PDA

View Full Version : 2nd suggestion from "Paul H" for your consideration



SGray
Sep. 4, 2009, 05:17 PM
he writes

"Has it also ever been considered that a drawing take place, which effectively chooses the exercises which would receive a co-efficient for any given high level competition? The drawing results would only be known to the show officials and the technical delegate, not to the National Federations, competitors or Ground Jury (judges). This system would basically cause competitors to strive for proficiency in ALL test exercises, from the halt, to the canter pirouettes due to the fact that they do not know which exercises will have a greater weight placed on the score (co-efficient of 2). It is unavoidable that we will have judges originating from the same countries as some competitors, but this system may help alleviate some of the temptations of prejudice on the part of some judges. Judges are just people after all. Anything done to ensure the future of Dressage (as well as several other equestrian sports), and to help it be received by a greater mass of people, should seriously be considered. After all, if that aforementioned task is not the responsibility of the FEI, then why does the FEI exist?"


-- again, interesting idea - though I find this one much more problematic -- what say you?

canyonoak
Sep. 4, 2009, 06:32 PM
So if a judge does not want a competitor to advance (however subconscious the prejudice may be), the judge 'sees' a movement at 4 or less?

Great idea.

And yah, I really really think a lot of top sport competitors never try to improve their partners' weak points, figuring so long as they can get 9s for the good stuff, so what if they blow something else...hello? lateral and longitudinal suppleness and strength are all inter-related ,along with balance and rhythm. That's like saying Rafael Soto never worked to improve Invasor's extensions ,simply because he could gets 9s on the 3 Ps of GP dressage. The 3 Ps were great because of the horse's basic development. The extensions were limited by conformation/ ability to stretch over the topline.
How WISE of Soto not to constantly nag at and overface and frustrate his partner!


Sorry, but I do not think Paul H trains horses. Rides--maybe.
Trains-- not.

mbm
Sep. 5, 2009, 02:56 AM
actually, i had to read this a couple times to get what he was saying....

he is not saying that the competitors train only the stuff that get 2x.

he is saying that the JUDGES use the co-efficients to manipulate scores. so if l the judges are unaware of which movement is the co-efficient they cant use it to effect the score.

interesting idea......

slc2
Sep. 5, 2009, 07:07 AM
The trouble is that the test writers worked very hard on what to put coefficients on, because they believed certain things MUST carry coefficients because those things are extremely important in demonstrating the basic correctness of the horse's training. There's the problem with that one. What coefficients are placed on and why is a very critical part of test design for it to be a representative of training.

flyracing
Sep. 5, 2009, 08:30 PM
The trouble is that the test writers worked very hard on what to put coefficients on, because they believed certain things MUST carry coefficients because those things are extremely important in demonstrating the basic correctness of the horse's training. There's the problem with that one. What coefficients are placed on and why is a very critical part of test design for it to be a representative of training.

:yes::yes::yes::yes:

SillyHorse
Sep. 5, 2009, 11:38 PM
Yes, I absolutely agree with what flyracing quoted slc as writing. There's a reason that the coefficients are where they are.

BayHorseUK
Sep. 6, 2009, 01:01 PM
Absolutely agreed with SLC, but I'll add my 2 cents... the problem I see with this kind of random reward system is that it can potentially penalize horses' historical records simply due to the fact that the coefficient draw didn't go their way. There aren't many horses that can do every movement to the same standard, and most only compete at the top for a short space of time, so if they got unlucky with the 'mystery coefficient' then their scores wouldn't accurately reflect their quality. Have we really got to the point where we're trying to formally introduce the element of luck into dressage competitions??

narcisco
Sep. 6, 2009, 08:06 PM
Here's a stupid story with a point. Once I worked at school who had a "critter camp." On the weekends, the kids got to check out the animals. Everyone made a rush for certain animals, the parents were shoving and pushing in the hallways, the kids were crying and it was a real zoo.

So, I instituted a lottery system with a drawing for the best pets. It only took one day for the parents to complain and the principal shut it down with the complaint, "the lottery system is not fair!"

It's a creative idea but way too random. The coefficients are there for a reason, as slc says.