collectives), then add or subtract based on various modifiers. Dressage isn't like show jumping - either the horse clears the jump or they don't, either they make the time or they don't, so that makes it so much more complex to judge!

A real life example (like the call center, grin). If you have ever worked in Fast Food, you realize time is of the essence. In fact, on every drive through cash register window, there is a timer. If the standard is 12.8 seconds per transaction, the cashier must meet those standards. If a cashier falls behind during a timed period, they may not get a raise, be demoted, or written up, or even lose their job. Seems simple, right? Except - the timer standards don't take into affect the customer who orders 26 burgers for their soccer team. Or the customer who can't make up their mind. Or the fact that the grill cook is stoned and fell behind or mismarked the burgers, or .... The variables are not considered! And dressage has so many of those. It isn't just about the bend in the shoulder in. It is about the bend, the fluidity, the quality of the gaits, the acceptance of the bridle, the transitions in and out of the SI, the effectiveness of the rider (not just how pretty they are), the impulsion, the lowering of the hip, etc. So much going on.

Add to that, the humanity of the judge - they sneeze, they blink, they are so focused on one thing, maybe they miss something else (if you've never judged - there is a LOT to watch - and it happens FAST). The scribe asks them a question, the show management calls something in. A yellow jacket attacks. Stuff happens in that judging box - and some of it the judge can control - but not all of it. And yes, some of them have personal bias, professional bias, etc. But I think most judges are pretty professional about their job.

Some friends and I were joking about the day that judging will be electronic - there will be a computerized ideal of every movement, and the computer will rate the horse against that ideal.

[Dressage Art]

Judging is subjective.

Let's say that there is a score for the trot diagonal. There are a lot of ways to get a 5. One judge will give 5 for the lack of impulsion, b/c she likes them really FORWARD aka running of their feet with the 1 foot overstride. Another judge can give a 5 for "above the bit" at Training Level when a horse is even 1" affront of the vertical in an open frame, since this judge loves a "more rounder" horses with short necks and behind the vertical. Another judge can give a 5 for the lack of balance with comments "on the forehand" even for the horse whos built naturally downhill and there is not much that can be done to change it, but this judge prefers horses who born in a natural uphill balance. Another judge will give a 5 with comments needs to be more supple, when a horse just has a regular TB gait that scores 6, but compare to the fancy/spider-moving $$$$$ who just went right before that TB, he does all of the sudden look stiff and not supple at all... Another judge can give you a 5 for various tempo, since the horse keeps speeding up toward X and slowing down in the corners of diagonal. Another judge will give you a 5 for the lack of straightness with comments that your horse is traveling/wondering across of the diagonal on a not straight line... and the list goes on and on and on with many valid comments what can go wrong in a dressage test.

Try to fix it according to the comments, and yet rider muight keep on getting the same score of 5 just for a different reasons!!! (or a same 6)

It’ll still score “5” but the reason might vary from one judge to another: since some things jump out more for some people. For example, it’s just like BBs when somebody asks for critique, you already know that there is one poster who will write “forward, forward, forward” and blame everything on that, yet another one will give a noshiously detailed description of the ½” off alignment of the rider’s body and blame everything on that, yet many others will give a balanced recommendations.

Same score, but subjective judging.

[pluvinel]

This discussion is actually good, because we need level setting and to develop understanding of what is possible. All the questions coming up are valid questions that all have answers.....

Again, this is not new news.....dressage ain't that different from what is seen in industry and science on a daily basis.

Ahhhh, but there are so many VARIABLES to consider when coming up with the "perfect" in dressage. Which is one reason it is subjective. .....

Training for subjective evaluations can cope with various dimensions. That is where the judge's training against the standard comes in.

.....
A real life example (like the call center, grin). If you have ever worked in Fast Food, you realize time is of the essence. In fact, on every drive through cash register window, there is a timer. If the standard is 12.8 seconds per transaction, the cashier must meet those standards. If a cashier falls behind during a timed period, they may not get a raise, be demoted, or written up, or even lose their job. Seems simple, right? Except - the timer standards don't take into affect the customer who orders 26 burgers for their soccer team. Or the customer who can't make up their mind. Or the fact that the grill cook is stoned and fell behind or mismarked the burgers, or .... The variables are not considered! ...

This is an example of comparing apples to pomegranates....

The timer example is an example of CONTINUOUS data....not ATTRIBUTE data. The timer gives you a measure of TIME.....Time has the property that it is continuous. The statistical tools for continuous data analysis are different than those for attribute data. Analyzing at distribution of times to serve at a drive thru window not only would look at the average, but at the other modes of the distribution(median, mean, quartiles, tails, outliers)...the stoned cook and the customer that can't make up their minds would form outliers. Outliers are investigated....and maybe the company would fire the cook.....or the drive-thru person can hire a statistician to contest the disciplinary action.

Attribute data is best/good/fair/poor. In this case, the attributes are also ORDERED.


.......
Some friends and I were joking about the day that judging will be electronic - there will be a computerized ideal of every movement, and the computer will rate the horse against that ideal.

Actually, take out the word COMPUTER, and replace it with JUDGE. That is what needs to happen. That is what the COTH Nerd Herd are proposing. It can be done. It is being done on a daily basis throughtout the world. Apparently the NCAA discovered this stuff and are applying it to their referees training as posted earlier. A similar system can easily be applied in dressage.

The big question is not technical. The big questions are political. The BIG question is that powers that be will have to AGREE UPON THE STANDARD....vs what is written in the rules.

[pluvinel]

Judging is subjective.

Let's say that there is a score for the trot diagonal. There are a lot of ways to get a 5. One judge will give 5 for the lack of impulsion, b/c she likes them really FORWARD aka running of their feet with the 1 foot overstride. Another judge can give a 5 for "above the bit" at Training Level when a horse is even 1" affront of the vertical in an open frame, since this judge loves a "more rounder" horses with short necks and behind the vertical. Another judge can give a 5 for the lack of balance with comments "on the forehand" even for the horse whos built naturally downhill and there is not much that can be done to change it, but this judge prefers horses who born in a natural uphill balance. Another judge will give a 5 with comments needs to be more supple, when a horse just has a regular TB gait that scores 6, but compare to the fancy/spider-moving $$$$$ who just went right before that TB, he does all of the sudden look stiff and not supple at all... Another judge can give you a 5 for various tempo, since the horse keeps speeding up toward X and slowing down in the corners of diagonal. Another judge will give you a 5 for the lack of straightness with comments that your horse is traveling/wondering across of the diagonal on a not straight line... and the list goes on and on and on with many valid comments what can go wrong in a dressage test.

Try to fix it according to the comments, and yet rider muight keep on getting the same score of 5 just for a different reasons!!! (or a same 6)

It’ll still score “5” but the reason might vary from one judge to another: since some things jump out more for some people. For example, it’s just like BBs when somebody asks for critique, you already know that there is one poster who will write “forward, forward, forward” and blame everything on that, yet another one will give a noshiously detailed description of the ½” off alignment of the rider’s body and blame everything on that, yet many others will give a balanced recommendations.

Same score, but subjective judging.

Perhaps someone should question the judge's training if it allows what is described above to happen.

Judging that allows the same number to be given for these key various dimensions is somehow flawed. I don't know enough about the judge's training, but if the results are as described above, then the judge's is flawed and the training should be revisited.

This goes back to the post above....WHAT IS THE STANDARD against which to judge?

That is the big question.....

Everyone has an opinion. That's ok on an internet BB, but not for judges at a competition. Their opinions should be consistent and aligned with the STANDARD.

[FriesianX]

This discussion is actually good, because we need level setting and to develop understanding of what is possible. All the questions coming up are valid questions that all have answers.....

Again, this is not new news.....dressage ain't that different from what is seen in industry and science on a daily basis.



Training for subjective evaluations can cope with various dimensions. That is where the judge's training against the standard comes in.



This is an example of comparing apples to pomegranates....

The timer example is an example of CONTINUOUS data....not ATTRIBUTE data. The timer gives you a measure of TIME.....Time has the property that it is continuous. The statistical tools for continuous data analysis are different than those for attribute data. Analyzing at distribution of times to serve at a drive thru window not only would look at the average, but at the other modes of the distribution(median, mean, quartiles, tails, outliers)...the stoned cook and the customer that can't make up their minds would form outliers. Outliers are investigated....and maybe the company would fire the cook.....or the drive-thru person can hire a statistician to contest the disciplinary action.

Attribute data is best/good/fair/poor. In this case, the attributes are also ORDERED.



Actually, take out the word COMPUTER, and replace it with JUDGE. That is what needs to happen. That is what the COTH Nerd Herd are proposing. It can be done. It is being done on a daily basis throughtout the world. Apparently the NCAA discovered this stuff and are applying it to their referees training as posted earlier. A similar system can easily be applied in dressage.

The big question is not technical. The big questions are political. The BIG question is that powers that be will have to AGREE UPON THE STANDARD....vs what is written in the rules.

Variables/attributes - yes, but it IS relevant. It is the difference between comparing SOME sports just as jumping to other sports such as dressage - in jumping, there are just a few, very easy to measure events - whether the horse clears the jump without knocking part of it down, and whether the horse makes the time. VERY easy to measure. Just as is time on a drive through. But - dressage has many, many variables - and there is no easy way to measure all of them.

As DA points out - judges may not communicate the reason a person got a 5 the same way (above the bit, tight in back, short strided, against hand, etc), and that is the human factor. You won't ever make all the judges into machines. BUT - USEF/USDF have done a lot to advance judging education - starting with the L program. Many of the more senior judges (and I'm not talking about Senior as in S judge, but the judges who have been around a long time) did not go through this program - the first attempt to create a base level of knowledge. It is a start. The "r" program builds on it. In the past, judges became judges through recommendations from other judges (aka friends, colleagues) - which meant you had all different levels of JUDGING knowledge. Now, at least, we have a base level of training.

As for what is seen in industry and science - yes, I agree, both deal with many variables (attributes in scientific speak). And hypotheses come from studying those variables - educated guesses, often correct, sometimes incorrect, sometimes partially correct. Sometimes, as science advances, we find that old "truths" are not truthful anymore. That is one issue we face all the time - in life, in dressage, in education, in everything!

Oh, and politics - yeah, where to even start. I don't disagree, they do enter in - probably much more in the international arena than in our local/national shows. They are also a huge part of life (I work in a very political industry, so what I see in judging is nothing compared to what I see daily:no:). I don't think you'll every TOTALLY remove politics and bias - it is the human factor. I still do believe it isn't as huge a problem in dressage judging as it is in many subjective sports - such as figure skating or gymnastics.

As for creating a standard - again, back to the conversation with my dressage buddies - just look at all the various types of horses - so if you have a standard outline - it may not match the Andalusian horse, or the longer backed Warmblood mare, or the Halflinger, or the Friesian, or all the other types of horses you see. I'm afraid if you tried to simplify it to much, you'd see the sport become a halter class first of all. If the conformation doesn't fit, don't bother, because you won't meet the standard. Same for rider type - long legs, short legs - who fits the standard?

Either it will become so complicated that the teaching process will become cost prohibitive (and believe me, entering the judging ranks is already pricey - dressage judges go through much more than do other discipline judges in training costs), or so complicated that people will give up.

I do think more QUALITY ongoing education is a good thing with judges - and maybe some information regarding standards could be DEVELOPED (that would take some time and money!) and taught. I do believe random dual judging with explanations and comparisons of results would be a positive thing (and I think USEF should pony up and help with that cost).

And I think the statistical analysis that has already ocurred is interesting and thought provoking, and I hope the USDF and USEF powers that be have spent some time looking at it and using it.

[sm]

Judging is subjective.

When evaluated PROFESSIONALLY, it's a lot less subjective than you think. Granted some are going to be sidetracked by some personal issues/biases you bring up (I'm not going to go into chapter and verse but you bring up some wrong/inappropriate conclusions based on bias).

I found scores were always very reliable given the same test: on different days with different judges and at different showgrounds, my horse got between 2 --- 0 (two to zero) points difference. The comments also were true and in common to the different judges. They were very much in agreement on what was great and where we needed improvement.

Granted, the judges were dedicated to dressage (not dedicated to exercising personal biases).

My point is that tests can, and should, be very reliable. There is ONE standard to be followed in the training scale, and it very much works since my non-dressage-bred progressed through every single level straight through to GP. When correctly implemented it works.

Oh thankyou, well said:

Perhaps someone should question the judge's training if it allows what is described above to happen.

[FriesianX]

I found scores were always very reliable given the same test: on different days with different judges and at different showgrounds, my horse got between 2 --- 0 (two to zero) points difference. The comments also were true and in common to the different judges. They were very much in agreement on what was great and where we needed improvement.

:

I'm curious, because that hasn't always been what I've seen - was that 0 to 2 points for the total test, or per movement? I love going to shows where I get different judges every day because the comments are SO different with some of the judges (amazing how much some judges can get down, how helpful some of their comments are. Others, not so much). And scoring - some judges are very alike, and others are consistently higher/lower, and then there are a few that are just, well, way different from everyone else :confused: I really love studying tests with multiple judges - that can be quite eye opening! I dont' often see the wild deviations - but what I've seen have been pretty consistently different scores by judges - for example, a class of 12 horses, and one judge is consistently 15 to 20 points different from the other judge. As long as they final placings are the same (or very similar), that's OK in my book

[freestyle2music]

Allthough we are moving close to the edge of the meaning of this topic I have to make some remarks.

Yes... judging is very subjective, and thats no problem as long as you have five judges sitting around the ring. But as stated before I have seen that many classes in the US (even GP, GPS and GPF) are judged by one judge only (which is very weird for us Europeans) , but this also doesn't have to be a problem, however when you ride a horse for an owner and you know that this ONE judge will score you down, and you have to travel 10+ hours WHY SHOULD YOU GO.

You all seem to back off when I made this kind of statements, but it's my true believe that this is one of the major problem in judging the last years, and certainly something that the FEI Task Force have to take in consideration. At the recent (3+ hours lasting) panel discussion on German television it was 100% obvious that nobody has a solution for this omission.

Judges and stewards like to be invited to the big competitions, but the organisers of these big competitions want to have the big names on their starting list. Do I have to tell you more :confused::no:

Theo

[mbm]

My point is that tests can, and should, be very reliable. There is ONE standard to be followed in the training scale,

:

i think this is the crux of the matter. until all judges uphold the rules as written we will have deviation and "judging issues"

[freestyle2music]

i think this is the crux of the matter. until all judges uphold the rules as written we will have deviation and "judging issues"

I really don't understand why you keep dreaming.

Every single movement in dressage has more than a million possible variations, a written rulebook which takes all these variations into consideration will end up being larger than the Chinese Phonebook.

We have to trust the judges, and have to learn to live with that.

IMHO the most important thing where the Task Force has to work on, is
to make sure that the judges get well paid and (thus) can stay independed.

[sm]

FriesianX, one thing I neglected to mention is I basically stick with atleast "R" judges even at the lesser levels. I do believe they have a good amount of milage on them, and a very solid understanding from schooling their own and giving clinics.

I can see where judges with less hours may be less consistent. My horse was a demo horse in the L program, and there were interesting evaluations -- basically all over the map.

[FriesianX]

a written rulebook which takes all these variations into consideration will end up being larger than the Chinese Phonebook.



Theo, I have to say, that is one of the funniest visuals I've had in a while - do you mind if I use that quote in my professional career!?!?! It is hilarious!

[FriesianX]

FriesianX, one thing I neglected to mention is I basically stick with atleast "R" judges even at the lesser levels. I do believe they have a good amount of milage on them, and a very solid understanding from schooling their own and giving clinics.

I can see where judges with less hours may be less consistent. My horse was a demo horse in the L program, and there were interesting evaluations -- basically all over the map.

I never even SEE the poor "r" judges at shows - most of the shows I attend are S or higher judged (and if my trainer is showing, it has to be S or higher since she is showing FEI). Being an "r" in California seems to condemn you to mostly schooling shows :confused: Even the "R" judges usually only pick up shows around here if there are multiple rings, because no one wants to limit the show to 4th level.

As for the L program - having graduated from it a couple of years back - of course you're going to get all over the map:lol: It is a learning process! I'll admit, the earlier L sessions, I think the demo riders are extremely BRAVE and KIND to put up with us "judgette wanna be's". And, as we well learned - just because you go through the program, doesn't mean you graduate :eek: We actually had a few people quit when they found out there was no guarantee - AND asked for their money back:eek:

[sm]

FriesanX, So are you saying you find "R" judges are very inconsistent in their final scores and comments? I'm referring to your post 114 on inconsistent results.

[mbm]

I really don't understand why you keep dreaming.


because i am a Pisces?

[shanky]

No, they are not. Most IQ tests have "scores" for answers. A 0 point answer, a 1 point answer, a 2 point answer.

That was why I used that example, because inter-rater reliability is a key component of IQ tests, so they have to make the directions, training, etc. so clear that the vast majority of the time, the raters agree on whether something is a 1 point answer or a 2 point answer. When there are specific, common questions or rater variations, they are addressed in the interpretation instructions.

Only a couple of subtests on the WISC-IV have the 1 or 2 point options. The example I used of the Comprehension subtest is one of them. My point is, dressage tests are qualitative and subjective. IQ tests have right and wrong answers. Look at ANY of the subtests on the PRI, the WMI or the PSI. NO gray areas at all. Yes, on some of the Verbal measures, there are one and two point responses - this is where it would VERY LOOSELY resemble a dressage test, where the rater has a little more freedom to interpret, and why inter-relater reliability is decreased on these subtests AND in dressage tests.

[FriesianX]

FriesanX, So are you saying you find "R" judges are very inconsistent in their final scores and comments? I'm referring to your post 114 on inconsistent results.


not individually - I'm saying that a similar (or the same) ride with two or more R judges often results in very different scores. One might give the ride a 61%, the other, a 68%.

I'll give you a couple of interesting examples. First example - during an L program session, when the faculty member (an S judge) scored an entire 2nd level ride, and gave it a 72%, and pointed it out as an very good example of a horse in good collection, well ridden, much better than they will usually see. The presiding judge (also an S) scored the same ride at 60% - which sounds really low, except that won the large class, with the next highest horse scored at 51%. Those are two very broad ranges in scores - both judges placed the horse first by a large margin, but there is a huge difference between 60% and 72%!

Another (very recent) example - FEI class, judged by two different judges. I've mentioned this one before - the judges were CONSISTENTLY 15 to 20 points apart (except with my horse - he was the ONLY ride in a big class where the two judges agreed on scores).

Another example I like to throw out from one of the CDS Championships a few years back - again, two S judges - this one was really interesting. The two presiding judges TOTALLY disagreed on 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place horses - they had none of the top 3 the same. This was a class of 37 horses - so no small class. It happens - even with R and S judges.

However - I don't think that it is usually the case of bad judging - I just think that some judges might mark down "behind the vertical" (for example) tougher than others. Some judges are OK if the horse's back is swinging and loose and they otherwise perform the movements well, others feel that is an automatic 5. Some judges are much more condemning of a lateral walk, others hardly even notice it. There are just some honest differences that do occur - I don't chalk it up to dishonest judging, I chalk it up to Theo's Chinese phonebook!

[Ambrey]

Only a couple of subtests on the WISC-IV have the 1 or 2 point options. The example I used of the Comprehension subtest is one of them. My point is, dressage tests are qualitative and subjective. IQ tests have right and wrong answers.

The verbal subtests on the WISC and Stanford-Binet (the two most widely used, "gold standard" individually administered IQ tests) require understanding and some subjectivity in scoring. One must determine whether a response shows deeper understanding of the concept or not, beyond being incorrect.

These tests have very high inter-rater reliability, and the "sense" that they are right/wrong answers, because they put the research in to the questions, the responses, likely variations, questions testers might have in scoring, etc., to make it very clear cut (of course, there are still often "hmmm" responses. I'm not licensed, and have only given them in research, but had a licensed psychologist to call and double check with).

I doubt dressage could have the IRR of the WISC, but that doesn't mean IRR has to be thrown out the window. There's plenty of research out there in how to improve IRR in subjective measures.

eta: What I didn't mention in terms of IRR in IQ tests is that administration- how the test is presented and responses requested- has a huge impact on scores. Not as applicable to dressage.

[shanky]

I'm not licensed.

I am.

[Ambrey]

I am.

So you understand about how inter-rater reliability was established, correct? And you've never had a response that you had to consider whether to give it a 1 or a 2? Or a response that you thought should get a 2, but when you double checked the specifics realized it was listed as a 1?

That's what I'm talking about. They developed all of those specific response categories through reliability and validity vetting.

[shanky]

That's what I'm talking about. They developed all of those specific response categories through reliability and validity vetting.

Which was MY point about it being VERY DIFFERENT than scoring a dressage test or creating a protocol for dressage scoring.

I can't discuss this anymore with you. You have a shallow understanding of dressage, IQ tests, bits, engineering, saddle fitting, etc. so it becomes both frustrating and irritatingly off-topic to attempt to debate with you.

[Sparky]

Which was MY point about it being VERY DIFFERENT than scoring a dressage test or creating a protocol for dressage scoring.

I can't discuss this anymore with you. You have a shallow understanding of dressage, IQ tests, bits, engineering, saddle fitting, etc. so it becomes both frustrating and irritatingly off-topic to attempt to debate with you.

shanky I was about to tell you that it would be beyond frustrating to engage Ambrey on any of those subjects, but see you figured it out for yourself. High five.

[Ambrey]

Which was MY point about it being VERY DIFFERENT than scoring a dressage test or creating a protocol for dressage scoring.

I can't discuss this anymore with you. You have a shallow understanding of dressage, IQ tests, bits, engineering, saddle fitting, etc. so it becomes both frustrating and irritatingly off-topic to attempt to debate with you.

Interesting, I was thinking the same thing. I just didn't actually resort to making random online personal attacks in order to halt a "debate" that no longer interested me with a person who disagreed with my points.

Your posts have shown zero understanding of the process by which IQ tests are tested for validity and reliability. I'm certain my understanding is shallow compared to many people... compared to yours, not so much. If you have a valid argument for why reliability testing can not be used on dressage judging and IRR is not applicable, try to state it. If you have only snippy comments and efforts to show up others, move on.

[Dressage Art]

When evaluated PROFESSIONALLY, it's a lot less subjective than you think. Granted some are going to be sidetracked by some personal issues/biases you bring up (I'm not going to go into chapter and verse but you bring up some wrong/inappropriate conclusions based on bias).“Inappropriate” Really? He-he… I once went to the judging clinic where one “S” judge kept trying to ask a not politically correct question and the presenter who was also an “S” judge kept on turning those uncomfortable questions down with the cold smile and answer: “it’s not an appropriate question for that topic and we don’t have a time to discuss anything that is not on my agenda”…

Well now, I tell my experience straight up like it is. The experience that I witnessed first hand. If you don't like the sound of it, may be you are closing your eyes on some of the existing political and personal biases in judging? You can try to be dismissive to my experience, but it still doesn’t erase the fact that judging is subjective and it’s quite difficult to be on the same page for all of the judges, even if they try to do that very, very hard. I witnessed first hand that even “L” judging faculty instructors don’t agree with each other about some of the judging that they teach. You can hear quite an opposite points of view from different “L” sessions. How come they can’t even agree? Where that disagreement comes from? And I think that “L” instructors who are “S” and up judges would qualify as “professional evaluation” ;)

No, unfortunately my rose-colored glasses came off in the mid “L” session. There are so many overwhelming issues that hide behind a politically correct explanations = its mind boggling! It’s so difficult to be a judge and continue to be a judge = its mind boggling as well. I personally don’t believe that there are “perfect” judges who can function like computers. No. But I know that most of them donate lots and lots of their time to better US dressage. That is mind boggling as well. And then you have an issue of scolding volunteers = and how do you do that? They just might quit and leave an empty spot behind.

[Dressage Art]

judges are much more condemning of a lateral walk, others hardly even notice it. There are just some honest differences that do occur - I don't chalk it up to dishonest judging, I chalk it up to Theo's Chinese phonebook!
Bingo! And it's so, sooooo difficult to change some of those "honest differences". It's like looking at the blue/green color and one is saying that it's green-ish and another one is saying that it's blu-ish and both are correct, yet not on the same page.

There are so many variables in dressage judging - it's really dificult to even process them all… changing them will definitely take generations!

[Dressage Art]

mbm, I have an answer especially for you:

Judges all will be on the same page and will be judging against the same standard as soon as all "classical riders" will agree what is a real/true "classical dressage" is and who the real/true "classical masters" are and who are just charlatans posing with white horse. ;)

PS: by the way, I'm Pisces as well, so your exuse doesn't count ;)

[Ambrey]

All of the members of the organization don't have to be in agreement for the organization to set a standard.

[Long Spot]

Setting the standard is one thing. Having that standard upheld with no personal bias/difference of opinion on what constitutes what etc entering into the picture, is completely another story.

[woodcat]

I'm an absolute novice, but to me dressage is an art, and a complex one at that. Two beings moving as one though a set of dance steps.
Judges would want to give points on intangibles... very difficult to define... but they know it when they see it... wouldn't they?

But metrics could be collected, compiled... and you might be able to identify trends, outliers, etc. from that.
Perhaps somebody knows that this is already being done? And where to get the numbers?

[pluvinel]

I really don't understand why you keep dreaming.

Every single movement in dressage has more than a million possible variations, a written rulebook which takes all these variations into consideration will end up being larger than the Chinese Phonebook.

We have to trust the judges, and have to learn to live with that.

IMHO the most important thing where the Task Force has to work on, is to make sure that the judges get well paid and (thus) can stay independed.

It is not dreaming. Those of us in the quality field know what is possible. We have seen the tools at work. We use these tools in places where the consequences of failure can have catastrophic effects.

Welds in nuclear reactors are visually inspected by humans.....well, the radiographs of the welds are interpreted by humans.

The parts used in the Space Shuttle are inspected by human quality inspectors.

In medicine, interpretations of CAT scans, MRI scans, ultrasound scans, echochardiography, are all evaluated by humans.

All of these tests are subjective evaluations of some dimension or attribute of quality.

There is a whole technical field of test validation for evaluating academic and professional advancement.

Dressage does not have the market cornered on being "unique". There are tools out there that can be brought to bear on the question.

The problem is not one of paying the judges so they stay indipendent.

The problem is a system that does not allow judges to be be indipendent and to judge what they see because political pressure is brought to bear on the "outliers".....those judges who actually judge what they see and give appropriate marks.

How many people have scribed for judges who are fanatical about knowing what marks the other judges are awarding...especially the jury chair???

In some fields that would be called "collusion."

[pluvinel]

not individually - I'm saying that a similar (or the same) ride with two or more R judges often results in very different scores. One might give the ride a 61%, the other, a 68%.

I'll give you a couple of interesting examples. First example - during an L program session, when the faculty member (an S judge) scored an entire 2nd level ride, and gave it a 72%, and pointed it out as an very good example of a horse in good collection, well ridden, much better than they will usually see. The presiding judge (also an S) scored the same ride at 60% - which sounds really low, except that won the large class, with the next highest horse scored at 51%. Those are two very broad ranges in scores - both judges placed the horse first by a large margin, but there is a huge difference between 60% and 72%!

Another (very recent) example - FEI class, judged by two different judges. I've mentioned this one before - the judges were CONSISTENTLY 15 to 20 points apart (except with my horse - he was the ONLY ride in a big class where the two judges agreed on scores).

Another example I like to throw out from one of the CDS Championships a few years back - again, two S judges - this one was really interesting. The two presiding judges TOTALLY disagreed on 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place horses - they had none of the top 3 the same. This was a class of 37 horses - so no small class. It happens - even with R and S judges.

However - I don't think that it is usually the case of bad judging - I just think that some judges might mark down "behind the vertical" (for example) tougher than others. Some judges are OK if the horse's back is swinging and loose and they otherwise perform the movements well, others feel that is an automatic 5. Some judges are much more condemning of a lateral walk, others hardly even notice it. There are just some honest differences that do occur - I don't chalk it up to dishonest judging, I chalk it up to Theo's Chinese phonebook!

Excellent examples of the variability in scoring.

The questions we should be asking is to understand WHY is this variability in scoring occuring before implementing a fix.

If we don't know what we are trying to fix, how can we fix anything?

[sm]

I think the *why* comes down to personal bias. Or, adding elements/judgements that are not on the test. Of course there are a million variations to every test because each competitor is an individual.

Interesting.

I don't close my eyes, I close my checkbook. If they are more interested in politics than dressage then show mgt doesn't get my check:


Well now, I tell my experience straight up like it is. The experience that I witnessed first hand. If you don't like the sound of it, may be you are closing your eyes on some of the existing political and personal biases in judging?.

[ButterflyIris]

I really had a hard time stopping myself from chiming in here.

Shanky .. I am licensed too... high five!

Anyway, I understand what Ambrey is trying to say, but I think she is using the wrong type of psychological assessment as an example. IQ tests are EXTREMELY black and white and to say that there are inter-rater reliability issues with those assessments is a little ridiculous considering the robotic manner in which they are administered. There is very very little grey area in terms of how responses/results would be scored and interpreted.

Now, on the other hand, we have behavioral check-lists, like the Connor's. Those would be an example of assessments in which inter-rater reliability would matter and does factor in to the overall result.

My question to any other psychologists out there, do we have research (and I have meant to look this up myself) which examines the subjective biases in scoring known test subjects? To me that seems like an obvious yes, we should have that out there because we know about the importance of double-blind experimental psychology. I would bet that somewhere 'out there' some wonderful graduate student has examined the effect of prior biases via exposure in examiner/teacher rating. If we could get our hands on that information it might actually have some suggestions as to how we might reduce or lessen those biases, or it might state that lessening these biases is really not possible. All in all it is fascinating to think about. I will try to do a lit search, oh, some day... Anyone (MA, PhD, etc.) want to help/talk about this/think about an experiment we could run?

[Ambrey]

Anyway, I understand what Ambrey is trying to say, but I think she is using the wrong type of psychological assessment as an example. IQ tests are EXTREMELY black and white and to say that there are inter-rater reliability issues with those assessments is a little ridiculous considering the robotic manner in which they are administered. There is very very little grey area in terms of how responses/results would be scored and interpreted.


I know this is off-topic, but since I brought it up I'll clarify.

Examples of issues that would affect IRR on an individually administered IQ test (that is the type of test I was picturing, as those have the highest validity and reliability overall) would be prompting of the subject, the method in which the materials are presented, how long the subject sees any prompt given, what angle the prompt is at, etc. (here, I'm thinking of some of the strictly non-verbal tests and subtests).

All of that is laid out in the instructions because when they did the reliability testing, they found those to be issues. That's why the directions are so exacting. You prompt once, with a specific word. You put the cubes out in a specific pattern.

Anyway, that was my thinking process- that dressage needs to go through that process, to find out what parts of the test and judging need to be clarified, modified, have new standards set, etc. We're so used to IQ tests, it's hard to remember that IQ also is an intangible, something we're trying to measure by using tests that point in that direction but can't ever actually "see."

I thought judges were already supposed to excuse themselves if they know the rider? Or is that only if they have trained the rider? That is an interesting thing to consider (since the psychological literature does seem to support that expectations affect outcomes).

Ambre (MA Ed Psych, Cal State Long Beach, they'd be horrified to find that after all that my understanding was still "shallow.")

[sm]

I thought judges were already supposed to excuse themselves if they know the rider? Or is that only if they have trained the rider? That is an interesting thing to consider (since the psychological literature does seem to support that expectations affect outcomes).

TRAINED the rider. Aparantly I'm in a rather dedicated group, my trainer/judge/rider knows all the judges. I have more to thank her for by keeping me out of the sordid mess many others find themselves in...

[Dressage Art]

Most of judges are highly accomplished and opinionated individuals. Don't even hint to some of them that they are not strong individuals or they are not independent thinkers! Most of them can be very effective in dismissing concerns and unwelcomed propositions as well. As one of our top judges said that sometimes the best way to deal with problem is to smile and leave.

My concern is if you will try to convert those judges to become "computers" they will roll their eyes on you with "you don't know what you are talking about" and move on. I highly doubt that our top judges will give any time of the day to people who don't show and don't belong to USDF/USEF/CDS but have a very strong opinion about how dressage judging should be done.

To change dressage judging you should get involved in dressage judging yourself, but then again, you will need to pass thru the judges who you want to change.

Attacking the majority of the current judging is not helpful. Changing the judging structure is not helpful either. We need to build upon the existing structure and one brick at a time. Currently, there is a spotlight on the rider’s positions and aids. Let's concentrate in coming up with the solution how to put more emphasis on the rider's seat and aids during the show tests. Let’s change/built on that. Let’s concentrate on something in particular. Let’s not smear the whole judging with sweeping general attacks that has no back bone and show the lack of knowledge about dressage judging.

[Ambrey]

Attacking the majority of the current judging is not helpful. Changing the judging structure is not helpful either. We need to build upon the existing structure and one brick at a time. Currently, there is a spotlight on the rider’s positions and aids. Let's concentrate in coming up with the solution how to put more emphasis on the rider's seat and aids during the show tests. Let’s change/built on that. Let’s concentrate on something in particular. Let’s not smear the whole judging with sweeping general attacks that has no back bone and show the lack of knowledge about dressage judging.

No, the goal should be allowing judges to do their job and their knowledge, while the organizations use the tools at their disposal to make sure that all riders have a level playing field and know what standard they are riding against.

But if, for example, you found that one particular movement had a high scoring variation among judges, so that it stood out from the rest of the test, wouldn't that tell you that there was some problem... either the judges are not all on the same page, or there is some issue that causes judges to have trouble seeing the movement qualities? Then you could either lay out more specific standards for that movement or maybe change the test around to make it easier for the judges to see it. It makes the job easier for the judges as well.

[Dressage Art]

But if, for example, you found that one particular movement had a high scoring variation among judges, so that it stood out from the rest of the test, wouldn't that tell you that there was some problem... either the judges are not all on the same page, or there is some issue that causes judges to have trouble seeing the movement qualities? Then you could either lay out more specific standards for that movement or maybe change the test around to make it easier for the judges to see it. It makes the job easier for the judges as well.

First of all it's already is done and individual movements are evaluated every 4 years and changed for better. Numerous examples of introducing the new movements and deleting of some old ones.

Second, one movement is just a drop in the bucket and you are missing the elephant by noticing that mouse. I'm sure that even the most stubborn judges can throw the bone of changing 1 movement, just to sidetrack you from addressing a real problem.

As I said before, it's the collective marks that are the real enablers for personal and political bias. This is where judges can twist and adjust the outcome with out any reprimanding. collective marks make up 1/3 of the final score in some tests!!!! This is HUGE!

collective marks need to be addressed.

[Ambrey]

First of all it's already is done and individual movements are evaluated every 4 years and changed for better. Numerous examples of introducing the new movements and deleting of some old ones.

Second, one movement is just a drop in the bucket and you are missing the elephant by noticing that mouse. I'm sure that even the most stubborn judges can throw the bone of changing 1 movement, just to sidetrack you from addressing a real problem.

As I said before, it's the collective marks that are the real enablers for personal and political bias. This is where judges can twist and adjust the outcome with out any reprimanding. collective marks make up 1/3 of the final score in some tests!!!! This is HUGE!

Is it done statistically, or just by judge opinion, though? See, if they don't have the statistics in front of them, they might not see the difficulty they're having. And it seems like there is a real resistance to using statistics on dressage scores!

How would you suggest improving collective scoring? (just curious as to your thoughts on the matter :) and hoping it clears up a bit before I'm off to the barn!)

[sm]

I believe in getting a better calibration system going, as pluvinel and the nerd herd were referring to.

There will still be a work around for people interested in awarding favoritism, not actual merit. So yes you can change collective marks, but will the results be any more uniform?

And as I've written before, the current system works -- when correctly implemented. It's a matter of judging to the training scale so the correct elements are rewarded.

[freestyle2music]

I believe in getting a better calibration system going, as pluvinel and the nerd herd were referring to.

There will still be a work around for people interested in awarding favoritism, not actual merit. So yes you can change collective marks, but will the results be any more uniform?

And as I've written before, the current system works -- when correctly implemented. It's a matter of judging to the training scale so the correct elements are rewarded.

Which trainingscale :confused:

[shanky]

I know this is off-topic, but since I brought it up I'll clarify.

Examples of issues that would affect IRR on an individually administered IQ test (that is the type of test I was picturing, as those have the highest validity and reliability overall) would be prompting of the subject, the method in which the materials are presented, how long the subject sees any prompt given, what angle the prompt is at, etc. (here, I'm thinking of some of the strictly non-verbal tests and subtests).

All of that is laid out in the instructions because when they did the reliability testing, they found those to be issues. That's why the directions are so exacting. You prompt once, with a specific word. You put the cubes out in a specific pattern.

Anyway, that was my thinking process- that dressage needs to go through that process, to find out what parts of the test and judging need to be clarified, modified, have new standards set, etc. We're so used to IQ tests, it's hard to remember that IQ also is an intangible, something we're trying to measure by using tests that point in that direction but can't ever actually "see."
)

AHA! This may have been where we were having our friendly misunderstanding. You were talking, it now seems, about the test administrator/judge's instructions, any prompts or cues, etc., all being "equal" which is part of any test that can call itself "standardized".

I thought we were talking about the possible responses/execution of the movements. To stick with your example of Block Design, there is only one correct response per item but, in a dressage test, there may be variations/gradations depending on HOW (well or poorly) a movement is executed.

[AnotherRound]

AHA! This may have been where we were having our friendly misunderstanding. You were talking, it now seems, about the test administrator/judge's instructions, any prompts or cues, etc., all being "equal" which is part of any test that can call itself "standardized".

I thought we were talking about the possible responses/execution of the movements. To stick with your example of Block Design, there is only one correct response per item but, in a dressage test, there may be variations/gradations depending on HOW (well or poorly) a movement is executed.

I see. So if I read this correctly, Ambrey is trying to compare apples to oranges. You are saying that there are variations/gradations in dressage judging which stats style testing doesn't account for, and Ambrey doesn't seem to be able to take that into account? To my unedumacated mind, any way.

To me, dressage showing is a reflection of societal norms. A society decides collectively what represents success and judges accordingly. In dressage, the community is appointing representatives to judge our training of our horse. We who have attempted to apply those community standards to our training, want to present our work and accomplishments to be judged. But those standards are by necessity subjective; they are created by a community, not a mathmatical equation. Therefore, they are judged by a community representative and not by a mathematical equation. I don't beleive you can apply statistics to subjective criteria. Those of us who don't feel comfortable being judge by the community, such as it is, don't have to appear before it, and indeed are often those who object to the presence of that community and its selective standards, and complain about emotional aspects of that community's judgements which are meant to define achievement, but seem to define acceptance and societal rejection to some. Those of us who do want to appear before the community for feedback and to help further define future work and achievement, and who want to use those standards to improve our horses, embrace it.

To my mind.

[shanky]

I see. So if I read this correctly, Ambrey is trying to compare apples to oranges. You are saying that there are variations/gradations in dressage judging which stats style testing doesn't account for, and Ambrey doesn't seem to be able to take that into account? To my unedumacated mind, any way.

To me, dressage showing is a reflection of societal norms. A society decides collectively what represents success and judges accordingly. In dressage, the community is appointing representatives to judge our training of our horse. We who have attempted to apply those community standards to our training, want to present our work and accomplishments to be judged. But those standards are by necessity subjective; they are created by a community, not a mathmatical equation. Therefore, they are judged by a community representative and not by a mathematical equation. I don't beleive you can apply statistics to a subjective criteria. Those of us who don't feel comfortable being judge by the community, such as it is, don't have to appear before it, and indeed are often those who object to the presence of that community and its selective standards, and complain about emotional aspects of that community's judgements which are meant to define achievement, but seem to define acceptance and societal rejection to some. Those of us who do want to appear before the community for feedback and to help further define future work and achievement, and who want to use those standards to improve our horses, embrace it.

To my mind.
Yes ma'am. I guess my entire rant from the beginning is basically that I think IQ tests shouldn't be compared to dressage tests. Sorry to have hijacked the thread and rambled on about IQ testing - a very dull and off-topic subject.

There is an "ideal" in dressage, hunters, and a few other judged competitive equestrian endeavors and the scoring is, it seems to me, an attempt to reflect how closely one comes to the ideal. With all of the differing possibilities and variables on the way to reaching the ideal, there will always be some subjectivity in the judging. Can it be improved? Sure. But if one wants a perfect standard and perfect "IRR", maybe one should switch to jumpers?

[Carolinadreamin']

But if one wants a perfect standard and perfect "IRR", maybe one should switch to jumpers?

Agree. In some people's quest to level the playing field and makes all things equal, no matter what, you're trying to turn dressage into something robotic and almost mathematical like. You're trying to take away the art (for lack of a better word) and finesse out of it and might as well insist on robotic horses for everyone. There. That would level the playing field, right?

[AnotherRound]

I agree. And although I have yet to have many shows under my belt, having come from a variety of horse-endeavors which favor a variety of judging standards, I still see the dressage judging system as it is as a useful indicator of my and my horse's growth. There may be some variation of how I might be evluated from judge to judge, yet taken as a whole, my scores are indicative of my achievements. IOW, enough mediocre scores along with a pattern seen in comments define the work I put in in the next block of training time. Enough, or a trend towards improving and higher scores, combined with encouraging comments, don't forget the commnets, indicate a certain level of acheivment and define how I will tackle my next set of challenges.

For me, that is enough. It is personal enough that I am happy to receive that type of judging. I like the subjective element, maybe not always specifically, but certainly to show me trends which correlate with my own estimations.

If I find myself pulling apart each and every class and who judged it and why they felt as they did about me, and judging the judges and how they judged, I might become discouraged! Three or four shows over a season tell me more than my calculator would. Does that make sense?

Granted, I am not showing at high levels, but in training and lower levels. I might not feel the same at a higher level, but I think I would.

[AnotherRound]

Agree. In some people's quest to level the playing field and makes all things equal, no matter what, you're trying to turn dressage into something robotic and almost mathematical like. You're trying to take away the art (for lack of a better word) and finesse out of it and might as well insist on robotic horses for everyone. There. That would level the playing field, right?

I also agree with this. There is a strong ART to dressage - and art, and the judging of art by a society is subjective. It cannot be mathmatical, and the value of that art is diminished by such academic attempts to govern it. Those who love art, whether we love the specific work or not, love that we as a society, a community, get to have art, get to produce art, and in an artistic endeavor which favors the performance of that art as our community has defined it, want to present it and be judged as to our competence at it.

Training a horse is not as cut and dry as numbers it. In dressage, we are being judged in the outcome of our training talent, by what I think are very well defined standards. Those standards are well known by all of us, straight lines, round circles, soft jaw, impulsion, happiness at his work, loftiness of gaits, soundness, responses. The riders tries to demonstrate the horse's training, and how well that is done in that moment before the judge, gets judged, and we are given the standards to work towards for that.

Anyway.

[Long Spot]

Granted, I am not showing at high levels, but in training and lower levels. I might not feel the same at a higher level, but I think I would.

I think you would feel the same, AR. Because you see that "subjective" is not always a dirty word. When that subjectivity is abused, sure, thats not a good thing. But as you stated, Dressage has a component of art (as you said, for lack of a better term...and that's true). And that alone needs to lend some room for some subjectivity.

If you want math to determine a clear cut outcome, stick with jumpers, racing, or even chess. Dressage is a different animal and the standards for judging must have some wiggle room there IMHO. It's the training that judges recieve on how to use that subjectivity that is going to be the issue. Not re-inventing the wheel.

[AnotherRound]

I was thinking, stick to something like Polo! You get the score you make. But then, no, there are about 350 rules to polo, and the referee isn't going to catch every play a player breaks a rule on. So what then, create a video computer systemt to catch and evaluate each and every movment? Ok, but where's the fun in that. Changes the game as it is, I personally want to be able to cry out that the referee missed that weasel big shot who just got away with that under the neck shot on top of the other player!!!

I embrace the subjectivity in dressage. If it wasn't there, I woulnd't enjoy the art and pursuit of it.

[AnotherRound]

Yes, I would feel the same, because as you point out, subjectivity is NOT a dirty word for me.


It's the training that judges recieve on how to use that subjectivity that is going to be the issue. Not re-inventing the wheel.
[emphasis mine]

This is the essence of what I agree with.

[Ambrey]

AHA! This may have been where we were having our friendly misunderstanding. You were talking, it now seems, about the test administrator/judge's instructions, any prompts or cues, etc., all being "equal" which is part of any test that can call itself "standardized".


Exactly! That there are areas that have potential for variability and subjectivity, but that those variations (through years of research and development) have been minimized through clear, concise instructions and stringent training requirements. The historical, unreliable IQ tests have been replaced by extremely reliable, valid instruments.

All of that has been achieved through the type of research that the Nerd Herd is suggesting. Hence my initial comment- if they can make an IQ test reliable between testers, they should be able to do something with dressage judging. I don't mean that dressage judging should be as reliable or as cut and dried, but it could be more so.

[Dressage Art]

I believe in getting a better calibration system going, as pluvinel and the nerd herd were referring to.

There will still be a work around for people interested in awarding favoritism, not actual merit. So yes you can change collective marks, but will the results be any more uniform?

And as I've written before, the current system works -- when correctly implemented. It's a matter of judging to the training scale so the correct elements are rewarded.

I think it's great that there is a strong desire to get involved and make dressage judging better. I also would like to see it getting better every year! I don't want to see brown nosing and favoritism in the ring, I do not want to see a breed bias in the ring and I do not want to see Star-points awarded before the test. Actually, I think nobody would want to see those... so it's just about HOW to go around and changing the dressage judging for better.

You still seem to miss that collective mark are the MAIN % problem of not the uniform judging. Its collective marks and marks for walk movements that can set the placing. This is where judge has the most freedom of interpretation of the rules, since the rules are so vaig for collective marks and there are lots and lots of room to play by the rules, yet to manipulate final scores.

Making all collective marks x 1 or even getting rid of some of them will definitely level the field. Collective marks should reflect the tests, but as others said repeatedly, some judges just pull those collective marks out of the thin air. The other name for "collective marks" is "general impressions of the judge" = some judges just put the number on their feelings toward the pair and that number is not based on anything other that their biased feelings.

The tragedy is that some judges don't even realize that they do that. They don't even realize that they do have a bias and if you will confront them, they will deny that they do down score Friesians (for example) but they do ;) and they do that mostly in collective marks!

[mbm]

re: breed bias. could it be possible that some of the breed bias is based on certain breed traits that either do or do not help a horse in dressage?

as an example; WBs in *general* have nice big, ground covering gaits. therefore they tend to get good gait scores.

on the other hand a down hill built breed like a QH would tend to get a lower gait score just based on the inherent build of the horse.

same with fresians. some of then look quite tense - wheter they are or not.

??

[Dressage Art]

and that's the slimy may out that judges can take! No, I didn't give him 5 b/c he is QH, I gave him 5 b/c he lacks suppleness. :lol:

[FancyFree]

Can it be improved? Sure. But if one wants a perfect standard and perfect "IRR", maybe one should switch to jumpers?

Yes, if one could do jumpers. :lol:

[CatOnLap]

well, I have ridden off breeds like appies and quarterhorses in actual competition at actual recognized shows and have never encountered breed bias against me. Unless you count the judge who wrote "cute spotty pony" and gave me a smiley face and a 71%. Or the one who asked what kind of a warmblood my quarterhorse was, when he won a third level championship.

PS, a masters degree doesn't really require any depth of understanding of statistics, especially when that degree isn't even in statistics. I have TWO post-doctoral degrees in behavioral sciences and am still only beginning to understand the stats that I work with everyday. As for being horrified, I doubt any distance/online school would be horrified or even surprised that one of their grads didn't get statistics very well. I doubt they'd care, actually, once the fees are paid.

[Ambrey]

PS, a masters degree doesn't really require any depth of understanding of statistics, especially when that degree isn't even in statistics. I have TWO post-doctoral degrees in behavioral sciences and am still only beginning to understand the stats that I work with everyday. As for being horrified, I doubt any distance/online school would be horrified or even surprised that one of their grads didn't get statistics very well. I doubt they'd care, actually, once the fees are paid.

They might also be horrified to find that they run an online diploma mill, when all the time they thought they were an accredited state university. Ah, the things they could learn about their program if they just listened!

[mbm]

and that's the slimy may out that judges can take! No, I didn't give him 5 b/c he is QH, I gave him 5 b/c he lacks suppleness. :lol:

??? i was trying to point out that maybe a lot of what folks are thinking is breed bias is just judges judging what is in front of them.....

so in your example, you gave the horse a 5 for lack of suppleness. but because many QHs lack suppleness this would be seen as "breed bias"

[shanky]

PS, a masters degree doesn't really require any depth of understanding of statistics, especially when that degree isn't even in statistics. I have TWO post-doctoral degrees in behavioral sciences and am still only beginning to understand the stats that I work with everyday. As for being horrified, I doubt any distance/online school would be horrified or even surprised that one of their grads didn't get statistics very well. I doubt they'd care, actually, once the fees are paid.

Prediction: The above will merit a lecture and/or an attempt to correct your understanding of the credentials of a certain party by that certain party.

Now if you will excuse me, I am going to fish out some of my old psychometrics textbooks and design a measurement that will revolutionize dressage scoring and, in the process, save the entire dressage judging industry.

[Ambrey]

Now if you will excuse me, I am going to fish out some of my old psychometrics textbooks and design a measurement that will revolutionize dressage scoring and, in the process, save the entire dressage judging industry.

Too late, COL and the nerd herd already did that...

[shanky]

Too late, COL and the nerd herd already did that...

Thanks for telling me before I started on my grant application...

[Ambrey]

Thanks for telling me before I started on my grant application...

I'm here to help.

[Sparky]

No need for an extra dose of smart ass Ambre, the school you mentioned does indeed have an on-line masters program...even if that is news to them. And shanky did I mention in an earlier post that the certain party always has to have the last word? Watch.

[Ambrey]

No need for an extra dose of smart ass Ambre, the school you mentioned does indeed have an on-line masters program...

In Ed Psych?

[Carolinadreamin']

Now if you will excuse me, I am going to fish out some of my old psychometrics textbooks and design a measurement that will revolutionize dressage scoring and, in the process, save the entire dressage judging industry.

shanky, may I offer assistance? I can dig out my old thermodynamics book out of the garage and will be happy to contribute some fancy engineering-like terms! ;););););););););)

[FriesianX]

re: breed bias. could it be possible that some of the breed bias is based on certain breed traits that either do or do not help a horse in dressage?

as an example; WBs in *general* have nice big, ground covering gaits. therefore they tend to get good gait scores.

on the other hand a down hill built breed like a QH would tend to get a lower gait score just based on the inherent build of the horse.

same with fresians. some of then look quite tense - wheter they are or not.

??

I don't think it is breed bias to mark a downhill horse with lower scores, or a tense horse with lower scores. It is breed bias to ASSUME a Quarter Horse is downhill or a Friesian is tense.

Some Warmbloods, some Friesians, some Quarter Horses have better movement, are more over their backs, are better ridden then others. Those horses, irregardless of breed, should be scored better than the downhill or tense horse.

A good judge needs to be able to recognize good work and bad, irregardless of the breed. They need to be blind to the breed (or color).

[mbm]

I don't think it is breed bias to mark a downhill horse with lower scores, or a tense horse with lower scores. It is breed bias to ASSUME a Quarter Horse is downhill or a Friesian is tense.

Some Warmbloods, some Friesians, some Quarter Horses have better movement, are more over their backs, are better ridden then others. Those horses, irregardless of breed, should be scored better than the downhill or tense horse.

A good judge needs to be able to recognize good work and bad, irregardless of the breed. They need to be blind to the breed (or color).


exactly! you just said it wayyyy better than i could :)

ETA; rereading what i had written i see why i was misunderstood. I should of used " " around the words Breed Bias which might of helped convey more the feeling of what i meant.

[AnotherRound]

Prediction: The above will merit a lecture and/or an attempt to correct your understanding of the credentials of a certain party by that certain party.



Or an attempt to portray merit by appearing credentialed.

I personally don't think one or two statistics courses actually endow any kind of useful, working understanding of statistics. Its the ability to identify the type of data which would benefit from numerical generalizations and comparisons from life-centered observations which is of value; that takes critical thinking, not taught in statistics, actually. Critical thinking thinks beyond numbers and stats and compares and combines many different types of information to arrive at a useful conclusion. Not measured in credentials.

The ability to value think subjectively is the requirement I seek in a judge - as DA pointed out - we don't want to see brown nosing, breed bias, star points in judging - but unlike DA I DO want to see general impression marks from a judge - I want to know what she thinks and how I came across in my presentation, besides my movement scores. Should that impression be part of the score? Well, I don't personally know how wide spread those marks affect scores. In general, yes, I want them. If there is room for improvement in how that subjective observation is applied, lets improve it. But please, lets keep applications like psych ed scoring (how the heck does that apply to dressage presentations, and PLEASE don't answer that for real) out of it. There's no room for numerical stats in the judging of dressage beyond the points awarded at the judges discretion.

[AnotherRound]

I don't think it is breed bias to mark a downhill horse with lower scores, or a tense horse with lower scores. It is breed bias to ASSUME a Quarter Horse is downhill or a Friesian is tense.



But why do you say that is the bias? Or that the bias exists? Why do you think its the QH bias which marked it down? What if it was a tense horse? What gives you the right to decry the mark because it was a QH? Arent you applying the biase here? Unless you can prove the judge said "I'm gonna call it tense because its a QH" Maybe you are the predjudiced one here. If the horse was downhill, and it couldn't engage its engine, and got marked down because it was heavy on its forehand, YOU might just be the one using the breed excuse.

If you own a horse, whatever breed, which is downhill and heavy on its forehand, you are going to have to work harder than a trainer with an uphill horse with naturally light forehand. That's just the nature of the beast. You can ascribe the characteristic to the breed, and maybe you aren't wrong, but when a judge observes that your horse hasn't been trained to sit back and use its hindn end correctly, that's your challenge as a trainer, not the judge's predjudice. Maybe in general judges see STATISTICALLY (cough cough) a million QHs go past them with the same problem, but its up to you to show them YOUR horse with all the extra training it took to get him to lighten up in front. Warm bloods? Does a WB with an uphillbuild have an easier time with this issue? Probably. Do you resent it? That would be stupid. Train your horse. If it takes too much to do, get a different horse, or not, but really, think about it, QH are designed to use their engine and work with a light front end, think roll back, sliding stop. Train your horse (dresage) and stop whining about breed bias. A well trained horse is a well trained horse. If he moves well, his breed will blend into the background. If he doesn't move well, work harder.

If a QH is in a dressage test with a heavy, downhill movement and heavy front end, he shouldn't score well, and it is a reflection on the rider and the trainer. Not on the horse.

Edited to add: I understand, in re-reading, that Fresian X was saying the same sort of thing I was - that the judging based on presentation is appropriate and judging based on breed was not.

[Beasmom]

"There are lies, damned lies, and statistics." Mark Twain

[Ambrey]

I agree completely. I think it's hard to understand statistics unless you first understand the mathematics on which they are based, and then understand their purpose.

So calculus + sciences + research methods + univariate and multivariate statistics may give you some understanding. Most of the people I went to grad school with never took calculus. Once they got to stats it was all greek.

(ha ha, that was a math joke. get it?)

I find it kind of funny that people haven't seemed to realize that inter-rater reliability is one of the things they were talking about in the Nerd Herd article, only they were calling it something different. Apparently it's only a bad idea if I mention it, because I went to a college I found in the back of Mad Magazine and paid for with Chuck E. Cheeze tokens.

[shanky]

I find it kind of funny that people haven't seemed to realize that inter-rater reliability is one of the things they were talking about in the Nerd Herd article, only they were calling it something different. Apparently it's only a bad idea if I mention it, because I went to a college I found in the back of Mad Magazine and paid for with Chuck E. Cheeze tokens.

I don't think anyone in this thread is saying inter-rater reliability is a "bad idea". In fact, I think most people who have referred to anything resembling it have said they would like to see more consistency among judges' scores. But it seems like you have become stuck in this loop, perseverating on IRR, when others are also considering what goes on in the ring and are debating the challenge of assigning numbers to something that is difficult to measure precisely.

Back to IQ testing vs. dressage scoring: Although I hear your point about the subtests with 1 vs. 2 vs. 0 point answers - there still is a standard to meet. The only question being: Did the individual's response meet the standard for a 1, 2 or 0 point response. (And, yes, I have had to puzzle over some responses and stare at the administration book to determine which standard the child met.)

In a dressage test, the question is not "did they meet the exact standard" for each "question" that was asked of them, but how close did they come to the standard? How well did they execute something? And, in judging something even as appearingly basic as a "halt" - think about how many differing variables go into executing a "perfect" halt. You would need to define every variable that went into a halt (alignment, stillness, softness, responsiveness, etc., etc., etc.) and then assign scores for how well each individual variable that went into halting/maintaining "haltedness" was performed just to come up with a dang halt score. But you could still come up with the same overall halt score for two different horses who performed the halt differently when you added up the scores for the individual variables! And then do that for the entire test? IT BOGGLES THE MIND.

[FriesianX]

"There are lies, damned lies, and statistics." Mark Twain

I have another great statistics quote, courtesy of Paul Goldfinger (a retired genius in the study of California school finance) Numbers are like people, if you torture them enough, they'll tell you anything you want. Always loved that quote :lol:

[Sandy M]

and that's the slimy may out that judges can take! No, I didn't give him 5 b/c he is QH, I gave him 5 b/c he lacks suppleness. :lol:


True enough, BUT....while I think stuff like this happens less often these days with the improvement of available instruction in dressage, horses of formerly more "niched" breeds being bred toward sport horse standards, etc. , I personally have heard/seen comments like this from reputable judges (admittedly in the past, though as recently as the '80s, if that isnt TOO ancient history):

"Nice ride. Too bad about the color." (This for a 15/16ths TB Palomino, reg. QH/very uphill build, 17.2, eventually a successful Grand Prix horse that sold for high five figures back in '83 when prices weren't that high, specially for an "off color" horse.) Scored low for a very correct and fluid 2nd level test at the time of the comment. (Show management did file a report with AHSA and judge was reprimanded.)

"I could never give a Palomino more than a 55%." 16.3 2nd level QH horse, NOT downhill build, ridden by a junior who took the horse on to Young Riders successfully. At the time, the pair had consistently been scoring in the mid to high 60% range.

"Appaloosas are NOT dressage horses." Competent if not fancy moving horse competing at 1st level with good scores in front of MOST judges (come on - ANYTHING can do first level).

Comment to scribe, but not noted on test, by judge who had previously scored this particular horse quite high at 2nd level: "I had thought this horse was Dutch, but I found out it's JUST a PAINT."

Sport horse type Appy showing at 1st level: Good test, three judges. Two judges scored test 66% and 66.5%, third judge scored it 52%. Judge scoring 52% was at C with the judge scoring 66.5%, so not a lower score because of a different perspective.

Sigh. Still, this was in the 80s, and certainly is less prevalent these days.

[Ambrey]

But you could still come up with the same overall halt score for two different horses who performed the halt differently when you added up the scores for the individual variables! And then do that for the entire test? IT BOGGLES THE MIND.

I was referring to comments like "if you want IRR, try jumping."

But regarding your (great, well thought out) post, I just want to say that I wasn't really thinking that the dressage reliability had to be as high as IQ test reliability. Only that through similar processes they could improve it, as IQ tests have. I also wouldn't want to see dressage boiled down to black and whites, or the human element totally removed from judging- but knowing how much variation people are comfortable with, and getting it at least down to that point, would be useful.

[Ambrey]

Sigh. Still, this was in the 80s, and certainly is less prevalent these days.

I think they must be. I was worried, going into this with a VERY off-breed, but have many friends showing off breeds and am not hearing anything of the sort. Most people feel that they are getting the scores they deserve regardless of breed.

I wonder what the percentage of off-breeds are showing now vs the 80s?

[Beasmom]

What is your first hand knowledge of dressage competition Ambrey? Have you ever scribed for judges and listened to their comments? Have you ever examined your own score sheet, studied the comments from the judge and learned from their observations?

Just wondering.

There are still plenty of "off-breeds" competing. There's something you can do from your computer. Research the percentages of various breeds competing in dressage and torture the numbers till they tell you whatever you want to hear.

[Eclectic Horseman]

There are still plenty of "off-breeds" competing. There's something you can do from your computer. Research the percentages of various breeds competing in dressage and torture the numbers till they tell you whatever you want to hear.

Yes, so many in fact that Janet F-B was quoted about being sick of seeing horses come down the center line that look like they should be chasing cows.... ;)

[FriesianX]

I don't think we can blame today's judges for what the 80s judges said/did. Yeah, when I first discovered dressage (early 90s) there was still a lot of bias. I had a judge stand up at the end of a test and say "nice test, but Arabs can't do dressage". :eek: And when I showed a Morgan (not at all typey, looked like a little WB) at State Championships and was 7th place at 1st level (in a HUGE class), I told people AFTER the placings he was a Morgan. WHAT, a MORGAN in the top ten, that is ridiculous! Are you SURE?

Now days, I see much less bias, and the little I do run into tends to be the older judges. I did see a posting on the "other BB" last year that said Friesians can't do dressage (posted by a judge:no:), but in general, I see very open minds, very positive comments. My stallion is quite "non-traditional" (Pinto and Baroque), and I seldom hear anything about his color or his type.

I also scribe a lot, and seldom hear anything negative from the judges - only a very, very few. In general, I think our judging ranks are very fair and professional. In the L program, one candidate made a breed biased remark, and the faculty chastised her and told her she didn't belong in a judging program with that attitude!

[Arizona DQ]

True enough, BUT....while I think stuff like this happens less often these days with the improvement of available instruction in dressage, horses of formerly more "niched" breeds being bred toward sport horse standards, etc. , I personally have heard/seen comments like this from reputable judges (admittedly in the past, though as recently as the '80s, if that isnt TOO ancient history):

"Nice ride. Too bad about the color." (This for a 15/16ths TB Palomino, reg. QH/very uphill build, 17.2, eventually a successful Grand Prix horse that sold for high five figures back in '83 when prices weren't that high, specially for an "off color" horse.) Scored low for a very correct and fluid 2nd level test at the time of the comment. (Show management did file a report with AHSA and judge was reprimanded.)

"I could never give a Palomino more than a 55%." 16.3 2nd level QH horse, NOT downhill build, ridden by a junior who took the horse on to Young Riders successfully. At the time, the pair had consistently been scoring in the mid to high 60% range.

"Appaloosas are NOT dressage horses." Competent if not fancy moving horse competing at 1st level with good scores in front of MOST judges (come on - ANYTHING can do first level).

Comment to scribe, but not noted on test, by judge who had previously scored this particular horse quite high at 2nd level: "I had thought this horse was Dutch, but I found out it's JUST a PAINT."

Sport horse type Appy showing at 1st level: Good test, three judges. Two judges scored test 66% and 66.5%, third judge scored it 52%. Judge scoring 52% was at C with the judge scoring 66.5%, so not a lower score because of a different perspective.

Sigh. Still, this was in the 80s, and certainly is less prevalent these days.

Who was the black and white pinto back in the late 70's early 80's that was so good? Was that Poltroon? Anyone remember ? TIA.

[Carolinadreamin']

I think they must be. I was worried, going into this with a VERY off-breed, but have many friends showing off breeds and am not hearing anything of the sort. Most people feel that they are getting the scores they deserve regardless of breed.

I wonder what the percentage of off-breeds are showing now vs the 80s?

Well, if your chief and most overwhelming concern when it comes to dressage is breed bias (instead of riding and bringing along your horse to the very, very best ability for both of you), then why on earth did you get a draftX? I didn't buy our first horse (an uphill, not typey QH) fully expecting we'd go to the highest levels, but because I knew I'd learn a heck of a lot riding him. I have no idea how far we'll go, but I know that one day his limitations due to his conformation will not allow him to go as far as another horse will go. Do I call that breed bias? Please.

I certainly don't expect my minivan to win a race against a Porsche. If high performance is my main goal in driving, then I should have bought something more appropriate. I don't understand your preoccupation with breed bias. If it is so important to you, go out and buy a high level horse and quit whining and arguing on BBs.

[Sandy M]

Who was the black and white pinto back in the late 70's early 80's that was so good? Was that Poltroon? Anyone remember ? TIA.


Poltroon was an eventer, and my mind is a total blank as to how good her dressage phase was. Not to slur anyone, but in the ' 70s, getting a clear cross-country was more important than the dressage phase (I know this from personal experience!), so Poltroon could have been brilliant or average in dressage. Her final score at the 1980 alternate Olympics in Fontainbleau (?) was 75 (individual bronze). When you consider that O'Connor finished on a score of something like 27.8 at Sydney...well, hard tell what her dressage score might have been. I just don't recall. Art Deco was foaled in '83, so it's not Art Deco. Anyone else?

[Arizona DQ]

Well, if your chief and most overwhelming concern when it comes to dressage is breed bias (instead of riding and bringing along your horse to the very, very best ability for both of you), then why on earth did you get a draftX? I didn't buy our first horse (an uphill, not typey QH) fully expecting we'd go to the highest levels, but because I knew I'd learn a heck of a lot riding him. I have no idea how far we'll go, but I know that one day his limitations due to his conformation will not allow him to go as far as another horse will go. Do I call that breed bias? Please.
....If it is so important to you, go out and buy a high level horse and quit whining and arguing on BBs.

Thank you! I get many, many great comments about my "little mare" from the judges - too bad I have not yet lived up to her potential... I bought my Arab x mare because I LIKED her, she suited ME and I knew she had some potential (as does pretty much any horse for the lower levels...). I have no dreams about going to the international levels, but I am excited to see how far we can get together! Breed Bias??? Nah, we just have to work that much harder with a breed that was not purposely bred for dressage. What a great challenge!!! QUIT WHINGING AND GET TO WORK!!!:winkgrin:

[Arizona DQ]

Poltroon was an eventer, and my mind is a total blank as to how good her dressage phase was. Not to slur anyone, but in the ' 70s, getting a clear cross-country was more important than the dressage phase (I know this from personal experience!), so Poltroon could have been brilliant or average in dressage. Her final score at the 1980 alternate Olympics in Fontainbleau (?) was 75 (individual bronze). When you consider that O'Connor finished on a score of something like 27.8 at Sydney...well, hard tell what her dressage score might have been. I just don't recall. Art Deco was foaled in '83, so it's not Art Deco. Anyone else?

Thanks!! For some reason I have a picture of her in my mind doing a dressage test (which of course she would have had to do).... Sorry to highjack the thread briefly, but it was just bugging me...:winkgrin:

Thanks again... and now back to the regularly scheduled program.........:cool:

[Sandy M]

Thank you! I get many, many great comments about my "little mare" from the judges - too bad I have not yet lived up to her potential... I bought my Arab x mare because I LIKED her, she suited ME and I knew she had some potential (as does pretty much any horse for the lower levels...). I have no dreams about going to the international levels, but I am excited to see how far we can get together! Breed Bias??? Nah, we just have to work that much harder with a breed that was not purposely bred for dressage. What a great challenge!!! QUIT WHINGING AND GET TO WORK!!!:winkgrin:

I got a three decent gaits, nothing special App to successfully showing 2nd, schooling 3rd, before arthritis caught up with him (he started out as a hunter/jumper). One knowledgeable person felt he was capable of PSG, eventually, but.....too little, too late with the dressage training.

I like Appies. Have had only Appies since 1977. The only reason I didn't have them from the very beginning was that I let people convince me that I COULDN'T do H/J or dressage on an Appaloosa. Then I got into eventing and got my first Appy. Was I more successful with them as eventers than as pure dressage horses? Yes. So far. New horse is a pretty nice mover - Appy/Arab cross, 16.2 hands, now 5. A lot of people guess that he's a Trakhener or Hano cross. Very surprised to learn he's half-Arab. We'll see how far he goes. I would say his biggest limitation is..... me. He's by far the best prospect I've had for just dressage, but I like Appies and will stick with them, for better or worse (mostly for better), regardless.

P.S. NOT talking about Quarterloosas, but real Apps, or TB/Arab cross Apps. My first App was pure foundation (Toby line), also 2nd horse (Red Eagle/Old Painter line). Third was 2nd gen. TB cross with minimal QH blood, traced back to Dawndee, so racebred all the way. Present horse is Foundation App/Arab. Both the War Don/Dawndee and Red eagle lines have some Arab in the waaaay back generations. When the ApHC was first founded, Hatley and Thompson were more in favor of using Arab blood to help recreate/regenerate the breed, but then the QH lovers took over.............

[pluvinel]

“Inappropriate” Really? He-he… I once went to the judging clinic where one “S” judge kept trying to ask a not politically correct question and the presenter who was also an “S” judge kept on turning those uncomfortable questions down with the cold smile and answer: “it’s not an appropriate question for that topic and we don’t have a time to discuss anything that is not on my agenda”…

.... I witnessed first hand that even “L” judging faculty instructors don’t agree with each other about some of the judging that they teach. You can hear quite an opposite points of view from different “L” sessions. How come they can’t even agree? Where that disagreement comes from? And I think that “L” instructors who are “S” and up judges would qualify as “professional evaluation” ;)
.........

And that is the crux of the question....the problem is NOT the judging system per se, the problem with variability in dressage scoring is lack of agreement on what should be the standard.

But all is not lost.....it is thru dialog that one gets to resolution.

So really the answer to problems in dressage scoring have 2 parts:
1-CONTENT, eg., the standard being tested to; and
2-Test methodology.

Content requires that the dressage gods agree to agree on a standard. Just what are we looking for? As Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said (about pornography), "I know it when I see it."

We all recognize a nice, well-ridden harmonious test (reagardless of breed). We all also recognize a crappy, tense, test ridden on a saintly schoolmaster with big gaits.

Can the judging system score the harmonious ride and the crappy ride appropriately? Goes back to "the standard" and what is valued or aspired to.

Now as far as #2, Test Methodology, one need not be a dressage expert or high level rider to design a good dressage test instrument along with a valid scoring system....

The two parts of the question are separate. Content requires the dressage gods agree on a STANDARD. Test methodolgy requires the application of "the standard" along with well-accepted statistical tools applied by practitioners of that craft.

[FancyFree]

I certainly don't expect my minivan to win a race against a Porsche. If high performance is my main goal in driving, then I should have bought something more appropriate. I don't understand your preoccupation with breed bias. If it is so important to you, go out and buy a high level horse and quit whining and arguing on BBs.

Oh my. While I completely agree, if fear you will never hear the end of it from the person this statement was directed to. It will be another Drafts in Dressage thread, part 2.


A friend of mine showed her little QH up to third level and they did very well. She'd joke about going up against the big WBs, as she did when she showed hunters. But I never noticed her having a negative attitude about the breed of her horse or constantly going on about "breed bias". She never complained once about any bias. She had confidence in her horse and that was that. That horse could really do anything. A positive attitude is important when showing. If a rider of an off-breed is going to go in the show ring believing they will be discriminated against, they have lost half the battle from the very start.

[Ambrey]

There are still plenty of "off-breeds" competing. There's something you can do from your computer. Research the percentages of various breeds competing in dressage and torture the numbers till they tell you whatever you want to hear.

Actually, I was thinking there were MORE off breeds now, so that bias has been dissipated by pure exposure.

But if you'd like to continue to keep your panties in a wad over something I neither said nor intended, be my guest :winkgrin: Sounds like an uncomfortable way to ride.

[Dressage Art]

Content requires that the dressage gods agree to agree on a standard. Just what are we looking for? ..."I know it when I see it."

100% agree? 100% think the same? 100% give the same comments when "they see IT"?

Then we'll have to find the way how to preselect very similar minded judges, probably with very similar backgrounds, very similar experiences, very similar likes/dislikes, and very similar believes. But can you imagine having any kind of dialog to get a resolution with that bunch? If they all will be thinking the same?

Now think about the people that you KNOW and count 10 of them who will fit that bill to become a perfect judge?

Also, may be "L" judging testing, judges pre-selection should be tightened to pas only with 100% ;) ?
But then, NOBODY will graduate! :lol: Now the passing score to continue to the next level is 70% and only 1/3 of a class passes that. (Class is 10 people, 3 people pass with Distinction and can move on to the next level) = that also means that there is about 30% area where they lack knowledge or disagree with the standard of Instructors. For example, lets say 3 people graduated with 70%+ out of their class. That means that we are on the same page 70% of the time, but also that means that about 30% of the time we might be not on the same page! Yet, they graduated on the top of the class from L program.

I think it's easier to write a clear test that limits political and breed bias, than to get all of the judges on a 100% same page.

PS: some of you now are saying that there are very limited breed bias and political bias in judging. If this is the case, what are you trying to change? You should be very happy with current judging then!

[Ambrey]

100% agree? 100% think the same? 100% give the same comments when "they see IT"?

No, it's never 100%, never perfect. You set a level of variability you're comfortable with and refine the standards to allow for that.

Pluvinel, I always consider the judging intructions, the "standards," as analogous to the instructions in an IQ test. That's one of the reasons I used the IQ test as a comparison, because often improvements to the reliability and validity don't come from changing the question (sometimes they do) but changing how the answers are interpreted.

eta: What do I want to change? Only that based on the data I've seen the judges are not judging to a uniform standard. I haven't seen the data on bias, either political or breed, but the data on the agreement between judges on what they are looking for in a test seems to indicate some need for improvement.

[pluvinel]

RE: Dressage Scores by Breed...as determined by analysis of 40,000-some rides from Training thru GP in 2008.
http://www.pvda.org/Lists/Articles/Attachments/36/Statistical%20Analysis%20of%20USDF%202008%20Compet ition%20Data-Summary.pdf
....data shall set you free.....

[Dressage Art]

I can't find it, sorry. For some reason I can't copy to here from that document either?

[pluvinel]

100% agree? 100% think the same? 100% give the same comments when "they see IT"?

Then we'll have to find the way how to preselect very similar minded judges, probably with very similar backgrounds, very similar experiences, very similar likes/dislikes, and very similar believes. But can you imagine having any kind of dialog to get a resolution with that bunch? If they all will be thinking the same?
.....

Actually this is the difference between "THEN" and "NOW"...

Those people with "with very similar backgrounds, very similar experiences, very similar likes/dislikes, and very similar beliefs" were cavalry.....eg., military officers, trained under similar systems needed to keep a mounted soldier safe on the back of a horse.

Now everyone can think anything they want.

But all is not lost....

Everyone is familiar with ASTM standards because of helmet safety no?

Well, the ASTM standards are what is called "consensus standards".....that is everyone who has a piece of the action makes up a committee and they agree to agree on what is the standard. There is no reason a consensus standard cannot be arrived at for dressage judging.

It just takes dialog....where people listen and COLLABORATE with open minds. Egos checked at the door.

[Ambrey]

But of course, as MBM said, lower scores are not necessarily an indication of bias. It was pertinent to the standards argument because those applied to rider only, but since horse ability IS part of the test, it could be said that some breeds would just naturally score lower than others.

The part about QH catching up to WBs at the FEI levels was interesting, though!

[pluvinel]

I can't find it, sorry. For some reason I can't copy to here from that document either?

Try this link
www.pvda.org/Documents/USDF%20Score%20Analysis.pdf

There is an ANOVA with breed as a variable. The data shows that warmbloods have a competitive advantage thru 2nd level.

There is no reason assumed as to WHY that is....the data just shows that the average score was statistically higher for warmblood breeds Trg.-2nd level.

[Dressage Art]

... I think I found it, page 11? It seems that Arab, Morgan, Paint and TB score the lowest. Then comes high scoring Iberian Breeds (baroque?) and then WB at almost 50% higher than anybody else! But where are my fav Drafts? I see more 1/2 Drafts than I see Morgans or Arabs at the shows! And who are "other"? You already have "unknown" in it, why to have "other" but not have Drafts? Breed bias from nerd herd ;)

and you put Friesians under the Warm Blood Breeds? AHA! So they are WBs after all! :lol:

May be the data is only 70% correct/complete ;)? Just like most judges?

[pluvinel]

...
....May be the data is only 70% correct/complete ;)? Just like most judges?

The data is complete....it consists of ALL the scores available (courtesy of ShotenStar's many hours of copying and pasting for analysis).

There was no "sampling" of the data. The data consists of the entire population of scores for performance classes. The data reflects what was showing in the time period of the scores.

"Unknown" is a breed listed in the scores report in the original data. "Others" was a category created to capture the 10% of the "other" breeds making up the scores.

[Ambrey]

It's great work, Pluvinel. I know your continued efforts in these areas are going to bring about positive changes for dressage judging. Keep on keepin' on.

[Dressage Art]

So what about the Drafts? Are you saying that there are less Drafts showing than Arabs and HQ and you put them in the "other" category?

where did you put 1/2 TB and 1/2 Drafts?
where did you put 1/2 Tb and 1/2 WB?
where did you put the mutts?

PS: pluvinel, you didn't get my joke, but I guess the Friesians are Warm Bloods... and that is the end of conversation/dialog... right...

[pluvinel]

So what about the Drafts? Are you saying that there are less Drafts showing than Arabs and HQ and you put them in the "other" category?

where did you put 1/2 TB and 1/2 Drafts?
where did you put 1/2 Tb and 1/2 WB?
where did you put the mutts?

PS: pluvinel, you didn't get my joke, but I guess the Friesians are Warm Bloods... and that is the end of conversation/dialog... right...

Entirely possible.......At parties, my husband has frequently had to explain dirty/ double entendre jokes to me. Simple things for simple minds.....

As far as the other question....The breeds are the breeds listed in the original data set.

The breeds were grouped for analysis to make the results more meaningful....

For example , if one is interested in impact of breed, if in one region there were only 3 Hanoverian horses, it is more practical to group Hanos with Dutch, Oldenberger, Westfalen...etc to get a statistically significant data set as to the impact of breeds. In geek-speak, these are called rational groups....

Pls read the report and it will explain where all the breeds are grouped.

[sm]

Try this link
www.pvda.org/Documents/USDF%20Score%20Analysis.pdf (http://www.pvda.org/Documents/USDF%20Score%20Analysis.pdf)

There is an ANOVA with breed as a variable. The data shows that warmbloods have a competitive advantage thru 2nd level.

There is no reason assumed as to WHY that is....the data just shows that the average score was statistically higher for warmblood breeds Trg.-2nd level.

Well, here's my two cents. There is a tendency to judge what is called suspension over correct gaits. To do upper level work you need three correct gaits and a great canter, a great work ethic, etc. Once you get over the natural gift of suspension it's more important to have three correct gaits, symmetrical built body, athletic body (not by WB standards just equine athletic), etc.

I've always taken my hits on suspension since I feel correct gaits are more important, and I really like the way my breed of choice is put together. In essence suspension (as defined by WB uber mover standards instead of a horse's correct suspension given it's breed) holds limited value although of course the points do come much easier.

I do want to clarify the use of REGISTRY over breed however, in a closed book breed there isn't so much the opportunity to breed in the uber movers, and I do like to see different BREEDS in dressage.

[hoopoe]

I feel the reason the WB advantage falls off above 2nd level is the same reason scores fall and the population declines

it is at third level and above the the riders true and correct skill starts to influence. There is when the horses true and correct training and the riding shows

or does not

[ToN Farm]

Suspension is always important. It doesn't become less important as the test levels increase. How can you have a good collected trot without suspension and cadence? That is the reason, SM, your breed of choice (TB) is not very successful at FEI dressage.

[Beasmom]

Ambrey, I suggested that off-breed search for you because it might get you off these boards for a while.

Meanwhile, you have neglected to answer my questions regarding your dressage show experience, any experience scribing, any experience reading and learning from your dressage score sheets.

Might that be because you have done none of the above? Not that there's anything wrong with that, but for someone who shoots her mouth off a LOT about shows, scores, judges and all the rest, you have no standing. None.

All hat, no cattle.

There are several draft crosses competing in dressage around here, and they're doing just fine. Breed bias may have been a problem years ago -- maybe in the days when most folks were using OTTB's for anything "English". Now we're overrun with breeds I'd never heard of back in the day -- Gypsy Vanners, Nokota Horses, all the various crossbreeds like Georgian Grandes. I could go on.

Ambrey, it's time to put up or shut up -- and RIDE. Your horse isn't the problem. You are.

[Ambrey]

I didn't suggest there was any problem with my horse. He's doing great, thanks for asking. I was commenting on the data presented by the Nerd Herd.

You might want to try a glass of wine before reading COTH, it might keep you from getting so uptight over nothing.

[Ambrey]

Suspension is always important. It doesn't become less important as the test levels increase. How can you have a good collected trot without suspension and cadence? That is the reason, SM, your breed of choice (TB) is not very successful at FEI dressage.

So how does one explain that the score differences at the upper levels between WBs and QHs shrink to insignificance? Do QHs have more suspension than TBs? (they didn't show a level-by-level chart for breeds that I could see).

[Dressage Art]

Do you have a statistics for the relation of WB verses other breeds below 2nd and then above 2nd?

I think, suspension gets even more important when you go up the levels. There is no extended trot with out natural born suspension and the impulsion scores will be lower b/c of the lack of suspension as well. However, I personally know several arabs who have an amazing suspension, so it's not only WBs who do.

TBs usually have a square body with long legs and straight shoulders = not a good built for suspension. They are built to propel themselves forward for racing, not upward for collection.

[Beasmom]

Ambrey, I'm drinking wine right now. It makes reading and responding to your posts much less painful.

I know there's no problem with your horse. The problem is you. I wasn't asking how your horse is; no need to "thank" me for asking. You work hard trying to prove breed bias, "fatism" or some other imagined prejudice. All. The. Time. All. Over. These. Boards.

What is your experience in dressage competition? Have you scribed for any judge? Do you know how to read and interpret a dressage test? That's what I'm asking about, not about your horse. What is your basis of experience regarding competition, judging, and what that entails. Again, you avoid answering a question that will reveal to everyone what a poseur you are. Get a little "street cred".

Shut up and ride. Come back after you've done a few shows, volunteered as a scribe at a few shows. MAYBE then you'd be taken seriously. Or not.

[Ambrey]

I know there's no problem with your horse. The problem is you. I wasn't asking how your horse is; no need to "thank" me for asking. You work hard trying to prove breed bias, "fatism" or some other imagined prejudice. All. The. Time. All. Over. These. Boards.


Wow, and here I said "I was concerned about breed bias, but it doesn't seem to be an issue" and you seem to have missed that. Why not keep it on topic, or maybe a little too much wine tonight? I didn't bring up breed bias nor, in any post, claim that it exists or is an issue. The breed bias posts were written by other posters. Maybe try barking at them?

[Ambrey]

I think, suspension gets even more important when you go up the levels. There is no extended trot with out natural born suspension and the impulsion scores will be lower b/c of the lack of suspension as well. However, I personally know several arabs who have an amazing suspension, so it's not only WBs who do.

I think the natural suspension argument was that some WBs are bred with gobs of suspension from the get-go, while many other breeds have less suspension until they build the strength and do the work (let me know if I got that right ;)).

I just find that particular statistic really interesting and am curious about it! It seems so counter to what most people say (that off breeds are less likely to be able to do the work and go up the levels).

I don't remember, did they mention the % of horses at the lower vs. upper levels that were in the WB group?

[Carolinadreamin']

Ambrey, I'm drinking wine right now. It makes reading and responding to your posts much less painful.

I know there's no problem with your horse. The problem is you. I wasn't asking how your horse is; no need to "thank" me for asking. You work hard trying to prove breed bias, "fatism" or some other imagined prejudice. All. The. Time. All. Over. These. Boards.

What is your experience in dressage competition? Have you scribed for any judge? Do you know how to read and interpret a dressage test? That's what I'm asking about, not about your horse. What is your basis of experience regarding competition, judging, and what that entails. Again, you avoid answering a question that will reveal to everyone what a poseur you are. Get a little "street cred".

Shut up and ride. Come back after you've done a few shows, volunteered as a scribe at a few shows. MAYBE then you'd be taken seriously. Or not.

:lol:

[Beasmom]

So, Ambrey, how often do you show or scribe for judges? On what experience do you base your vast dressage knowledge?

Oh, gee. Don't have time to wait for a reply. I'm off for a two day show.

You remind me of the patter song that Mother Paroo delivers in "The Music Man":

When a woman has a husband and you've got none
Why should she take advice from you
Even if you can quote Balzac and Shakespeare
And all them other high falutin' Greeks?

Just substitute "dressage show experience" for "a husband". You get the idea.

[meupatdoes]

So how does one explain that the score differences at the upper levels between WBs and QHs shrink to insignificance? Do QHs have more suspension than TBs? (they didn't show a level-by-level chart for breeds that I could see).

Lift thine eyes a couple of posts to what hoopoe said.

[sm]

Suspension is always important. It doesn't become less important as the test levels increase. How can you have a good collected trot without suspension and cadence? That is the reason, SM, your breed of choice (TB) is not very successful at FEI dressage.

Suspension is only as good as correct gaits: it won't get the job done at FEI without correct gaits. I see you didn't read my post for comprehension *sigh* Nor do you seem to understand how much TB blood goes into WBs.

Interesting you bring up TBs: they will be the Breed Profile in USDF Connection July issue. No apologies there on accomplishments, you should read it when it comes out in a few days, it includes:

- St Graal on the levade http://cvm.msu.edu/research/research-centers/mcphail-equine-performance-center/publications/usdf-connection/USDF_Oct03.pdf

- Keene of course

- Optimistic: USDF gold bar and gold medal, silver, bronze

[FancyFree]

So, Ambrey, how often do you show or scribe for judges? On what experience do you base your vast dressage knowledge?

Oh, gee. Don't have time to wait for a reply. I'm off for a two day show.

You remind me of the patter song that Mother Paroo delivers in "The Music Man":

When a woman has a husband and you've got none
Why should she take advice from you
Even if you can quote Balzac and Shakespeare
And all them other high falutin' Greeks?

Just substitute "dressage show experience" for "a husband". You get the idea.

You always bring the laughs Beasmom. Good luck at your show!

[Dressage Art]

It seems so counter to what most people say (that off breeds are less likely to be able to do the work and go up the levels).

I don't see where in the document that statistic is posted. I'd like to see the raw numbers. Since the results can be twisted any way you want them.

According to the USDF statistics strong majority of horses are WB and Baroque the higher you go up the levels. The higher the levels = the less off-breeds I personally see. I would like to see if statistics support my local observation.

It's proven that it's only at Training Level that natural gaits are judged more than dressage training. But at 1st and up its equal or more.

If training skills start to shine only after 2nd level... what does that say about 80% of USDF Members who stay below 2nd level? IMHO 2nd level requires more rider skill and more training skill than many other levels above.

Lots of horses that are conformationally challenged can't go up past 2nd level due to the increased physical demands thus developing of floating lameness. 3 pure, correct gaits require an addition of increased physical demand that is "suspension" that is needed for collected trot, for extended trot, for flying changes and so on.

[Dressage Art]

Suspension is only as good as correct gaits: it won't get the job done at FEI without correct gaits.
You have to have BOTH. Since suspension in trot and canter comes from correct/pure gaits. There are plenty of horses showing with correct/pure gaits AND good suspension. It's not one or another, you should/can have both and this is how you get 8 on gaits + your impulsion score automatically goes up as well and this is why those kind off fancy horses cost $$$$$.

[Ambrey]

Just substitute "dressage show experience" for "a husband". You get the idea.

Sweetie, you're free to either pay attention to my opinion or ignore it. Being angry that exists seems like a waste of your energy, and a good way to fill your head with negative emotions. Let it go :) This is a public board, where people are completely free to post opinions, regardless of credentials.

By flinging myself into these conversations I've learned a tremendous amount from those on the board. If the price is a little abuse, I've decided it's worth it. I'm unlikely to go away, and letting my existence make you angry and bitter is not going to do much for your riding or your soul.

[Dressage Art]

Apart for the statistics, here is a simple exercise:

Two horses are in the training with the same trainer/rider. Their collective scores are:

8 –gaits
7 – Impulsion
7 – Submission
7 - Rider

6 –gaits
6 – Impulsion
7 – Submission
7 - Rider

Who will score better on the final % of their tests? What breed do you think they probably are? What price range they probably are? What horse would qualify as a “professional horse” or “amateur horse”? what horse probably will be competitive at the championships? What test movements the horse might excel at? What test movements a horse might struggle with?

[Ambrey]

I don't see where in the document that statistic is posted. I'd like to see the raw numbers. Since the results can be twisted any way you want them.

This link, pages 7 and 11, are the breed data.

http://www.pvda.org/Lists/Articles/Attachments/36/Statistical%20Analysis%20of%20USDF%202008%20Compet ition%20Data-Summary.pdf

[sm]

You have to have BOTH. Since suspension in trot and canter comes from correct/pure gaits. There are plenty of horses showing with correct/pure gaits AND good suspension. It's not one or another, you should/can have both and this is how you get 8 on gaits + your impulsion score automatically goes up as well and this is why those kind off fancy horses cost $$$$$.


Will you please READ my posts in their entirety and stop twisting word fragments?

Of course you need suspension --- suspension correct for the breed can/will get the job done. And you don't need a fancy $$$$ WB to get 8 on the gaits, 8s can be had on non-dressage breds.

[ToN Farm]

And you don't need a fancy $$$$ WB to get 8 on the gaits, 8s can be had on non-dressage breds.

Before I go back and re-read your earlier post that you say I misunderstood, I want to comment on the above statement.

I think you DO need a WB (and probably a fancy $$$$) one to get an 8 on Gaits at 4th and above. The higher the level, the more difficult to score high on gaits. Some of you are scribes at the higher levels. How many horses get an 8 on gaits at PSG? I personally know of some pretty incredible movers that only get 7 on gaits.

I have a question. What does 'fancy' mean? Why do so many people always use the term 'fancy warmblood'. There are some rather physically ugly warmbloods out there that have fantastic movement.

[sm]

What does 'fancy' mean? Why do so many people always use the term 'fancy warmblood'. There are some rather physically ugly warmbloods out there that have fantastic movement.

Okay, I'll play: if the horse moves fantastic, how can it be ugly? Then again, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

[ToN Farm]

Well, I thought Gifted was rather ugly, with the big funky head.

[sm]

Well, I thought Gifted was rather ugly, with the big funky head.


You can't mean Lavell's Gifted ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGAWtkkjf_U He just had a big everything... I won't put ugly and him together. But you did make me smile, ToN. Brightened the afternoon.

There was a really beautiful portrait done of him by a photographer, I can't find it on line, it wasn't the oil painting by Patricia Powers.

[SGray]

Gifted was beautiful in motion

stripped and standing - not so much - Carol would tell you as much - you would never have walked by his stall and thought that he was a star - definately would have expected him to be waaaay heavy on the forehand - but when you watched Carol send him across the diagonal in tempis....just amazing....he got higher with each until you thought his front legs might eventually hit Carol in the head :cool::eek::cool:

[RiverOaksFarm]

sm, congrats on the Breed Profile, my first FEI horse was an OTTB and my current stallion is 1/2 TB, so I have a soft spot for them. No list of influential TBs is complete without Lauries Crusador and Prince Thatch though! :winkgrin::)

[sm]

the feaure photo is of an AAs gelding, Be That As It May. They are working on Piaffe/Passage (not in the photo). I hope you get to see it, they are cantering in an open field. We had to photoshop in the helmet, LOL, but the photo is sweet.

[pluvinel]

Well, I thought Gifted was rather ugly, with the big funky head.

Hmmm....can someone point me to the article in the rulebook where the head is judged as part of the performance scores?

http://www.usef.org/documents/ruleBook/2009/08-DR.pdf

[pluvinel]

.....
I think you DO need a WB (and probably a fancy $$$$) one to get an 8 on Gaits at 4th and above. The higher the level, the more difficult to score high on gaits. Some of you are scribes at the higher levels. How many horses get an 8 on gaits at PSG? I personally know of some pretty incredible movers that only get 7 on gaits.

I have a question. What does 'fancy' mean? Why do so many people always use the term 'fancy warmblood'. There are some rather physically ugly warmbloods out there that have fantastic movement.

Good question....that is why we need the standards against which to judge.

According to the rules, there are some clear descriptors for trot (which seems to define "fancy" to some people):
http://www.usef.org/documents/ruleBook/2009/08-DR.pdf

DR104 The Trot.
1. The trot is a gait of “two time” on alternate diagonal legs (near left fore and right hind leg and vice versa) separated by a moment of suspension.

2. The trot, always with free, active and regular steps, should be moved into without hesitation.

3. The quality of the trot is judged by the general impression, the regularity and elasticity of the steps—originated from a supple back and well engaged hindquarters—and by the ability of maintaining the same rhythm and natural balance even after a transition from one trot to another.

4. The following trots are recognized: working trot, collected trot, medium trot and extended trot. Both passage (DR113) and piaffe (DR114) are variations of the trot.

a. Collected Trot. ……

b. Working Trot. This is a pace between the collected and the medium trot in which a horse not yet trained and ready for collected movements shows himself properly balanced and, remaining on the bit, goes forward with even, elastic steps and good hock action. The expression “good hock action” does not mean that collection is a required quality of working trot. It only underlines the importance of an impulsion originated from the activity of the hindquarters.

c. Medium Trot. This is a pace between the working and the extended trot but more “round” than the latter. The horse goes forward with clear and moderately lengthened steps and with an obvious impulsion from the hindquarters. The rider allows the horse remaining on the bit to carry his head a little more in front of the vertical than at the collected and the working trot and allows him at the same time to lower his head and neck slightly. The steps should be even and the whole movement balanced and unconstrained

d. Extended Trot. The horse covers as much ground as possible. Maintaining the same cadence he lengthens his steps to the utmost as a result of great impulsion from the hindquarters. The rider allows the horse remaining on the bit without leaning on it to lengthen his frame and to gain ground. The forefeet should touch the ground on the spot towards which they are pointing. The movement of the fore and hind legs should be similar (parallel) in the forward movement of the extension. The whole movement should be well balanced and the transition to collected trot should be smoothly executed by taking more weight on the hindquarters.

QUESTIONS:
1 How much suspension is "enough"?
2 How much suspension is "too much"….
3 Do we want hackney horse or saddlebred (or standardbred) trot movement? Standardbreds have some pretty awesome extended trots....
4 In the extended trot (4d) how is "lack of lengthening" of the frame scored?
How is this trot scored if the forefeet do not touch "the ground on the spot towards which they are pointing" or if the front and hinds are not parallel

The rules lay out some pretty specific criteria. It would be interesting to see actual FEI scores against those criteria.

[Dressage Art]

SM, congratulations on being featured in USDF magazine.
I love TBs as well, as you probably know, my current mare is 1/4 TB and I use to show OTTB and placed in some of your breeding awards with him at Training Level about 10 years ago. I love TB spirit and hope to continue to ride TB mixes (I don't think that I'll ever have $ for a pure WB), but I understand TB limitations and most of them, even if they do have 3 correct/pure gaits are limited in suspension for the reasons I explained before. And the nerd herd data shows that TBs are scoring lower than Arabs and Morgans. The only other breed that scores lower than TBs are QH.

I agree with ToN that you have to have a $$$$$$ horse to score 8 on gaits at FEI. If you showed, scribed or judged at that level and above, you know that most of time it's the case. Yes, there are always exceptions, but it's not majority.

[Dressage Art]

1 How much suspension is "enough"?
2 How much suspension is "too much"….
3 Do we want hackney horse or Saddlebred (or standardbred) trot movement? Standardbreds have some pretty awesome extended trots....

If a horse doesn't have any suspension like western jog for example, then the gait probably will be scored a 5 and the impulsion probably will be scored a 4. If the horse has a hint of suspension, like your average school horse for beginners, it probably will score a 5 for the gaits and probably a 5 for the impulsion. Some judges might be tougher, since if there is NO moment of suspension you can say that the gait is NOT really pure and quite correct, so it is insufficient a.k.a. 4.

If you will see a clear point/moment in time of suspension when all 4 legs are clear off the ground, that horse jumps/springs up for that clear moment of suspension (like you can pass the jumping rope under the horse) = that is enough of suspension.

When you start to see short steps with a LOT of suspension = that is too much "up" movement and not enough of "forward" movement = not a good thing.

However, if the horse is covering the ground with clear long strides, then he can have an infinity of suspension = as long as the length of his stride doesn’t suffer. However, after a certain amount, suspension doesn't "get" you much further or much higher in the scores. You HAVE to have a clear suspension, but you don't really have to have an amazing amount of suspension. There are many other ingredients that also go in to the gait and impulsion score.

By the way, did you see the Edward Gal's horse Totilas?

[slc2]

The ideal showy trot of the hackney is not the ideal dressage trot, so no, 'we don't want hackneys'; none of these horses move like the ideal hackney.

The standardbred at the racing trot is not doing the same gait the dressage horse does at the extended trot. Very dissimilar, in fact. THe standardbred at the racing trot spreads the hind legs and over reaches the forelegs which are thrown extremely backward. The back is also in a very different position. The standardbred covers ground due to the rapidity of the strides, not to the lengthening of stride per se.

[exvet]

Apart for the statistics, here is a simple exercise:

Two horses are in the training with the same trainer/rider. Their collective scores are:

8 –gaits
7 – Impulsion
7 – Submission
7 - Rider

6 –gaits
6 – Impulsion
7 – Submission
7 - Rider

Who will score better on the final % of their tests? What breed do you think they probably are? What price range they probably are? What horse would qualify as a “professional horse” or “amateur horse”? what horse probably will be competitive at the championships? What test movements the horse might excel at? What test movements a horse might struggle with?

Oh DA! I want to play....pick me, pick me?!

Whoa, but first let's change it to reality shall we? I probably score and to be honest let me pull out a 4th level test (mediocre) and a PSG...let me be vain and take the best one OK?......yup, just as I suspected. Our collectives (they do vary over ALL my tests but the most common theme) are

6-gaits
6 - impulsion
6- submission
7 - rider

So now obviously horse A will score a higher percentage if all else holds true. Horse A is that cute little hanno I ride against and have been riding against for a few years now. Horse B is my welsh cob. Horse A I happen to know was purchased as a 5 year old for $62,000 once shipping costs are factored in (I know the owner). Horse B cost me $4000 as a 2 year old. Umm neither are really what I would call amateur horses but coincidentally both of us riders/owners are amateurs. We just have also had our butts in the saddle for a very long time (even had the same trainer/riding instructor for a while). Now let me know what your definition of competitive is for the regionals? One must win or just score well (let's say 60 or above)? If it's the latter then again I can go back to reality/experience and say they both are - of course - the two both at regionals at the same time, same class was back at 2nd level. Horse A struggles with maintaining his poll at the highest point, being truly out to the bridle and strength in the hind end but is one hell of a mover and BEAUTIFUL. Horse B is well, I think one poster here called him an Ottoman another a draft cross. He has huge trouble with a short neck (god given) and being tense. He tries so hard that we do get locked in the back and he becomes the proverbial steamroller. When we're on though his best scores are - pirouettes (walk & canter), medium gaits, & halts. His walk is yuck, yuck, yuck.

Now let's talk training over innate talent shall we? Overall horse A will beat me in the dressage court but if I"m riding 120% horse A has to do really well or I am the one taking home the blue ribbon :yes: But I also am very aware that horse A will go on beyond PSG. Horse B will not. He has the one's and I can get piaffe but passage will break him down so he will go on to teach others and hopefully help one or two earn their initial medals.

On the whole I feel I am judged fairly. The problem I do see is that mistakes are more harshly penalized (and honestly they are uglier) when I make them on Horse B then when the same is seen on Horse A. I would say that the owner/rider of Horse A and I are pretty well matched in our abilities (not pocket book but then that's a whole 'nuther story :winkgrin:)

OH I almost forgot. Horse A has more supsension than Horse B but with training I have amplified Horse B's gaits. They just will never be the quality of Horse A.

[sm]

I agree with ToN that you have to have a $$$$$$ horse to score 8 on gaits at FEI. If you showed, scribed or judged at that level and above, you know that most of time it's the case. Yes, there are always exceptions, but it's not majority.

Okay, you're sending two messages here:
1) you have to have a $$$$$$ horse to score 8 on gaits at FEI
2) yes, there are always exceptions

To quote Mark Twain, “The people saying it can’t be done are often interrupted by the people doing it."

If you need all the odds in your favor, and the security blanket of having the *best bet* horse (even though there's always a better horse out there), to do FEI dressage that's fine. Believe me, people usually know the type of horse they want and what their FEI goals are. However, there is a segment of the market that wants to take an average horse, apply their skills, and get the job done that way.

[FancyFree]

Mark Twain's quote doesn't apply in this situation. DA never wrote "it can't be done". In fact, as you quoted, she wrote: "Yes, there are always exceptions, but it's not majority."

[sm]

" I agree with ToN that you have to have a $$$$$$ horse to score 8 on gaits at FEI"

Did not write "helps to have." Of course Twain's quote applies....

[pluvinel]

This link, pages 7 and 11, are the breed data.

http://www.pvda.org/Lists/Articles/Attachments/36/Statistical%20Analysis%20of%20USDF%202008%20Compet ition%20Data-Summary.pdf

So what about the Drafts? Are you saying that there are less Drafts showing than Arabs and HQ and you put them in the "other" category?

where did you put 1/2 TB and 1/2 Drafts?
where did you put 1/2 Tb and 1/2 WB?
where did you put the mutts?

PS: pluvinel, you didn't get my joke, but I guess the Friesians are Warm Bloods... and that is the end of conversation/dialog... right...

The Nerd Herd wrote the Summary document above as a synopsis of the main points.

For those who really want to burrow into the analysis, here are another 91 pages of Appendix to the Summary document. The Summary and Appendix were separated in order not to overwhelm people. Both are readily available at the PVDA web site.

The Dressage Score Analysis Appendix:
http://www.pvda.org/Lists/Articles/Attachments/36/Statistical%20Analysis%20of%20USDF%202008%20Compet ition%20Data%20APPENDIX.pdf

The breed data is on pages 74-77. Only the top 90% of the data were categorized (basically because I was running out of time and didn't want to categorize breeds making up less than 1% of the data).

You can see that WB's (Hano, Dutch, Old) make up the top 36% of rides followed by TB's (6%).

Arabians were 3%
Quarter Horses were 3%
Morgans were 2%
Lusitanos + Andalusians were 2% of the data

.....Enjoy.....

[FancyFree]

" I agree with ToN that you have to have a $$$$$$ horse to score 8 on gaits at FEI"

Did not write "helps to have." Of course Twain's quote applies....


Yes ignore what she wrote following, which is: "If you showed, scribed or judged at that level and above, you know that most of time it's the case. Yes, there are always exceptions, but it's not majority."

I have no idea why she stated one thing then contradicted herself. I doubt anyone would stand behind the statement that the only way to get 8 on gaits is with a big money horse. There are exceptions to almost everything in life. My understanding is she meant the majority of the time, in her experience of what she has seen at shows, it's the $$$$ horse that gets 8. Which is probably why they are $$$$.

I'm sure she'll explain herself. I chimed in because I didn't read her meaning as you did.

[sm]

I have no idea why she stated one thing then contradicted herself.

Thank you. I did also mention in post 242 that she is sending two messages, as in contradicting herself.

[pluvinel]

Yes ignore what she wrote following, which is: "If you showed, scribed or judged at that level and above, you know that most of time it's the case. Yes, there are always exceptions, but it's not majority."

I have no idea why she stated one thing then contradicted herself. I doubt anyone would stand behind the statement that the only way to get 8 on gaits is with a big money horse. There are exceptions to almost everything in life. My understanding is she meant the majority of the time, in her experience of what she has seen at shows, it's the $$$$ horse that gets 8. Which is probably why they are $$$$.

I'm sure she'll explain herself. I chimed in because I didn't read her meaning as you did.

Is this a productive discussion additive to improving dressage judging?


Dialog
–noun
1. conversation between two or more persons.
2. the conversation between characters in a novel, drama, etc.
3. an exchange of ideas or opinions on a particular issue, esp. a political or religious issue, with a view to reaching an amicable agreement or settlement.

–verb (used without object)
5. to carry on a dialogue; converse.
6. to discuss areas of disagreement frankly in order to resolve them.

[FancyFree]

Get over yourself. :rolleyes:

[sm]

You can see that WB's (Hano, Dutch, Old) make up the top 36% of rides followed by TB's (6%).
Arabians were 3%
Quarter Horses were 3%
Morgans were 2%
Lusitanos + Andalusians were 2% of the data

.....Enjoy.....

This is interesting. Compared to page 2 stats in the USDF Media Kit http://www.usdf.org/docs/business-opportunities/advertising/MediaKit.pdf the three top breeds of USDF members are:
- 39% WB
- 16% TB
- 11% QH

Maybe that's why George Williams is calling for a healthier more robust dresage community, and positive showing experiences, in the June issue of Connection (I believe page 8) .