Janet Foy Clinic

[Ellie&Werther]

I rode in a Janet Foy clinic this weekend and it was so much fun! This was my first experince riding in a dressage clinic, and Janet was a patient teacher and really willing to try multiple approaches to fix problems. I rode my horse Werther, who I showed Intro and Training level this summer, and I am hoping to compete at First and Para-FEI Grade III next year. Considering I struggled with T-3 and T-4 this year, I was really happy when she told me I should be scoring in the 70s at training level. I got to ride my first ever delibrate counter canter today and when I got it right it was really cool. I also felt like I got a much better handle on the medium trot and canter, in fact I got much a good medium trot he bounced me out of my stirrups. :D I just started riding dressage last winter and I have only ridden with my trainer, I think the best thing about riding in the clinic was that I really got to work on some long term goals versus the focus on minutia that can happen with a trainer that sees you very regularly.

[whicker]

Thanks for sharing, Ellie!

Did you ride with the ontite stirrups? That is terrific that you can do the mediums. You must have been improving by leaps and bounds from this spring to have it come together so well. Congratulations!

[Ellie&Werther]

I bought the OnTyte stirrups, but I just got measured for new tall boots. I am waiting on the new boots to come in so I can use the new stirrups.

[Horseymama]

Cool! We are having her come for a clinic next year, I've heard she is very good, now I really can't wait!

[Sandy M]

Don't think I want to ride for someone who thinks my horse should be "out chasing cattle" and is "tired of seeing [such horses] coming down the center line." He's an App, you see. Now, he's NOT a Quarterloosa, he's an "Araloosa" and specifically bred for dressage, but Appaloosas have been generally designated as a stock breed (which is not entirely accurate, but apparently ApHC likes it that way....), so apparently we aren't welcome in Ms. Foy's dressage world. ;o)

Seriously, since she was one of the main proponents of the qualifying standards, I would have reservations about her being pre-judgmental about what appears in front of her, if it weren't of an "appropriate" (according to HER standard) breed or quality. I have no doubt that she is knowledgeable, but I would worry about some bias informing her instruction.

[Coreene]

Sandy, amen. You should have seen some of the nasty emails she sent (do people forget that there is a forward button?).

[Beasmom]

(Raises hand timidly)

Janet gave my Arab and me one of our 60% scores years ago. I now clinic with her regularly and value her insights. We have all kinds of horses at the clinics.

But I know nothing about the nasty emails...

[mjhco]

I think you all need to actually RIDE in a clinic with her before you pass judgment.

Janet is one of the best and most discerning clinicians I have ridden for. With my NON TRADITIONAL dressage horse and my NON TRADITIONAL conformation.

She is encouraging. She will tell you what your shortcomings might be and how to maximize your strong points.

I always come away with a great deal.

[Sandy M]

(a) I did NOT say she was not knowledgeable; and

(b) I would worry that her "advice" as to one's "shortcomings" might be to "get another horse," a la Cyndy Sydnor. I.e., if you're riding that $5K horse, we have no interest in you...... esp. if it's NOT an exceptional (as opposed to "good") mover.

I might be interested in auditing, but I don't think I'd want to subject my "color " breed horse to her judgment, even though he's quite a lovely mover.

[mjhco]

(a) I did NOT say she was not knowledgeable; and

(b) I would worry that her "advice" as to one's "shortcomings" might be to "get another horse," a la Cyndy Sydnor. I.e., if you're riding that $5K horse, we have no interest in you...... esp. if it's NOT an exceptional (as opposed to "good") mover.

I might be interested in auditing, but I don't think I'd want to subject my "color " breed horse to her judgment, even though he's quite a lovely mover.

Well, it is up to you to keep your head where ever it happens to be right now.

But, I am just saying I have PERSONAL experience riding with Janet on a 'non traditional' breed as do a huge number of people who ride with her on a regular basis.

I would ride with her any time, any place, on ANY horse. (Including my horse who is SO non traditional he was USEF Zone Champion 1/2 Arab WORKING WESTERN champion a number of years ago).

[Beasmom]

I'll add that one of Janet's regular clinic attendees placed Reserve Champion at First Level on a pinto-colored horse. I don't know the breeding of said horse, but it's a "color" horse for sure.

Any prejudice that Janet may have against a horse has much more to do with its ability, trainability and disposition, not its color or breed.

I would urge you all to give her a try before condemning her.

[Ellie&Werther]

I didn't see what you are talking about Sandy M. This weekend she worked with a Quarter Horse Draft cross that she didn't have a ill word against and a full saddlebred she was very complimentary of.

[Sandy M]

Then I would say that if she is willing to work and be helpful with riders on ANY kind of horse.... she is something of a hypocrit to make remarks like, "I'm tired of seeing horses coming down the center line that should be out chasing cows." (plus other more insulting things she apparently said to anti-performance standard folk.) She seems to espouse an elitist attitude about showing dressage, even while she apparently is willing to work with people toward the true goal of dressage: To improve the horse.

This is a bit reminiscent of the to-do about the gal who submitted a picture of herself on a a pretty much stock type overo paint to the "dressage clinic" in Dressage Today. I doubt anyone would say Lisa Wilcox would not be worth clinicing with, but while this rider SPECIFICALLY stated that she had no high ambitions in dressage, but that this was the horse she had and she merely wanted advice as to how to improve THIS horse to the extent it WAS improvable...BUT...basically the advice from Ms. Wilcox was "get another horse," that there was no point to doing dressage with such an unsuitable horse.

Sounds like Ms. Foy-Brown talks out of both sides of her mouth: Helpful when being PAID
as a clinician/teacher (whatever the type of horse), but elitist when judging and pushing for performance standards.

[Sandy M]

I'll add that one of Janet's regular clinic attendees placed Reserve Champion at First Level on a pinto-colored horse. I don't know the breeding of said horse, but it's a "color" horse for sure.

Any prejudice that Janet may have against a horse has much more to do with its ability, trainability and disposition, not its color or breed.

I would urge you all to give her a try before condemning her.


And might well be a DWB, i.e., acceptable because it's WB. Besides - I don't believe you're saying Ms.Foy Brown was the judge. Unlike Ms. Foy-Brown, there ARE judges who, indeed, judge a horse on ability, transability and disposition, not its color or breed.

[egontoast]

I would worry that her "advice" as to one's "shortcomings" might be to "get another horse," a la Cyndy Sydnor

If you are referring to the piece written by CS in Dressage Today I think you are completely misrepresenting what she said but this has all been hashed out before. Perhaps you are also misconstruing what JF said. I don't know but it is possible.

[halfpass]

For anyone who has a chance to clinic with Janet, it will be your loss if you don't avail yourself of the opportunity. Her abilities to improve horses and riders is legendary. As far as breed prejudice goes, that is totally B.S. Janet works with all kinds of horses and all skill level of riders with the end result always being huge improvement. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that if your goals are International or Olympic competition, then you need to be riding the best horse with the best gaits you can possibly find.

[Sandy M]

If you are referring to the piece written by CS in Dressage Today I think you are completely misrepresenting what she said but this has all been hashed out before. Perhaps you are also misconstruing what JF said. I don't know but it is possible.

Cindy SYndor has backtracked and carried on that "that's not what I meant....." but the language was pretty clear. Especially the arrogance to suggest that one should "get a cheaper car and buy a more expensive horse." (Paraphrase). SInce I'm driving a 1988 truck.... I doubt I could get much cheaper. LOL

As for Ms. Foy, "I'm tired of seeing horses coming down the center line that should be out chasing cattle." Not really too susceptible of misconstruction. She wanted performance standards, and was tired of seeing people "abuse" the double bridle at third level. Obviously, trying to improve ANY horse, even a downhill stock horse build horse, by dressage training, isn't enough by her standards. And WhoTF initiated the use of the double at 3rd level? USEF, and we all known the dressage committees at USEF and USDF are almost interchangeable.

Yeah, I know several people who seized on the rule change to "force" their horses into 3rd level frames - but their scores weren't much better than they had gotten at 2nd level. Good judging takes care of "performance standards," not making insulting remarks about exhibitors' unsuitable horses.

Years ago, I had a friend who had a nice old Morgan mare. Stocky "old type" who would have looked/done fine chasing cattle, FWIW. She also had a lovely young WB stallion - but he was not yet of riding age. She got the old mare (mid-teens) out of pasture, conditioned her, and showed her at 3rd level (in a snaffle as the rules then required), then 4th level. Was the horse very good at 3rd/4th level? No. Was she cringe inducing? No. Would she have qualified to move up under Ms. Foy's proposed "Performance Standards?" Probably not. But my friend learned a lot about training and riding 3rd/4th level from that mare while she waited for her young horse to mature. One does not need to be aiming for the HIgh Performance Divisions in order to "do dressage." However, despite the fact that Ms. Foy-Brown apparently is an excellent clinician and willing to work with many types of horses, that is NOT what she publicly advocates in terms of what is dressage. If dressage is to improve ALL horses, and she is willing to work with ALL horses, then why was she such a strong advocate of Performance Standards. Are ONLY those horses that ARE capable of going allt he way to GP to be permitted tos how. Obviously not. And yet.....

Look, I think Ms. Foy Brown probably is a good teacher, and one might learn a lot riding with/auditing her. I'm not attacking her credentials as a dressage instructor, though I woudl waffle on her judging - from what she has said. I just think what she does and what she says are two different things, and that just puts me off.

[n2dressage]

She wrote some very ugly, not constructive comments on my dressage test a few months ago when my horse stuck his head up during the test and started yanking on my hands because he didn't want to bend around my leg :mad:

[mbm]

n2dressage - what comment did she make and do you have a vid of your test?

SandyM - if i recall, i believe the article in question was about what the author would do differently is she could do it over.... and also i believe she was asked what she would recommend for the serious ammie wanting to do well at shows...

as far as i recall she made her name riding the "off breeds" (god i hate that saying)

and honestly - i am getting really sick of reading about how some folks are so badly treated by judges and how they score badly and it is all bias etc,. could it be that maybe the judges are correct? no of course not - it must be bias!

just because dressage is for all horses does not mean all horses will score well at competition - it isnt the fault of the judge if people insist on showing a horse that cant score about 60% and think they deserve higher. (edit to say this isnt directed at anyone since i have no idea who any of you are - this is an "in general" comment)

>off soapbox<

[Beasmom]

Sandy M, Janet hasn't been "Brown" for several years now. It's Foy. Janet Foy. Did I mention she gave my Arab and me a 60% score? We placed in the ribbons that day. I remember it well. My position back then was nothing to write home about. The horse takes the credit for that ride.

She is a fair judge (and I mean that in the sense of even-handed) and an excellent clinician. I can't understand the hate here.

n2dressage, get used to it. From time to time, we all have a bad ride, or a bad moment in a ride that colors the judge's impressions. Not every comment you get from a judge will be flowers and candies sweet. Your comment -- "Started yanking on my hands because he didn't want to bend around my leg", says volumes.

I, too, would love to see a video of the ride.

[atr]

Sandy, as a fellow Appy rider, I can tell you that her comments about horses that should be chasing cows have nothing to do with the type or breed of the horse and all to do with the training and way of going of said horse.

She's all about correct. Which is fine by me.

[Beasmom]

Mbm added to her post as I was writing mine. Couldn't agree more.

[n2dressage]

I do not have a video of the test. I don't care if the comments aren't all flowers and candy but writing on my test a rude comment that I was yanking on my horse's face and arguing with him when my hands in white gloves were still was a bit uncalled for. My trainer also rode him in a test that weekend for a different judge and had a very similar test got the comment "horse is an escape artist" which is very true. When he has an opinion on something he sticks his head up in the air like a giraffe. He's also produced some lovely tests scoring 8's and 9's when he's not having a meltdown (like he does every time I take him to that venue because the warmup is crowded and he freaks when horses get too close). I've never ridden for her before but I was surprised at the nature of the comment, not the score which was quite accurate. I just felt she wasn't intuitive to what was really happening, which is fine because the test is a 5 minute excerpt of a relationship but I prefer to pay money for constructive comments and not degrading comments at a show. When speaking with other competitors at the show I found many with the same complaints about her.

[Beasmom]

Misery loves company. It's never hard to find a bunch of whiny competitors carrying on about the meanie judges. Sometimes, the truth hurts. When Janet says something, it's best to shut up and listen. She just might have a point.

Judges have very little time to write comments. She can only remark on and score what you present to her in the competition ring. Sounds like, even by your own evaluation, the test was a wreck. Forget about it and move on. Try to address the horse's issues before your next show.

Sounds like your trainer has problems with the horse, too. Maybe try a new trainer.

And maybe avoid that particular venue if it upsets your horse that much.

Well, I'm off to bed. I have a Janet Foy clinic to attend in the AM!

[Cowgirl]

Yep, I don't understand the hate either. She is a fair judge with a fabulous eye and you can learn alot from her. Her local students, for the most part, do not ride fancy horses and she helps them improve what they have. I think the "cowpony" comment was misunderstood--I don't think she was referring to a breed, but the on the forehand posture that a horse assumes when sorting cow. I see a lot of horses with the wrong balance for the level at shows...

[slc2]

About the 'rude comment' on the test. Most of the time, it was very called for. Sometimes people don't accept hearing it.

And yes, quite often, it is left to the judge to shake the rider up a bit when he is going down the wrong track, when his emotions are getting the better of him at a competition. And yes, actually, I DO think that the judge with the cute comment about the horse being an 'escape artist', is doing the rider no favors at all.

Of course, it's also possible that the horse simply didn't look as bad when he got that comment, if I read right, the trainer was on him at the time. But if the horse looks like an 'escape artist' with the trainer on, the regular rider has to ask himself why. AND...one needs to understand why the trainer got the comment 'escape artist' and the regular rider got the 'yanking the horse's face off' comment when HE was riding the horse.

Why? Because the picture was different.

Most people...MOST people....would be hurt if the judge gave a rough comment. But most people, actually, would sit down and have a good long think....and YES...MOST people's coach would sit down with them and say, 'Look, that happens. The point is to make it better next time...now here's what I want you to do...'.

Once someone gets into that mindset, that the 'right' judges are the ones who say everything in a very soothing, politically correct way...he's doomed, dude, he's doomed.

They don't realize they are riding differently and that's what changes the horse. Tension is the greatest anesthetic in the world, and it causes people to not feel how they are riding differently.

One can either call the judge names or acknowledge that, hey, that's exactly what it looked like from where the judge was sitting, now what can we do about it. And really, the only answer is to show and show and show, until one is comfortable and calm, and rides at a show the same one rides at home. The very old 'rule' is, 'Don't make it so easy for them to give you a bad score'. Foy is very, very passionate about judging and riding correctly. Let her see something correct.

Assuming the comment was wrong because the judge said or wrote ONE thing one didn't like, is irrational.

And for the record, what both Sydnor and Foy said, is being grossly misinterpreted, just to cut them down.

[egontoast]

I don't care if the comments aren't all flowers and candy but writing on my test a rude comment that I was yanking on my horse's face and arguing with him when my hands in white gloves were still was a bit uncalled for.


How is it rude ?

Judge had a different opinion of your riding than you did. Happens a lot.

[Capriole]

I think the "cowpony" comment was misunderstood--I don't think she was referring to a breed, but the on the forehand posture that a horse assumes when sorting cow. I see a lot of horses with the wrong balance for the level at shows...
I agree. I didn't read it as saying a QH has no place in dressage, but that a downhill horse should not be in a dressage *test* (doesn't mean he can't school dressage, but he's not ready to be showing). Janet tells it like it is.

I too have seen her teach wonderful clinics to a wide range of beginners on unfancy non-WBs. She was wonderful.

[Sandy M]

"A downhill horse should not be in a dressage test."

Oh.....so no one here - or EVER in the dressage world - has ever ridden or shown a greenie that is still finding its balance. So if your horse is still doing Intro or Training Level - please don't show until 1st or 2nd level and your horse is COMPLETELY and ALWAYS properly balanced. You and the horse don't need that show experience. You can just work at home, and when your horse goes ballistic at the show grounds because it's the first time he's ever been shown and you're about to do 1st and 2nd level (because at this point your horse is NEVER on the forehand), you can just chalk it up to his lack of experience (duh - now why was it you didn't show at INtro and Training....OH, because he wasn't perfectly balanced ALL the time.).... and kiss your $$$ goodbye until he gets the experience you might otherwise have obtained while he was still less than perfect.

Oh...she just meant stock horse conformation....so you folks with stock type horses, PLEASE don't try to improve them with dressage training, and definitely do not SHOW them. You can practice at home, but don't sear our eyes with your painful efforts at a SHOW!! [Dressage? Elitist? NEVER!!!!]

I've never been judged by Ms. Foy-Brown and so have no experience of her as a judge. But her remarks make me wary. As I have said, I don't doubt she's knowledgeable and probably, from some of these comments, quite a good clinician. But her published remarks don't square with the kind, helpful person she may be as an instructor/clinician. Her remarks (especially to those who didn't agree with her strong push for a Performance Standard) leave the impression that dressage is about showing, and that if the horse isn't "suitable" (i.e., a WB or good mover of other breeds), then they shouldn't be showing. Only those with appropriate horses, perfectly trained, are permitted to show. Any fumbling or beginner efforts by those on unsuitable horses...well, you guys just stay at home. That's why we have performance standards. Oh, wait! We DON'T have performance standards. So I guess those poor unsuitable horses will just keep "hurting" the judges sensibilities (and supporting the dressage shows with their$$$$).

Apparently, from what she SAYS - there's little point in using dressage to improve even an "unsuitable" horse - or perhaps she just means that those who have such horses should have the good manners not to inflict them on judges.

[mbm]

dressage does not = showing. however if you are going to show i personally think you should be working one level higher that you show and you should be able to ride the test well at home.

i think where people go wrong is testing on things they are still not confirmed at.

eta: if a horse is downhill in a test shouldn't the judge remark on it? or are they supposed to look away?

[Ja Da Dee]

I've never been judged by Ms. Foy-Brown and so have no experience of her as a judge. But her remarks make me wary. As I have said, I don't doubt she's knowledgeable and probably, from some of these comments, quite a good clinician. But her published remarks don't square with the kind, helpful person she may be as an instructor/clinician. Her remarks (especially to those who didn't agree with her strong push for a Performance Standard) leave the impression that dressage is about showing, and that if the horse isn't "suitable" (i.e., a WB or good mover of other breeds), then they shouldn't be showing. Only those with appropriate horses, perfectly trained, are permitted to show. Any fumbling or beginner efforts by those on unsuitable horses...well, you guys just stay at home. That's why we have performance standards. Oh, wait! We DON'T have performance standards. So I guess those poor unsuitable horses will just keep "hurting" the judges sensibilities (and supporting the dressage shows with their$$$$).

I get what you're saying SandyM. I was extremely offended by many of her remarks when she was trying to push through the performance standards. I've also got a friend who clinics with her on his TB, he finds her very helpful. He's asked me if I wanted to join him, and I've had to explain that I won't be giving my hard earned money to someone who has stated such a strong opinion on who should be in the show ring. There are plenty of other good trainers in the area who I can find to teach me. She is free to say what she thinks, I'm free to not use her as a teacher. I don't judge shop, so if I was planning on a show, and she was the judge, I would still ride in front of her.

For the record, yes I own a Paint, but absolutely no one has ever been able to guess his breed, he looks and moves like a warmblood.

Editing to add, I'm happy the OP had a good ride.

[Sandy M]

dressage does not = showing. however if you are going to show i personally think you should be working one level higher that you show and you should be able to ride the test well at home.

i think where people go wrong is testing on things they are still not confirmed at.

eta: if a horse is downhill in a test shouldn't the judge remark on it? or are they supposed to look away?

No it doesn't. But where is it written that you must be perfect, have a fancy mover with prefect conformation, and please Ms. Foy's eyes in order to show your horse? And if one does show, where does one give the horse the SHOWING experience unless one shows at the lower levels and lives with unbalanced moments, or horrors!, a horse that is, sadly, built downhill, i.e., one for which you have no high level aspirations, but which you want to improve? Riding the test well at home has nothing to do with how a horse will behave at a show. MY trainer was ooo-ing and aaaah-ing at how well my youngster moved and behaved - at lessons, at a barn and arena with which he was familiar. When we went to our first show, he was buzzed enough that I wore my eventing vest and he spooked violently three times during the test (but still got a 63%). Letter pylons eat young horses, doncha know?

SHowing is the only way to get show experience, and neither behavior nor nerves can be addressed all that thoroughly at home, where both horse and rider are "comfortable." (And please don't mouth on about "schooling shows." THere really aren't that many and sometimes showing at a recognized show -even at the unrecognized "Intro" level - and paying the same open show fees!! - is the only game in town.)

Of course, a judge is going to remark and score accordingly if a horse is consistently downhill, or showing above its level of competence - to what degree and depending upon the level, the judge may be more or less harsh in his/her evaluationl. Who said otherwise? But if you like dressage but the love of your life happens to be a - oh, I don't know - Poco Bueno bred QH (admittedly, unlikely, but I couldn't think of another extremely stock-type QH bloodline off the top of my head), Ms. Foy would have you believe that you are not fit to show dressage. Because showing's what it's all about, right? And unless you have the next coming of Brentina, stay away. Please don't show that fugly downhill QH. It hurts my eyes. Riiiiight. But apparently, Ms. Foy's perfectly happy to get PAID to tech people on such unsuitable horses. I don't know whether to say, "good for her," or ?????

Objectively speaking, she's right that some horses' conformation does not lend itself to dressage. But I imagine that few people with such horses think they are the next coming of Steffan Peters and Ravel. THey have a horse, they like dressage, they'd like to improve their horses to the extent possible, they'd like to show a bit. THey don't WANT to chase cows. LOL Apparently Ms. Foy would say - well, fine - do all of the above (including clinics), but PLEASE, DON'T SHOW. Well, sorry, Their money is as good as anyone else's. Use some eyedrops to ease the pain and go ahead and judge them.

Now I rode a very average moving horse at several clinics with an International judge - I would hazard that she is more highly ranked as a judge than Ms. Foy. I rod my now retired horse - also a color horse. SHe evaluated him fairly and helped me a lot. SHe noted his neck was low set (though not extremely low stock horse conformation- he was a TB cross), but that he used himself well to compensate. She said that of course, he was not the mover that a fancy WB would be, but that his submission, and MY accuracy, could garner points to compensate for his lack of fancy gaits. That I should strive for correctness, and not worry about the quality of his gaits. She didn't tell me that I should go out and chase cows rather than do dressage.

You know, if all the "incompetents" and "abusers" and people who bounce at the trot didn't go to the shows and show Intro/Training/1st level, we wouldn't HAVE many shows. The FEI riders and their sponsors would have to finance their own CDI's to qualify for international competition. If Ms. Foy doesn't like to see the horses coming down the centerline, "who should be chasing cows," then she just needs to judge what she sees and not mouth off insultingly about it. I would hope the PS argument is dead, since statistically it doesn't fly - but who knows.

[Cowgirl]

I don't think there is a test where a downhill balance is the correct balance. If your horse is hanging on the reins and dropping his shoulders, he is not yet ready for showing. But what I think irritates her even more, is when the horse is showing a downhill balance in the tests (second level and above) which require the horse to take more weight on the hindquarters, as stated in the "purpose". At training and first level, judges are trained to expect a "level" balance.

I just showed my fourth level championship in front of her and another FEI judge. Unfortunately, we had a week of rain prior to the show and the rings were so waterlogged, we were not allowed to ride in the championship arena before our tests. My horse is a hot and spooky sort, and showing her the decorations and banners (and not just for the 15 minutes they allowed for handwalking the morning of) is essential. So, my mare spooked and was disobedient and tense in my fourth level championship class. I just patted her through it, saved some movements. We got 7s on the movements I saved, but also plenty of 1s, 2s, and 3s, from both judges. Janet could absolutely recognize what was happening, and while she scored the mistakes harsher than the other judge, gave me a 7 for rider for how I handled it, which actually made the blown championship easier to swallow and was an accurate depiction of the test. (And my mare recovered her composure and won her third level warmup class and her championship class the next day, both with a 65%s). I thought that was totally fair. She saw what she saw and commented that it was too bad the horse was silly, but that I gave the horse a tactful ride. The other judge gave higher marks on the blown movements, but just wrote "horse not on aids". But they came out with the same score.

[Sandy M]

Then perhaps Ms. Foy needs to speak more precisely and evaluate her language (not to mention censoring some of the ugly remarks), because what you seem to be saying is that she was ONLY referring to horses 2nd level and above. But that's not how it came out. Originally, the qualifier was to be to show 3rd level, with statements made that eventually such qualification would be required at ALL levels. Now, it's "I didn't mean that. I didn't mean lower level people trying to improve their horses. I only meant 3rd level and above...incorrect, on the forehand horses." Um........ y'know, I'm sure they're a few out there, but I haven't seen very many downhill conformation QH/Paint, etc. type horses - i.e., horses that should be "chasing cows" - showing at 3rd level and above. What I've seen is either WBs, Iberians, TBXs, and some "downhill" type horses that have overcome their conformational deficits by their willingness and "try." I have NOT seen anyone on a stock horse, puttering along on its forehand, and totally screwing up 3rd level when it should be doing Intro.

What I have seen is very nice, uber-moving WBs, that I know were,
"out behind the barn" cranked and spanked and drawreined into their performances. (Yes, most of the horses I see appear correctly trained and very nice - even the abusers are not the majority - but they don't get the scores they deserve, either) But it seems that Ms. Foy's focus was on the "lesser breeds without the law." SHe complained of abuse of the double bridle - which she and other USEF/USDF Dressage COmmittee members had authorized . I'd rather go along with Hilda Gurney and say the snaffle alone should be permitted at FEI levels if the rider prefers.

SO...now we qualify it to - Ms. Foy ONLY meant: poor riders, cranking downhill QH types into incorrect frames and showing 3rd level and up. No one would assume that the "cow chasing" remarks were about warmbloods, so her focus had to be on the "lesser horses." I can't say I've seen these supposed cringe inducing horses. And again, the implication was that qualification would eventually be extended to all levels to weed out these horrible horses and riders that statistics have shown are a TEENY minority - if they exist at all (I don't believe the ride statistic were separated by breed, so we can't know how many of those handful of "scoring in the 30%" people were on the terrible downhill cow chasing types).

If, indeed as both a judge and clinician, Ms. Foy makes her judgments based on the performance of the individual horse and rider as she see them, and therefore is accepting of all types, etc, etc, etc - then she just shouldn't make such sweeping statements, and she should never have supported the "performance standard/qualification" nonsense, which is so inapplicable to how dressage has and can develop in this country. Do we really think any sort of "qualification" rule would have prevented those riders who are now short or long listed for the USET from reaching their goals? They aren't the people it would affect, and targeting the rest of us, in a country this large and without a history or framework for dressage instruction comparable to Europe is just ridiculous.

[Beasmom]

Calm down, Sandy M. You're beginning to sound hysterical. You really are full of hate for this woman, aren't you?

[Sandy M]

Calm down, Sandy M. You're beginning to sound hysterical. You really are full of hate for this woman, aren't you?

Not at all. And I'm a long way from hysterical. I'm "full of hate" for the Perfomance Standard nonsense, and while I'm quite willing to accept that Ms. Foy is a good judge/clinician/instructor/trainer, I think her remarks were ill-advised. And apparently, while I personally was not the target of such remarks, I understand that some people who voiced protests against the proposed qualifying standards, were treated to some verbal (written) abuse from Ms. Foy Brown.

I'm glad the OP had a good clinic experience, and it's nice to know that Ms. Foy-Brown's "bark is worse than her bite." However, the remarks still stand - and presumably she stands behind them. It is others, not she, who are backtracking and explaining "what she REALLY meant", and one has to wonder what she DID intend by them. Was it just a careless choice of words, and she truly believes, as the classical ODG's believed, that dressage can improve any horse -even the downhill cow chasers? or is she an elitist who doesn't want to see such horses at ANY dressage show at any level? What would she have thought of Podhajsky's "little sausage" horse Nero, a reject who won a bronze medal?

[Cowgirl]

Wow, that is what I would call a rant. I have several friends who ride warmbloods and consistently get comments about being too downhill for the level and can't crack 60% when their horses are balanced like that. I've experienced it too, on my warmblood. Shifting the balance is one of the hardest things in dressage and is why many people can't break through second level. It has nothing to do about the breed of horse. Dressage is about training and focuses on shifting the balance to the hindquarters. ON ANY HORSE.

It is quite easy to see, even in an uphill built warmblood, when the horse's shoulders are dropped and it is balanced on the forehand. This balance is incorrect for second level and above and those horses will not crack 60, I don't care what breed they are. At training and first level, the balance should be level, NEVER ON THE FOREHAND. Often, when the horse is on the forehand, it's not being ridden foreward or straight enough.

Janet is from the west. I think the cowpony comment just reflects what you see in western riding out here--they like the horses to push peanuts and stay low in front. You should not be able to see the withers from the judge's stand when the horse comes down centerline--in fact many judges say you should not be able to see the neck braids.

As far as the Performance Standards--I COMPLETELY and wholeheartedly agree with you--I think they were premature. They need to standardize judging and training first. To start with riders is back asswards, IMO.

Editing to add: Take a look at this horse at this link: http://janiejilltointon.com/index.php?page=55 He is a cutting bred cowpony stallion named Blue Fancy Dan. His trainer regularly shows him, and other cowponies, at USDF recognized shows and consistently scores up to the low 70s, for showing correct balance. In front of Janet Foy, she got a 70% at championships on a quarter pony. It's not about the conformation...it's about the correct balance.

[Sandy M]

Cowgirl - I would never expect a horse that is consistently unbalanced and on the forehand to do well in dressage, regardless of breed or conformation. But most horses have unabalance moments at any level. Perhaps Ms. Foy's choice of "modifiers" ("should be chasing cows") was simply a bad choice of words and not at all what she intended. But it was a hurtful remark and SEEMED pointed specifically at non WB types. I haven't heard Ms. Foy saying, " I only meant......" and her vigorous championing of the qualification standards seems ill-advised and again, aimed at the ammies on the less than spectacular horses. Maybe so, maybe not.

As I've said several times, I don't speak against her qualifications as an instructor/trainer, nor do I have experience of her as a judge. But those few remarks were VERY off-putting, and she seemed totaly unapologetic about her apparently rather nasty remarks to people who voiced opposition to the performance standards. Perhaps the truth will out when the "performance standards" come around again....as I am sure they will.

[egontoast]

it's the "chip" again.

[Sandy M]

it's the "chip" again.


If you mean me, not hardly. My retired horse placed or won at USDF All Breeds through 2nd Level eveyr year he was shown. He was schooling third, when his arthritis made his retirement to trail, and then pasture, inevitable. He came to dressage after some years as a H/J and a little baby-novice eventing. He did decently at dressage, though he was an average "good", not exceptional mover. He's the horse in my profile pic. For the most part, I rarely had any complaint about how he was judged, regardless of his color.

My present horse (sadly, on layup at present) is a 5 year old. In limited showing at Intro (3 EXCITING times) and Training level (4 less exciting times), the only time he scored below 60% was his very first, very, very scary show, and has scored in the 62% to 68% range in his limited showing (Time and money - both for training and showing are sadly lacking these days, esp. since I was laid off in July. Lessons were the first thing to go. Sigh) Most people think he's WB cross, though he's actually Arab/App. I always joked that I wanted a "Trakaloosa," and I guess an Araloosa is "close." LOL I've never shown in front of Ms. Foy, but I doubt she'd classify my horse as one who should be chasing cows. At 16.2 and growing, and with a big, floaty trot, he doesn't fit THAT profile. That tail up over the back and high blowing occasionally might occasion a few, um..... negative remarks, but hopefully, he's outgrowing that.

So, sorry, no chip. 25 years ago, when I saw tests with remarks like, "Too bad about the color" or "Appaloosas are not 'english' horses," I might have had a chip, but most, if not all, dressage judges seemed to have passed beyond that phase, though I think DWB Pintos (or those thought to be DWB pintos) probably get a bit more of a pass than an Appy that screws up. ;o)

[Beasmom]

Sounds like a chip to me.

You've done well with your horse and earned national level recognition. Good for you! Better than I have done! So, in light of that, I don't understand the attitude. I would have been affected by the Performance Standards, too, had they come to pass. I didn't get all knotted up about it. Figured I'd do what it took to meet the standards when and if they came into effect. Doubted it would be adopted, because Americans are such an independent lot. No sense losing sleep over it.

You just want to hate on Janet and the Performance Standard stuff. Well, can't stop you. Life's too short to let the remarks of one person make you so angry.

[narcisco]

This is all very hush, hush but she got her start as a Rodeo Queen. There are pictures out there. They involve a western saddle and, omg, stock horses.

[Beasmom]

It's true! It's true!

[Horseymama]

She seems like a great judge to me. She judged a recognized show in our area and we have a woman that rides a mule in training and 1st level. I believe she got scores in the mid to upper 60's with her mule judged by Janet. If she can judge a mule fairly, I'm sure she can be fair with an Appaloosa!

[Sandy M]

Once more: Don't hate Janet Foy. I do hate the performance standard (fortunately not in effect, but I'm sure they'll try again) and I do hate what she SAID - at least as she said it. It was rude and unnecessary. She hasn't modified it, and other people have said her response to opposition to the performance standard was much ruder than merely talking about horses more suitable for chasing cows. The statistics have proved that either she is WRONG about the bad riding, or if the riding truly is THAT bad, the judges are not scoring correctly: They are afraid to give much less than a 5 most of the time, no matter how supposedly "awful" the ride in front of them may be.

The performance standard, as it was proposed originally, would not have affected me. I already had the scores. Just as, annoying as it is, the qualification to do musical freestyles (not sure if that is national or just CDS local) would not have affected me. I have the scores. It's especially amusing since I have them with my retired horse, yet from what I could tell, I could have used them to show my young horse, were he ready for that level (2nd/3rd).

As far as I know - and I accept all that people have said in that regard - she is a good judge/clinician/instructor. Sounds like the OP really enjoyed the clinic. My comment was just that even though all that may be true - I just was/am really put off by the negativity of her comments at the time of the PS brou-ha-ha...This country is too big, and the availability of good instruction not that plentiful. Sort of a "how many times would Germany (or the Netherlands) fit into Texas" situation. Germany needs its performance standards in order to limit entries for shows that are overbooked AND to prevent higher level people from dropping down a level - not to prevent lower level (i.e. unprepared) riders from moving up. They have oversubscribed shows every weekend in the Netherlands. I'm sure COTH dressage folks from Texas would be happy to tell us how few and how far apart their shows are in comparison.

A performance standard as proposed in this country would only serve to disenfranchise any number of people who have less than fancy horses, who live in areas where shows are few and far between, or who have limited budgets and would be forced to travel far and wide, and at great expense, to get the necessary scores. Ms. Foy has never backed down on her statements - she obviously BELIEVES there is all that terrible riding out there and that something needs to be done about it. But she is/would be more effective in that regard merely by being what she apparently is: a good judge who uses the full range of marks, rather than by helping USET/USDF inflict a performance standard on us. And if the "folks with a chip" would boycott shows because a judge is too tough..well, that would accomplish - in a backhanded way - what the PS is supposed to do - the bad-riders wouldn't show up for fear of having their lacks given the 2s,3s, and 4s, they warrant. No?

25+ years ago, I did have a list of judges before whom I wouldn't show - the ones who actually, in the "good old days" had even remarked on breed or color on tests. Or ones that didn't do that, but I rode tests in front of three judges simultaneously and got 66%, 65% and....53% (and the judge that gave the 53% was at C with the judge who have the 66% - you had to wonder what she thought she saw - LOL). I tended to avoid her thereafter. She doesn't judge any more, BTW. These days - and even with my retired guy - I realized that any color/breed prejudice seemed to have long since been weeded out, and I show before whatever judge I happen to get. No chip. Seriously.

Enough. Janet Foy is a Goddess. I will revise that opinion if she helps resurrect the performance standard rules. LOL

[jodyb]

It's not hush, hush, Janet will tell you she was Girl of the West!

I've been riding with Janet every other week for several years. I credit her excellent teaching with attaining my USDF bronze on my, gasp, Seattle Slew grandson Thoroghbred. Janet teaches riders on all breeds, giving them 110% I've seen it, I've been there. If you get the chance to clinic with her, you should. If you choose not to, well, it's your loss.

[mbm]

either she is WRONG about the bad riding, or if the riding truly is THAT bad, the judges are not scoring correctly: They are afraid to give much less than a 5 most of the time, no matter how supposedly "awful" the ride in front of them may be.


gee... i wonder why?

[Cowgirl]

IME, the FEI judges INCLUDING JANET are not afraid to use the whole scale. I've gotten plenty of 2s, 3s, and 4s this year from FEI judges on my hot and spooky young mare, but I've also gotten plenty of 7s, 8s and even one 9 (!) on my hot, spooky but also brilliant mare from FEI judges. That, to me, is Fair. The more confident the judge, the more they are willing to part with the high and low marks and also forgive...meaning they don't hold a bad movement against you into the next movement. In my quest to go for the 8s this year, I've had plenty of blown movements for 1s, 2s and 3s, but the experienced judges were willing to give me the deserved 8 on the next successful movement. I work my ASS off and my horse is talented and deserves reward. Nothing pisses me off more than getting 5 or 6 no matter what I do, or the judges with bias. Those judges need to be weeded out or mentored by the confident judges, like Janet. Janet is a confident, fair and accurate judge and I find it a privilege to show for her.

[slc2]

Sandy M, I think you are interpreting Foy's remarks to mean what you want to mean, because you WANT DEARLY to find breed prejudice in the judges. That's your agenda and has been for a long, long time, but not every score and proposal is based on a conspiracy against spotted horses.

The nerd herd report showed that some regions score lower on average, and even, they contend, that certain breeds score lower. There are a great many explanations for that. A great many more reasons than the nerd herd and people here give.

For example, certain regions may lack coaching. People who get less coaching, people who ride to lower scores, may be attracted to certain breeds. There are many more possible reasons for the numbers than 'the judges suck' and 'there's a national conspiracy against spotted horses'.

And in fact, I believe that the reasons I listed are actually the reasons for the nerd herd report looking how it does. The REASONS for the numbers are belief, not facts.

They are interpretation, not fact. And if I may add, very, very emotional and biased interpretations. People need to separate numbers from interpretation, opinion and emotional bias.

I've watched more than one mediocre test get a mediocre score and heard the rider insist, 'The Judge doesn't like my breed'. It doesn't matter WHAT the breed is, it is a type of thinking...on one occasion, the rider was insisting, 'the judge hates Hannoverians'. And in another, 'The judge hates Dutch Warmbloods'. Both people had fairly nice horses, but insisted on riding them in a very unbalanced posture, despite being told by their trainers for years that the posture was deficient.

The 'chasing cows' remark refers to the posture the horse is in - not its breed. What it means is that the horses are not balanced. Not collected. When a horse cuts cattle, the classic position, the archetypal photo, is he gets down on his front end with his front legs slanted forward, ready to turn in either direction. He drops his front end and turns on a dime. This is beautiful - in cutting. Not in second and third level dressage.

To ride a horse in a collected, second level, third level balance or higher, even a very, very talented and naturally well balanced horse - is incredibly difficult. I came home last night from riding a very talented, balanced schoolmaster in a collected manner...and crawled into bed and fell asleep. Today my stomach and back muscles are so sore I can hardly breathe. It is work.

Many people don't want to do the work. And when they show, they want to be rewarded anyway. We may hate the following remark of judge Steiner, but it rings true, and has for years -

'First they buy the tail coat, then the horse, and then and only then, consider the possibility, of taking riding lessons'.

And no, this is not literal, that everyone buys their tail coat before they buy their horse, it refers to an attitude.

Most people top out at second and third level, precisely because they can't master this. When the horse is on the forehand (and make no mistake, 'on the forehand' is relative to the requirements of the level the horse is at), the horse's back muscles have to tighten up - THAT is a great part of what makes the rider 'bounce around' and a huge, huge part of what qualification is trying to get at.

'The rider bouncing around' at 2nd and 3rd means the horse is not balanced. 'The rider lacks skill', 'the rider needs lessons' doesn't mean the rider can't sit at training level - it means he can't balance his horse and sit at second and third level. These levels are DIFFERENT. What is required of the rider and horse is DIFFERENT.

Returning to an important concept - 'on the forehand' is relative. And what many of these posts are refusing to account for, as they go on and on sarcastically about how someone wouldn't DARE show up unprepared and 'hurt the judge's eyes', is that a horse is 'on the forehand' when he is green, because he's supposed to be. Supposed to be....compared to a horse at a higher level.

This is just a plain, simple fact of training. A horse IS on the forehand when he is at a lower level! He's supposed to be! What he isn't supposed to be, is that same degree of on the forehand at second, at third, at fourth.

WHY? Because it's bad for him. That is how horses get injured. Ever seen an uncollected, on the forehand horse do a test at a level he is just learning? He sweats his a** off. Because it is hard on him. Collection isn't some elitist or elusive thing. It makes it possible for the horse to do the work.

The point is not to say that the rider doesn't dare show up with a horse on the forehand and all the other previous rants...the point is that by the time the horse and rider get to second and third level, there is a degree of balance and collection that is expected!

I guess I should not be shocked, but it still amazes me...people can come to an internet bb and convince themselves of incredible things. The judges aren't griping because they are elitist or because they hate spotted horses...they aren't trying to get qualification because they're jerks.

They're trying to get qualification because they believe it will help.

My theory is that what has changed, is that as dressage has grown, far fewer people are 'self policing'. Years ago, most of us wouldn't have dared show up for a test at a level we weren't prepared to do, we would have been mortally embarrassed. And I can tell from posts here, that that has changed, and changed radically.

And it remains that second and third level are the waterloo. And very appropriate that the organizations focus on that transition point.

Qualification proposals are the result of our behavior - the riders. Where common sense fails, rules are created.

[Ja Da Dee]

I find it odd that a poster is being drilled because she stands behind her convictions. Janet Foy made a statement that many found offensive. She hasn't changed that statement. Why would someone who found that statement offensive and inappropraite want to take a lesson with her? No "chip" needed, just someone standing by what they believe. Janet was passionate about the Performance Standards, she should stand behind her statements, and take the fallout if there is any. I seriously doubt that she needs a bunch of BB posters defending her honor. NO ONE has implied that she isn't a good instructor, or a good judge, just that they don't agree with what she said, and wouldn't choose to ride with her.

[egontoast]

It's always possible to skip a clinic without making a big deal about it. The poster was the one who stirred things up on this thread - see page one.

So I guess it's Ok if people want to challenge her. That's why it is called a discussion forum.

[Tamara in TN]

Editing to add: Take a look at this horse at this link: http://janiejilltointon.com/index.php?page=55 He is a cutting bred cowpony stallion named Blue Fancy Dan. .



not to drop into a major spat, but this pedigree is mostly all running bred, not a cutter up front or close up anywhere...not that a good QH can't sort a cow around but he's not specific bred for the sport

the Running blood has given him the refined TB-yy look as he goes three times to Top Deck and twice to Three Bars...it would probably be more correct to say he's a TB riding pony:)

best

[Cowgirl]

Ok, I'll believe you. These are performance bred qhs. And Blue is a tiny horse. Take a look at his son, Soy Boy:

http://janiejilltointon.com/index.php?page=soy-boy

He also gets 70s in dressage and I believe the dam side is all cutting bred. But WHO CARES...I just posted it to show non traditional horses getting great dressage scores because they are correctly ridden.

[Tamara in TN]

[QUOTE=Cowgirl;4450974]Ok, I'll believe you. These are performance bred qhs. And Blue is a tiny horse. Take a look at his son, Soy Boy:

http://janiejilltointon.com/index.php?page=soy-boy

He also gets 70s in dressage and I believe the dam side is all cutting bred.

yes that mare line is remarkable :)



But WHO CARES...I just posted it to show non traditional horses getting great dressage scores because they are correctly ridden.



as I said I didn't post to enter a spat, only to say that he himself is not a cutter or cowhorse bred...

he is nicely done make no doubt and fancy as hell...only to say he is a cutter is kinda like calling him a Trakehner....

[katarine]

yep- Magnolia Bar and Top Moon Deck? runners. Think barrel horses, not cutting horses.

Just a point of clarification was all Tamara wanted- he's a cutie of a horse but he's no more cuttin' bred than my English Setter is :)

Soy Boy's momma IS cutting bred, FWIW.

[Beasmom]

Hey, my Hanoverian aspires to be a cutting horse. He also herds cats.

[Cowgirl]

Ok, my smackdown is accepted. I should have posted Soy Boy or one of the others she rides...but wow look at how up in the withers he is in the pictures. These horses are built like qhs...even if running bred (and I have seen him in person)...a bit rump high, but they are trained to lift their shoulders and bend their hocks. With that kind of correct training...they are scoring well amongst the wbs. She had a ton of rides at our championship show and didn't get one score below 60%....and we had several FEI judges, including Janet Foy, as well as S and R judges.

[sm]

Hey, my Hanoverian aspires to be a cutting horse.


Like plenty of uphill-built Hs I saw putting in tests: on the forehand?

Unfortunately JBFs comment was not worthy of a judge, judges **should** offer constructive solutions instead of demeaning someone. Example, "I'm tired of seeing horses come down center line on the forehand, not ridden correctly balanced or through." The competitor is, after all, trying to put in a test and learn how to improve from the experience.

Regarding type of horse, let's remember her comment was criticising the horse ---- not the rider who put/left the horse on the forehand.

I've always learned a lot from constructive judges, they make the experience worthwhile.

[Beasmom]

HAHA, sm! No, he's plenty uphill -- he just seems to enjoy following cattle around. And cats.

[yaya]

The performance standard, as it was proposed originally, would not have affected me. I already had the scores. Just as, annoying as it is, the qualification to do musical freestyles (not sure if that is national or just CDS local) would not have affected me. I have the scores. It's especially amusing since I have them with my retired horse, yet from what I could tell, I could have used them to show my young horse, were he ready for that level (2nd/3rd).



You need to read the rules again. Qualification for riding Musical Freestyles is based on the scores of the horse/rider combination, not just the rider. So you need to qualify with each horse at each level. Previous scores don't count.

DR128.9
9. Except for USEF/USDF Championship classes and for FEI Pony Riders, FEI Junior, FEI Young Rider and FEI Para-Equestrian Freestyles, in order to enter a freestyle class at any level, a horse/rider combination must have received a minimum score of 60% in the highest test of the declared freestyle level or any test of a higher level at a Federation Licensed Competition held prior to the competition where the horse/rider combination is entered to ride a freestyle class. A photocopy of the test verifying eligibility must be submitted with the entry for a freestyle class. BOD 1/13/08 Effective 12/1/08 BOD 1/18/09 Effective 4/1/09

[MEP]

From SLC2 The nerd herd report showed that some regions score lower on average, and even, they contend, that certain breeds score lower. There are a great many explanations for that. A great many more reasons than the nerd herd and people here give.

For example, certain regions may lack coaching. People who get less coaching, people who ride to lower scores, may be attracted to certain breeds. There are many more possible reasons for the numbers than 'the judges suck' and 'there's a national conspiracy against spotted horses'.

And in fact, I believe that the reasons I listed are actually the reasons for the nerd herd report looking how it does. The REASONS for the numbers are belief, not facts.

They are interpretation, not fact. And if I may add, very, very emotional and biased interpretations. People need to separate numbers from interpretation, opinion and emotional bias.


Just to clarify: The nerd herd report analyzed some 40,000 actual test results reported by USDF region. It reported the "facts, ma'am, just the facts." It did make some suggestions on more direct solutions to the problem of bad riding (i.e., judges using the full scale, offering more training opportunities), but did not try to explore the 'why's'

The significance of the report was that the main justification for performance standards, the perception of many bad riders ignoring their abysmal scores in the 30s & 40s and moving up the levels, was not supported by examining the actual reported scores. The statistical analysis included tests for 'significance' and the variables region, breed, level, and judge were found to be statistically significant.

And, there was no "contend" about it. The raw data was reported by region, and each line of data reports test ridden, breed information, the score given, and the judge who gave the score. It's all there. Region, breed, level, judge. The analysis stayed very close to the data and asked basic questions related to the actual numbers.

There were sections in the report about theories of quality management, reviewers' comments, and suggestions on steps that could be taken to improve riding and judging in this country. It was very unemotional, fact driven, and unbiased.

I know it is easy to get carried away in these discussions. But please, the nerd herd report was very rational and unemotional. It looked at what was actually happening around the country.

[slc2]

It doesn't MATTER how many tests they included!

The interpretation of the numbers is STILL an opinion, not a fact! It could include 4 HUNDRED THOUSAND tests and the interpretation will STILL be an opinion, and a very, very emotional biased one at that.

There are many, many OTHER possible intepretations of the information, OTHER than, 'the judges suck, the judges are unfair, the judges have this TEENY WEENY BIAS that they don't really know they have and aren't conscious of....' etc.

A region has lower scores? Maybe there is less access to instruction! Maybe the quality of the instruction in that region is lower! People with certain breeds score lower because of the breed they ride? Maybe they do not ride as well! Maybe the scores they get are completely legitimate!

The whole interpretation of the numbers is predicated on the ASSUMPTION that the numbers are as they are because the judging is bad. This is an OPINION, and an INTERPRETATION, and and ASSUMPTION. The interpretation of the numbers is NOT A FACT. IT IS AN ASSUMPTION!!!!!

Secondly, the interpretation of the nerd herd report ignores one very important thing: qualification scores don't start at 30 or 40, they start at 61 per cent.

Qualification really has nothing to do with 30 and 40 per cent scores, that argument that it DOES, is an emotionally based statement of justification given very early on and under pressure, and it has nothing to do with the structure of qualification except coincidence.

The 30's and 40's are a tangential issue.

Qualification isn't structured to address the 30 and 40 percents; it's structured to address where most of us ride, from 50 to 60 percent, which is why some of us hate it so much, because it threatens us directly. Qualification is structured to deal with the mediocre, not the awful! This incredible obsessive focusing on ONE statement a few people made, that has NOTHING to do with how the qualification is structured - I see the obsessive focusing on that one little item as completely irrelevant and diverting the focus away from the main issue.

Threatens in the sense that it will affect OUR plans, OUR activities, OUR pocketbook, and more than anything, OUR dreams. Yeah, dreams. We dream that we can continue to compete at a higher level when we are not prepared. Since people are no longer taking that need seriously, and are more focused on the status of competing at that level, up pops a rule. Surprise surprise.

The people MOST affected are the small time local pro's, whose bread and butter it is to show at 2nd-PSG to bring in customers. The customers can't reasonably evaluate the performance because they are too novice - they see a horse doing flying lead changes and half pass and they open their pocketbooks.

They are impressed. It's advertising. I think qualification is far more aimed at them than anyone else, including amateurs, and I think they're politically correct enough to not discuss this. But it is an appalling problem, and people are getting ripped off, misled and getting bad quality instruction because this is so permeating the industry of dressage.

People here blatantly and constantly encourge competing when one isn't ready for a given level. Competing and receiving low scores is championed here....as long as it's second level or above! It's championed because scoring well at those levels is so far out of reach for most, NOT because it's a good idea!

That's a very, very strong bias on this bb, and it is one that is argued with very strong emotion and very, very obvious anger. It is based on the feeling that competing is inherently unfair, that working hard consistently and getting instruction, having a purpose bred horse, is an unfair way to get scores, and that those scores are meaningless and unfair...always.

The view of qualification goes right along, congruent with the REST of the beliefs here, that judging is unfair, that judges are bad, that competition is unfair.

The interpretation of the report just is the same old fixed bias that is so prominent here - so incredibly prominent that any other view is shouted down here.

I think it's a shame that people tear a statement apart unless it's worded exactly as they like (chasing cows statement). If one behaved that way at work, one wouldn't get too far career-wise, in fact, one would spend most of one's time out in the parking lot looking for one's car, carrying a cardboard box containing one's desk contents.

Only in the comfort of the bulletin board can someone be this picky, and perhaps that's more of why people do it than any other reason, because here's a place where people can come and figuratively kick the dog, but it markedly reduces the quality of the dialogue here, means only one side of issues can be discussed, and means people only come here to reinforce what they already think, rather than explore new ideas - note - explore. Not even agree with new ideas, even just explore.

Immediately tearing into something because of how it's worded, instead of looking for the information and the concept in the statement - one closes oneself off from an awful lot of learning and an awful lot of progress that way.

Instead of immediately ripping into Foy, some people might consider what she has to say. Instead of immediately ripping into ANYONE who discusses qualification standards with even a slightly positive questioning, one might consider, just consider, that most of why the qualification proposal came up is riders not using their own good judgement. Rules spring up where commonsense fails.

[Beasmom]

Thank you, MEP, for your reasoned post.

The people who want to show at levels higher than Second have to face up to the facts, if they haven't already. It takes a little more talent (both horse and rider), more time, more strength, perhaps more money to engage a competent instructor or clinician to reach that goal.

Some will manage it; others will not. Those who do not, or cannot, should not blame judges, but examine their own situation. Do you have the drive, the horse, the instructor, the facilities, and whatever else you need to achieve the goal? What's missing? Fill that gap, don't blame the system.

[Sandy M]

You need to read the rules again. Qualification for riding Musical Freestyles is based on the scores of the horse/rider combination, not just the rider. So you need to qualify with each horse at each level. Previous scores don't count.

DR128.9
9. Except for USEF/USDF Championship classes and for FEI Pony Riders, FEI Junior, FEI Young Rider and FEI Para-Equestrian Freestyles, in order to enter a freestyle class at any level, a horse/rider combination must have received a minimum score of 60% in the highest test of the declared freestyle level or any test of a higher level at a Federation Licensed Competition held prior to the competition where the horse/rider combination is entered to ride a freestyle class. A photocopy of the test verifying eligibility must be submitted with the entry for a freestyle class. BOD 1/13/08 Effective 12/1/08 BOD 1/18/09 Effective 4/1/09


Garbled sentence. I meant that the qualifying scores of the Performance Standard as originally proposed - i.e., the move from 2nd to 3rd, as opposed to the later proposal which was either (can't remember) re 3rd to 4th, or 4th to PSG. I know the musical freestyle is a horse/rider combination thing.

[mbm]

holy cow SLC, right on!!

[katarine]

Ok, my smackdown is accepted. I should have posted Soy Boy or one of the others she rides...but wow look at how up in the withers he is in the pictures. These horses are built like qhs...even if running bred (and I have seen him in person)...a bit rump high, but they are trained to lift their shoulders and bend their hocks. With that kind of correct training...they are scoring well amongst the wbs. She had a ton of rides at our championship show and didn't get one score below 60%....and we had several FEI judges, including Janet Foy, as well as S and R judges.

Tamara and I politely correcting your error is a smackdown? Ohhkay.

I guess so long as we've drawn and quartered you :D I'll let you in on something- running bred QHs, hold on this might sting :cool:....are commonly, normally, typically, usually built downhill.

If you don't want to learn about these horses you admire, by all means, don't mention them again LOL

[MEP]

SLC2 - I was clarifying the content of the report. If people, including you, think the report was:

a) emotional, or
b) encouraging bad riding, or
c) encouraging unprepared riders to show, or
d) any of the other emotional accusations you're making,

I would encourage them to go look at the report. The purpose of the report was to remove speculation, personal impressions and emotions from the process of formulating a major change in U.S. dressage policy regarding showing. While the people who prepared the report certainly have opinions and feelings about dressage in the U.S., they took the data about actual tests to examine the policy change rather than their personal feelings and opinions. The report addressed specific issues, no more, no less.

I have seen the raw data. You can count up the number of scores in the 30s and 40s. There just aren't that many. The number of tests IS important. Those are the facts. They aren't emotional. The justification for the performance standards was riders ignoring their bad scores and moving up the levels. That was an emotional assumption, not supported by the actual results of shows in the United States. The justification given for performance standards was NOT mediocre riding, it was BAD riding. The amount of Bad Riding was exaggerated in justification of the performance standards.

From personal observation, I would say there is some bad riding, plenty of mediocre riding, and some good riding. I would also say that there are plenty of instructors who are mediocre and definitely some parts of the country where it is difficult to find good instructors. I will repeat, these are my personal observations, based on my own experience and observation.

Some of the proponents of the performance standards apparently made strong statements regarding bad riding. I personally take these statements with a grain of salt because, yes, often times they are taken out of context.

I personally have no disagreement with those folks who proposed and supported the performance standards. I think they had good intentions, but were rather jumping the gun - there might certainly be a time to have performance standards in future when training opportunities are more readily available and when judging becomes more standardized. That is also not a slight to judges who I believe make great sacrifices to become judges and give back to the sport. The whole system needs to be fine-tuned. These are my personal opinions, based in part on what was in the report and on what I have observed and read.

[Nojacketrequired]

Holy cow! Does anyone know the number for 911 in SLC's area? I think she needs it!

Personally, I think judges don't use the whole scale because if they score low, they won't be asked back. Pure economics, IMO.

But, I don't get allworked up over it.

NJR

[slc2]

No one needs to call 911. I'm not in the least bit upset. I'm trying using caps, underlining and italics because I post too long...people can just skim through and read the italics or underlines.

You did not read what i said, MEP. I didn't say the data was 'emotional', I said the conclusions, the explanations of why the data is what it is, were OPINION. And yes, I think 'the judges stink' is an OPINION-NOT A FACT.

[MEP]

No one needs to call 911. I'm not in the least bit upset. I'm trying using caps, underlining and italics because I post too long...people can just skim through and read the italics or underlines.

You did not read what i said, MEP. I didn't say the data was 'emotional', I said the conclusions, the explanations of why the data is what it is, were OPINION. And yes, I think 'the judges stink' is an OPINION-NOT A FACT.

Please show me in the report where it says "judges stink." That is a rhetorical question because I know that statement is not in there. Please be careful what you attribute to the report.

It doesn't MATTER how many tests they included!

The interpretation of the numbers is STILL an opinion, not a fact! It could include 4 HUNDRED THOUSAND tests and the interpretation will STILL be an opinion, and a very, very emotional biased one at that.

The numbers were not interpreted. The raw numbers were tallied up, put through standardized statistical analysis, and then reported upon. There was no 'hey presto-chango' no majical interpretation. I have seen the raw numbers. They were put in columns and added up. Then you take those results and apply standard tests to show significance.

Please, again, be very careful about what you say is in that report. You are consistently and seriously misrepresenting it.

[Cowgirl]

Personally, I think judges don't use the whole scale because if they score low, they won't be asked back. Pure economics, IMO.

This is a false assumption. Judges who use the whole scale also call the bad moments in a test as they see them and rarely are there fault free tests. But people tend to be happier with their 57% if the test contained a few deserved 7s or 8s along with the deserved 3 or 4s. Most of the people I know do not like the straight 5/6/7 judges. We need to get a 9 or 10 when deserved and we need to get a 1 or 2 when deserved...and everything else inbetween. Using the whole scale does not mean you get scored low. In fact, you have a better chance of scoring higher if you are well prepared.

[egontoast]

No one needs to call 911. I'm not in the least bit upset. I'm trying using caps, underlining and italics because I post too long...people can just skim through and read the italics or underlines.



How thoughtful!:)

[Beasmom]

Slc, if the italicized or underlined stuff is the important part, why not just post that and forget the rest? You could do something else with the rest of your day!

[slc2]

What a brilliant concept.

No.

[quietann]

I am also a statistician, and had to drop out of the Nerd Herd pretty early on because of, well, too much other stuff to do! But when the report came out, I read it... It is appropriately dry, with minimal emotion and a few possible interpretations of the findings showing why Performance Standards would not be useful. The simple (hah!) task was to start with an emotional premise ("ZOMG! Riders out there are abusive and horrible and we need Performance Standards to stop them from moving up the levels!") and looked at the data, and... found very little reason to believe the original premise.

I'm not saying that number-crunchers never get emotional about their work. I just don't see it here, at all.

[DressageGeek "Ribbon Ho"]

slc2, I was one of those who offered to "peer review" the report. I felt qualified to do this because I review scientific papers for over 20 different journals (all of which publish manuscripts only after accepted peer review, by at least 2-3 separate reviewers, and all are well established and well respected journals). I also routinely review grant applications for the National Institutes of Health as well as the Department of Defense and the National Science Foundation. This year, I have already sat on 3 NIH panels, 1 DOD panel, and am sitting on a 4th NIH panel this November. Thus, peer review is a fundamental aspect of my professional life.

In science, precise quantitation and unbiased interpretation of the data is of paramount importance. One is not permitted to review without formally stating that there is no conflict if interest (ie, introducing bias). When I read the analysis paper, I treated it exactly as I have done for all other peer review. These were the questions I asked:

(1) were the appropriate statistics used?
(2) was the number of replicates sufficient to determine significance?
(3) were the conclusions reached valid, or an overinterpretation of the data?
(4) what further questions then arise from the data that should be assessed? (good science always leads to more questions!)

As it turns out, the Nerd Herd is comprised of a wide array of people - given our diverse backgrounds, both in dressage and in data analysis, we not only came to a consensus, we each approached it from a different perspective, which only strengthened the objectivity of the results. This is the best kind of peer review.

That being said,

(1) it absolutely does matter how many tests were included. Simple and basic statistical analysis. Those p values actually mean something to those conversant with this type of analysis.

(2) The interpretation of numbers is not an opinion. if you do the analysis, and find significance, it means there is a very real difference. Whether you want it so or not, them's the facts, m'am.

(3) You are confusing data analysis and interpretation of said data with opinion. Opinion is not publishable in peer reviewed journals. Even in the discussion section of a manuscript, it is inappropriate to make statements without substantiating them using your own data as well as that published by others.

(4) The scores did differ by region. That is a fact. While we may offer up reasons as to why this may be so, without analysis of additional data not available to us, they remain only possibilities. Please read the report, because what you claim was stated is not there. That is not my opinion, by the way. That is fact.

(5) Similarly, having read the report in its entirety, I can assure you that nowhere was there any statement that, "The judging is bad." As mep has repeatedly stated, the scores were analyzed to determine whether the proposed policy change would, in fact, address the needs of the dressage community. This report helped establish what those needs might be.

(6) Your statements about who is affected, and the quality of instruction, are your opinion. But in this case, your opinion has nothing to do with the statistical analysis. If you read the report, you will note that statements such as these are not included in the report.

It is wonderful that the analysis has promoted discussion - this is critical for the betterment of dressage both as a sport and a discipline. We hope, in addition, that when offered these facts, it will make people reassess their previously held beliefs, which may no longer be valid. We also hope it will provide the opportunity to do further studies, so that the needs of the dressage community are appropriately met in the future.

[slc2]

Yes, Wendy, the report looks good as a statistical report, and I did read it, though some time ago, and it is indeed written in a dry and unemotional tone and conforms to the framework of a statistical report. The report is good, the report is great.

All this, 'Oh! You don't agree with our views? REALLY? Oh well since you disagree with us, you're saying our precious report is BAD. Oh my lord in heaven, that can't be! I'm an expert and I read it and I say it's good!'....all that NEEDS TO STOP.

Just let people disagree, for heaven's sake. So you don't agree with them. So what. Let them disagree. So you can find some sore point to pick at. So what. Let other people have their say.

What I disagree with are the conclusions that are based on the data in the report.

Can I get an Amen?

(crickets....)

It is how the numbers are being interpreted that I object to. I see NO difference between 'the riders stink' and 'the judges stink'.

NONE.

The posts here time and again have stated the reason for qualification is abusive rides, the report was written to show the number of abusive rides is low, and the reason we can't have qualification on scores is the scores are not valid...or not 'valid enough'.

ALL the discussions have reiterated that over and over and over and anyone who says anything else or doesn't agree with these is shouted down.

That is what is stated, stated flat out, constantly, right here and has been for months.

1. Qualification was proposed because the organizations want to address abusive rides in the range of 30-40.

2. Qualification is objected to because the judges judge badly in several different ways, making scores an invalid way to judge whether someone should move up.

3. Judges do not use the full range of scores

4. Judges have biases against breeds. Warmbloods score high when they should not, other horses score low when they should not.

5. Fancy movers win. The tests, the judges and the organizations are all in cahoots on this one. Dressage is going to hell in a bucket, and this is a big reason why.

What I disagree with is these points:

1. Qualification was proposed because of abusive rides in the 30-40 range at the levels past the qualification gateway.

Why does it start at 61 then? Just answer me that one question. NO ONE will answer this simple question. I have asked this repeatedly and every one just goes la la la let's move on.

Why does qualification start at 61% if the reason for its existence is the rides from 30-40?

If I see my company puts in a timeclock, I don't sit and think, 'well, this is because they want to beautify the hallway', I think, 'they installed a timeclock because they want us to clock in and out'. Why is that so irrational? The answer is it ISN't, and if they wanted to stop rides of 30 and 40, they'd bar from competition anyone who scored a 30-40%.

My point is, the whole nerd herd report was intended to show the 30's and 40's are far and few between. Of course they are. So what? Qualification starts at 61 percent, not 55, not 50, not even 45 or 40. It starts at 61. SEEEEEXTY--WUN PER CENT.

That it is to stop abusive rides was something someone said at some point, as a justification/rationale, in response to attacks. It has nothing to do with how qualification is structured. It is a side effect, and a very weak one at that, and in point of fact, it would not stop the 30 or 40 percent rides at ALL because it is simply not organized that way.

It is an emotional argument, just as the arguments against qualification are an emotional argument.

2. We can't use scores because judges do not judge well.

How do they not judge well?

First, they do not match scores. Well, actually, I don't recall the report comparing scores of judges.

But anyway.

The discussion is that judges that score differently are judging incorrectly. Their scores should match. The more they match, the better they are and the better the judging criteria are.

I don't agree with that. I never have, I never will. To me, judging is an opinion. It is evaluated just as subjectively as it is judged.

So. Theo comes in here and says the judges at a European competion were all out of whack. No judge comes here and rebuts him, OF COURSE, but it's likely that a judge somewhere in the world says, 'No, I think it was ok'. So one person thinks it was incorrect and one person does not. One person's a music man, one's a judge.

Who's 'RIGHT'? It's a subjective opinion who's right! We weren't there, we didn't even SEE the scores being done or the rides, very few of us are even trained judges to do even the lowest level judging, and none of us are in a position to judge international judges because we are not trained as international judges - yet we side with the view that jives with our own emotions and our own biases!

If a judge comes to a show here, and he CONSISTENTLY scores specific faults lower than the other judges, I don't think he's necessarily wrong, even when he does not score the same as the other judges. Even if he's MARKEDLY different. It's just as possible that the OTHER judges can be seen as less correct.

This idea that the scores have to MATCH...and the more they match the better they are, to the degree it's being insisted on here, I have to say, FRANKLY, it scares me. Scares me to death. why? Because it is so incredibly self serving to devise ANY evaluation that discredits judges that score lower! Anyone who scores me low so I don't get my little club award, I'm gonna get a system going that will put that SOB out of business!

When I was showing, the judges that didn't match were the ones from Europe, and we very often said, 'Damn! We better listen, because these guys are the better judges'. Are they ALWAYS? No, but I STILL do not automatically assume a judge who scores differently is a BAD JUDGE.

Okey dokey. More pov's:

Judges have biases. They prefer fancy movers, they prefer warmbloods, they mark down spotted horses, Quarter Horses, Baroque horses, Thoroughbreds.

Oh my Lord. If I could have come here ONE DAY in the last TWELVE YEARS, and not hear someone whining about their precious BREED not being scored high enough, I'd probably have died on the spot.

Welll.....They don't have 'biases', exactly, they just don't understand the criteria correctly. Good hearted folks, but not very bright, in fact, they don't even REALIZE they are judging these breeds this way. In a bit of a fog, they are, they don't even know they're doing this.

Well.....They are misled by the unfair criteria that they are pressured to follow, which is, a warmbloody mover wins, a horse with more suspension wins, a horse that is more 'floaty' wins, a horse that is, well, a warmblood, wins.

Otherwise, the test with the most accurate figures would win.

I don't agree with that, either. I don't agree with any of it.

I think that there are a few judges that are judging incorrectly. I think for the most part, the judges judge very well. I think there are some adjustments needed.

But when I look at a horse and it's less fluid, and less forward, and less supple, has less suspension, and is moving flat without bending its joints, without raising its body, without being....as correct...Yup! I WANT it to get a lower score! I THINK THAT'S OK!

I think good gaits should be a part of criteria, that is classical and correct, it always has been.

I think that we need to back away from the very 'exaggerated' overly excited sort of performance at the international levels...but only to a point, and to be perfectly honest, I think that is happening, even as we beat our chests in Peoria.

I think impulsion and activity is good and that we see very little real impulsion at the lower levels, and that people think that if they clock around at a local show like a hunter, 'consistent', they should win, and I think they're sorely misled. I do, though, want to see the pendulum swing some back from the extreme in the international competitions.

I think that rather than insisting scores match, I'd like to see scores discussed among the judges as a group during and after the show. I think in America, we don't do that still, and I think that's a shame. I think we should. I would like to see all the scores for each movement as is done at some of the big competitions. I'd like to see high and low scores either dropped (on each movement, even) and I'd like to see high and low scores discussed and understand why they were given.

Next. The judges do not use the range. Maybe people get all fives and sixes at local shows because they are riding in a mediocre way. Maybe they deserve those scores. No, it wasn't a 1 or 2. It was executed, but it simply is not good enough to warrant above a 5 or 6. When I showed, we had trainers who would say, 'Well, YEAH, girlfriend, it just wasn't that good, you need to practice that!' And not this politically correct pablum that any low score is bad and we should all get a gold star for showing up.

And no, actually, when a horse like Totilas gets two's and three's and nines and tens, actually, yes, I think the judges ARE using the range.

I think this is something that just gets repeated over and over here, and now people just simply assume it's true. And not JUST is it true, but even further, a test with fives and sixes is proof just in and of itself, that the judges are incorrect.

Nor do I believe that since scores are lower for a given breed or region, that that MUST be because of one and only one reason, that the judges are prejudice against that breed or that someone is just deliberately going there and scoring them lower when they really are very, very good and deserve much higher scores.

[claire]

If you go back to the original proposal for a qualification rule, the problem was most definitely framed as 'bad/abusive riding at third level' and scores of 30-40%. (And this was how the qualification proposal was being presented at the USDF meeting, Not a response to an "attack")


"We face several problems. One is that many riders buy horses with a lot of training and they then rider them above the levels of the riders ability. These horses are confused and quite frantic. Imagine as a judge you see the rider leaning the wrong way, with the wrong bend -- trying to perform a half pass. They then try the flying change but again the horse is totally confused. The horse makes a mistake. The rider then jerks the horse with the double bridle and spurs at the same time. I wish this were an unusual occurance. It is not. This problem arising at 3rd to GP level.

The committee is responsible for the welfare of the horse. Just giving the rider a 3 or 4 doesn't seem to be enough. And we dont' want to take away the double at 3/4th because why should be punish those riders who use this tool in a good way?

So....

We are working VERY hard with all of the input we are getting to make this fair across the country. We are considering lowering the points needed, using 58% as a start instead of 60%. Again, the welfare of the horse is our goal, not to punish the riders.

Janet Foy, Chair, Standards Committee

[slc2]

Even if this 30-40% ride was the single reason given from the very start, and no other reason was ever given (which it most emphatically was not), it is completely at odds with the structure of qualification, which starts at 61, or perhaps now, 58.

OKAY! Time for an exercise....Compare the numbers 30-40% to 58-61%. Tell me...are they the same? Many, many other reasons and justifications were in fact, given for qualification.

We choose to obsess here about that 30-40% issue because...well I have to tell you, I don't know why we do, because all it really does is limit discussion here. I think people REALLY believe if they can just stab the proposal pinata enough with that argument, the proposal pinata will deflate. SO OK. let's talk SOME MORE about this 30-40% business!

Is a 30 or a 40 a GOOD RIDE? Does 30 or 40 indicate maybe the person needs to move up? Yes, granted, a hot air balloon may have landed in the ring that day. Let's say he routinely scores 30-40% Should he move up?

In fact, people here, right on this bb, have insisted before you move up, you should routinely be scoring almost DOUBLE that - 65's! SEEXTY FIVE PER CENTUM! The qualification seems a lot more do-able than the standards people on this bb have set!

So! What do you guys want? What should the score be? 45? 50? 55? what is a do-able score for an average guy on an average horse who actually is, indeed, ready to move to third level? Come on folks, I've been reading here for almost a decade that nothing less than a 65 will do for movin' up.

I do not see how someone riding FAIRLY CORRECTLY on a horse that can walk, trot and canter and stay in the ring and do the work, could not get a fifty eight at second level today and move up.

I hate to say it, but ALL of us, all riding Quarter Horses, Morgans, Thoroughbreds and Appaloosas and Pintos, we ALL, on a good day, could score a 58% at second level on those horses, and in those days the scores ran comparably, 3-5% points lower.

At that time warmbloods had been in this country for thirty years, and you can BET we were competing against them on our very, very average horses of 'off' breeds. In that time, there were plenty of expensive, fancy, huge moving warmbloods around. And we were STILL getting 58% at 2nd level. And I PERSONALLY can testify I was riding a 'crap horse' with very poor gaits, and I could get a 50% on him if I rode like crap, and a 61 or 62 if I rode the hair off his back.

To be honest, I can't quite figure out why we feel we are entitled to show at third level WITHOUT passing a gateway.

I really cannot.

Especially when the other 50% of thread here are about How Badly People Rode at Second/Third Level at the Show I Went to Yesterday.

[DressageGeek "Ribbon Ho"]

slc2, you are completely incorrect in your statement about why the statistical analysis was done and what conclusions were reached. I cannot determine whether you read and did not comprehend, or whether you did not read (aha: the difference between fact, and interpretation). You are also confusing what may have been stated on this forum and what is in the statistical analysis.

I do hope that anyone reading this thread reads the analysis for themselves and does not assume that slc2's opinions and interpretations of the data are correct. Please understand: I am not stating that her personal opinions are incorrect. I am not making any value judgement on them at all. What I am saying is that her statements about what the analysis revealed are incorrect.

[claire]

We choose to obsess here about that 30-40% issue because...well I have to tell you, I don't know why we do, because all it really does is limit discussion here. I think people REALLY believe if they can just stab the proposal pinata enough with that argument, the proposal pinata will deflate.

I will try this once more and then I will leave some posters to disagree with themselves about supposed emotional statements made by the posters on COTH.

From the beginning, what people objected to was the establishment of a rule by USEF before any sort of research had been done to objectively state the problem and to find the best workable solution.

Establishing a rule that would be extremely expensive to administer and that would be a financial penalty for all riders to solve a "problem"
that had not been clearly defined, is simply poor business practice.

The original problem cited by the USEF DC for establishing a qualification rule was that the welfare of the horse was being compromised by abusive ridng at 3rd to GP level.

quote Janet Foy:
I wish this were an unusual occurance. It is not. This problem arising at 3rd to GP level.

The committee is responsible for the welfare of the horse. Just giving the rider a 3 or 4 doesn't seem to be enough. And we dont' want to take away the double at 3/4th because why should be punish those riders who use this tool in a good way?


From the beginning, the questions were being asked:

Just how much of this abusive riding is going on?

Why do the scores not reflect all this "bad riding" (ie. scores of 40% and below?)

If scores of 50-60% are abusive why are they termed sufficient or fairly good?

Why are the standards for medals at the low 60% level, if scores in this range indicate such average riding of the level?

And finally why would USEF mandate gateways to enter a class?
What research was done to show that establishing a gateway would result in less "abusive" riding and/or increase "good" riding?

[dressagejanet]

Thank you to Ellie and others who have ridden in my clinics. The best part of the United States is free speech, and Sandy M has her right to say anything she wants about me.

But Sandy, since you don't really know me, let me share a few things with you. I had Appaloosas from 5 -18 years of age. I was a rodeo queen and the Appaloosa Jr reining Champion. I also showed Arabians for many clients and won quite a few national titles. Another student rode with me and her Morgan mare got to GP - she won her Gold Medal and did many exhibitions at Morgan Championships. A current student just won 3rd level Fresian national champion.

You take my comment about the horse and cows out of context, so let me say it in another way. I had a 3 yo Holsteiner with fabulous gaits. After about a year of training it was obvious he was not a dressage horse - he would be happer being an event horse. So why make him miserable just because he had "9" gaits? He ended up winning a medal for the USA at the Pan Am Games in Eventing. That is my point. Many horses are willing and able partners in dressage. Some are not as willing even if they are able. And some have athletic limits. The real point is : DRESSAGE IS ABOUT HARMONY, and if the horse is unhappy and being forced imo it is not dressage.

I hope someday to meet you Sandy and invite you to watch any of my clinics in Seattle, Houston, Minneapolis or Madison, as well as Colorado!

[mbm]

question: how did JFs comment about "giving the RIDER a 3 or 4" get interpreted to 30 or 40% for the ride?

to give a rider a 3 or a 4 does NOT mean the ride will end up at 30 or 40 %.....

does it?

[DressageGeek "Ribbon Ho"]

The same way that the Nerd Herd analysis got interpreted to mean, "The judges are bad."

[mbm]

but. correct me if i am wrong, but isnt the main argument of the nerd herd (and others) that there aren't many 30 or 40% rides so the PS are not needed etc?

in other words: the entire argument that is being used against the PS is false?

i just reread what i wrote and it is unclear.

what i am trying to say is - many many folks here go on and on about how since there arent many/any rides at 30 or 40% then , since that was the reason given for the PS, that PS are not needed since those scores were not found.

however, it looks like what was said was RIDER SCORES or 3 or 4.

did you guys look at RIDER SCORES?

if not how can you say the premise was false?

[Coreene]

Why not read it yourself?

[mbm]

Correne - i am not talking about the REPORT. i am talking about what people here are saying (many of them so called nerd herders) and the beliefs running thru the BB.

that since there are no rides of 30 or 40% then the entire premise for the PS is wrong.

when in fact that is not what JF said. she was talking about RIDER SCORES.

[DressageGeek "Ribbon Ho"]

Not exactly. True, there are not many 30-40% rides, so the assumption that there are so many bad rides is only true if the scores are not accurate. The argument is not so much that performance standards are not needed. The critical need is to ascertain what the problems are, and then how best to address those needs. Without that, we are imposing standards that may even exacerbate the problems.
Are people just riding above the appropriate level? Or do judges feel that they cannot use the full scale? Or are the wrong things being judged? Are judges constrained to limit their scores because of bias? or because of political constraints? or inconsistencies in standards? Or are there not so many bad rides? This is what we need to find out, and it can be only one, or a few, or a combination of these things.

Having judges' input is absolutely critical. Where do they see the lack? The need? The scores do vary from region to region. Is this because there is a bias? Or because some regions are not well served by qualified instructors? Or that those who can ride, choose not to show? Or because the judge selection by region is biased?

So you see - what the analysis did indicate was that the assumptions on which the original performance standards were made are not necessarily true. This is why we need further analysis, on a greater scale, and so much input from all who are interested in furthering our discipline.

The numbers give us a snapshot, and suggest where we need to go to develop a clearer picture. I am not saying that any of the above statements are true. But we need to find out if any are.

[Sandy M]

Thank you to Ellie and others who have ridden in my clinics. The best part of the United States is free speech, and Sandy M has her right to say anything she wants about me.
******
.
You take my comment about the horse and cows out of context, so let me say it in another way. I had a 3 yo Holsteiner with fabulous gaits. After about a year of training it was obvious he was not a dressage horse - he would be happer being an event horse. So why make him miserable just because he had "9" gaits? He ended up winning a medal for the USA at the Pan Am Games in Eventing. That is my point. Many horses are willing and able partners in dressage. Some are not as willing even if they are able. And some have athletic limits. The real point is : DRESSAGE IS ABOUT HARMONY, and if the horse is unhappy and being forced imo it is not dressage.
.

Dear Ms. Foy

Thank you for joining in the conversation. As I have repeatedly said, I have no quarrel with your qualifications as a judge or instructor. I do, however, disagree with the whole concept of a qualification proposal in this country. As it was originally proposed, with regard to 2nd/3rd level, I have/had no dog in that fight: Under that proposal, I would have been "qualified." I just don't feel the proposal has any merit in this country at this time and would work a hardship on too many people.

The chasing cows comment was...unfortunate? I agree with someone who suggested that had you said, I"m tired of seeing horses come down the center line that are on the forehand, poorly ridden, etc." rather than that they would be more appropriate chasing cows, that I would probably have said, "Yup, she's right...." --- but I still don't think a qualification proposal would have addressed the problem correctly, nor, from the statistics, does there seem to be the number of cringe-inducing rides that are the supposed source of the cry for a qualification proposal from the dressage committee.

Again, while I am an Appy rider (though my youngster at present seems intent on behaving more like a young Arab and everyone tells me it takes until they are 8 for Arabs to really "settle" LOL), none of the Appies I have EVER owned and ridden - two eventers, a hunter converted to dressage, and my new green Araloosa - would ever be described as conformationally built downhill and I do not show at breed shows. There's no place for a good moving dressage-type Appy at breed shows. Believe me, I am not taking the comment personally simply because Appaloosas (not Quarterloosas) are my breed of choice. Most people, when trying to guess the "non-Appy" part of my horse's breeding have guessed Trakhener, Hanoverian or TB...so, not taking the "cow chasing" comment personally because of my horse's breed.

Perhaps 25 years ago, there was color/breed discrimination in dressage, but I do not feel it exists, except in very rare cases, anymore. [and I still do have tests from 20+ years ago with actual comments re color or breed. My then-trainer (who had a GP Palomino appendix QH) actually once received the comment "nice ride, too bad about the color" when that horse was showing 2nd/3rd level. The show committee reported the judge to then-AHSA and the judge was reprimanded.]

However, I think there are vast numbers of dressage enthusiasts with what may be deemed "inappropriate" horses, who nevertheless enjoy the training experience and try to do the best they can. Some of these inappropriate horses have achieved quite a bit, but even if they do not, I don't think those individuals should be discouraged from showing, and I think the "chasing cows" comment - in or out of context - tends to tell them that they are not welcome on their QH/Paint/grade/whatever type horse. I like to think that dressage is more inclusive, and that, to paraphrase Ratatouille: "Anyone can do dressage." How well they do it or how far they go.... a very individual thing. Yes, I know the qualification proposal, before it dropped, had moved up to speaking more to the 3rd/4th and 4th/PSG transition and would not affect the lower levels, but there were indications that "eventually" qualification would apply to all levels, and I just don't think that is necessary or fair.

I don't know that the "square peg is a round hole" analogy of a 9 mover who didn't want to be a dressage horse is all that valid. A fantastic mover who simply does not like the discipline (e.g., finds collection too difficult), is a different proposition from an ammy on a little QH who's gotten respectable - hi 50%-low 60% - scores at 2nd level, and feels that while the horse is limited, s/he'd like to give 3rd level a try - for the learning experience or just for fun. Those type of scores may be marginal by your or my standards, but they aren't disgraceful and don't mean the horse is "unhappy" doing dressage.

. I'm saying that even if a horse ISN'T truly suited to be a dressage horse, there's no harm in giving it dressage training, and if a person wants to show, it's their decision. While dressage participation may be increasing, it pales in comparison to reining or team penning and many other equestrian sports. Why discourage even the limited horse/rider?.. It doesn't affect the people who are on the fast track to national or international competition, and it sure as heck keeps the horse shows filled with entries. And, peripherally, qualification certainly is NOT going to stop "abuse." THe bad riders don't only ride in shows - they "train" at home, and qualification standards wouldn't change that.

[claire]

You know what. All this is really a moot point.

The performance standard rule was never passed.

Janet Foy came on and clarified her remark about cow ponies.

People enjoyed Janet Foy's clinic.

And the Global Dressage Forum is next week and will be having a presentation the Dressage Task Force and David Stickland on reccomendations for improvements in judging.

Lots to look forward to and discuss! :cool:

[egontoast]

Believe me, I am not taking the comment personally simply because Appaloosas (not Quarterloosas) are my breed of choice. Most people, when trying to guess the "non-Appy" part of my horse's breeding have guessed Trakhener, Hanoverian or TB...so, not taking the "cow chasing" comment personally because of my horse's breed.

Perhaps 25 years ago, there was color/breed discrimination in dressage, but I do not feel it exists, except in very rare cases, anymore.

That's very different from what you said on page one:

Don't think I want to ride for someone who thinks my horse should be "out chasing cattle" and is "tired of seeing [such horses] coming down the center line." He's an App, you see. Now, he's NOT a Quarterloosa, he's an "Araloosa" and specifically bred for dressage, but Appaloosas have been generally designated as a stock breed (which is not entirely accurate, but apparently ApHC likes it that way....), so apparently we aren't welcome in Ms. Foy's dressage world. ;o)

[slc2]

Whooo hooo!

[titansrunfarm]

Whooo hooo!

ditto that!

[STF]

I enjoy Janet and find her very honest and one that tries to judge as fair as one can, and not breed biased. But, that is my opinion.

If Janet would have wrote that my horse was a "idiot" that day, Im sure he would have been and that way that. I, myself, like honest critques and dont do this sport to have sun shine blown up my butt.

Ill take someone like Janet anyday, next to someone who gives me false postives.

If a silly little "cow horse" comment upset anyone, then this sport may be a bit to harsh, as that is mild compared to a lot of talk that I hear some jerks doing on the side lines/rail.

As we would say here in good ol Tejas..... "Aint no sport for no sissys"..... :lol:

[MEP]

but. correct me if i am wrong, but isnt the main argument of the nerd herd (and others) that there aren't many 30 or 40% rides so the PS are not needed etc?

in other words: the entire argument that is being used against the PS is false?

i just reread what i wrote and it is unclear.

what i am trying to say is - many many folks here go on and on about how since there arent many/any rides at 30 or 40% then , since that was the reason given for the PS, that PS are not needed since those scores were not found.

however, it looks like what was said was RIDER SCORES or 3 or 4.

did you guys look at RIDER SCORES?

if not how can you say the premise was false?

The rider scores are not reported separately.

However:

If the rider scores are 3 or 4 (insufficient or lower) on a triple co-efficient mark (rider), but the rest of the marks for individual movements and the other collective marks are higher so that the total score ends up above 50%, then something is wrong with the way the test is scored. The rider affects each movement and therefore the 'bad rider' effect should be seen in every score given. You would need a lot of 5s (sufficient) and 6s or higher to balance out such a low rider score. So really, while the scores reported (and quantified in the report) are only the final total, not the individual scores for each movement and the collectives, there must be some very inconsistent scores being given out if the really bad abusive riders' tests are still somehow ending up over 50%.

The bottom line is: if the rider is performing at a 3 or 4 level but gets an overall mark of 50% or above, then something is wrong with the way the test was scored. And that is not saying that the judges are bad - it means that there is something inconsistent in the way the system works which is why the Performance Standards, while offered as the way to fix the problem, were not really the most effective way to deal with the issue and why the premise was faulty.

Edited to add: The Nerd Herd and the report are not saying that there is no bad riding out there because of the small number of very low scores. They are also not saying that Performance Standards are inappropriate always and forever. What they are saying is that Performance Standards are not the most effective way to address that particular problem, or the other issues of statistical significance that were discovered during the course of the study - regional variation, the effect of horse breeds, variation amongst judges, and level of test. All the issues should be examined carefully to craft a program (or programs) that can improve dressage in this country.

[Sandy M]

That's very different from what you said on page one:

Not really. I'm saying that this particular horse that I have now is big, a good mover, and not perhaps, the "typical" Appaloosa that ApHC seems to favor, i.e., the stock type. What I am saying is that I wouldn't like the "chasing cows" comment to be applied to him (or any other horse ) simply because he is an Appy - because of his color - rather than any other factor. I'm also saying that personally, with this horse, that has not happened. While he does not have a downhill build and therefore would not be branded with the "chasing cows" epithet, many of his fellow Appies ARE more stock horse conformation. However, I don't think that even someone who does have a more "modern" Appaloosa - the Quarterloosa type the registry favors - should be discriminated against or discouraged from participating. if they are as correct as they can be, they should get the scores they deserve; if they are dumped on the forehand with no correction from the rider, they should get the score they deserve. But merely the fact that they aren't necessarily bred for dressage should not mean they shouldn't show.

I'm saying that while the whole issue would not/should not affect me personally, as a long-time Appy enthusiast, I am aware that many of his "relatives" COULD possibly have that epithet applied to them, and therefore have sensitivity re such remarks,

I'm also saying that while in general I think that breed discrimination in general is a very minor factor these days, the "chasing cows" comments startled me into thinking that perhaps I was wrong and it WAS more of a factor than I thought . It hasn't happened for me, but that comment made me think maybe I'd just been lucky! My horse happens to have an uphill build, but he is minimally colored - obviously Appy but not "in your face" Appy... a chestnut with a small snowflake blanket and a little roaning. But again, that comment, while (after all this discussion) seems to have been INTENDED to critize on the forehand horses combined with bad riding that permits them to remain that way - it didn't come out that way, at least to me. Besides - while no one is going to say a Poco Bueno bred QH is a GP prospect, such a comment does seem to say (to me), if you have a horse that isn't purpose bred for dressage, or at least uphill build (say, a Morgan), then there is no point schooling or more specifically: showing, dressage. Do we really want to say that to the averge ammy dressage enthusiast with his/her (shades of you know who) less than $5k horse? Do we really think that allowing those riders to show and to move up as best they can is going to affect what happens at the elite level?

[egontoast]

Sandy, you said what you said. The quotes are there. I didn't add anything to them. I just pointed out the 2 different comments because it struck me how different they were.

You think they are the same. I think you radically backpedalled after Ms Foy joined the discussion. That's fine. Lots of people do that sort of thing on this board when the subject of the discussion appears.:)

[Beasmom]

Give it up, Sandy. Three weekends ago, one of the Guinea Pig horses at the Lendon Grey clinic was a Reining Horse (Foundation bred QH mare) who also did a little competitive dressage. Training and First levels. And while she admittedly may not make it to a competitive FEI level, there is no reason why this mare should not be able to learn and perform FEI level movements to the best of her ability.

No one has told you not to show your appaloosa in whatever discipline you choose.

YOU have chosen to "be offended". You can just as easily choose to get over it.

[MaximumChrome]

Long time lurker, afraid to post (let's face it guys, discussions get kind of heated here;)). But since Janet Brown posted - I thought maybe she'd be willing to lead a thread discussion, maybe with some other judges on the Performance Standards, and the reasoning behind it. I don't think the issue is dead - it will rear its head again.

What was the initial purpose - was it aimed at abuse of the double bridle? If so, why not just eliminate the double at 3rd level? That would force people to school at home in a snaffle as well, since they'd have to show in public in that same snaffle.

Was it to make the mid and upper levels reserved for the pro riders? If so, why? Is it any less "abusive" to see mediocre riding at the lower levels? Do you really want to eliminate the average rider from the shows? If so, how will you pay for the shows? Do you really want to eliminate the majority of your show and the majority of your membership from the hope and goal of a bronze (or silver) medal?

Sure, I recognize that not all riders are great - I'm one of those:winkgrin: Lucky me, I got my bronze - but I'd hate to see things get so hard that others can't do it. Not everyone can afford a fancy horse. Not everyone can afford to haul all over the mid-West or the South-East (where shows may be few and far between) chasing points. And those that can - is that really BETTER for the horses?

Oh, I hate to say it, but I think maybe SLC is right about a few things (am I allowed to say that on COTH? SLC was right?). The nerdherd report has morphed into something more than it started out to be. Sure, it statistically shows that scores are lower on certain breeds and in certain regions. Does that equal judge bias? The nerdherd didn't say it did, but many took it that way. No, it just proves that if you don't have the money to buy a fancy horse, and you don't have the money and access to training, your scores will be lower. Yup... And their is no proof that judges were not doing their jobs - without looking at individual movement and collective scores, we can only make broad conclusions. And we, the general non-judge public, need to understand more about how a judge scores before we can beat them up for how they score.

Anyway, not sure if dressagejanet is still here - but I thought a thread on the thinking behind the PS would be really interesting and worthwhile - and hpefully people could keep their emotions under control and make it a civilized and informative discussion?

[Sandy M]

Sandy, you said what you said. The quotes are there. I didn't add anything to them. I just pointed out the 2 different comments because it struck me how different they were.

You think they are the same. I think you radically backpedalled after Ms Foy joined the discussion. That's fine. Lots of people do that sort of thing on this board when the subject of the discussion appears.:)


Nope, perhaps my wording was less than clear, but I am NOT backpedaling. I've said from the beginning that I was not quarrelling with Ms. Foy's qualifications as a teacher/judge. I'm just pointing out that while the whole thing does not affect me directly, despite the fact that I ride an Appy, I found the comment ill-advised since it SEEMED to be expressing a breed bias (for ANY stock-type breed) and seemed to be expressing an elitest and/or exclusionary attitude. Is stock horse type conformation ideal for dressage? No. Does that mean that someone who has that type of horse should not ride and show dressage? No. But the comment seemed to indicate yes: we don't want to see that kind of horse.

We've had all sorts of explanations of what was really meant. Fine. I accept that the comment was meant to express a criticism of the bad riding that created that "dumped on the forehand" horse. But to me - and combined witht he whole performance standard thing - it just didn't come out that way.

[DressageGeek "Ribbon Ho"]

MaximumChrome - I appreciate your comments. But I really need to strongly reiterate something. The NerhHerd Report did not "morph" into anything. The data analysis stands, as do the conclusions based on the analyses. What happened was that some, slc2 included, either did not read the report, or did not understand the analyses and made their own interpretations, or made interpretations based on what someone else said.

We would love to have judge input. We feel that is very critical, if we are to better address the needs of our discipline.

[pluvinel]

Long time lurker, afraid to post (let's face it guys, discussions get kind of heated here;)). But since Janet Brown posted - I thought maybe she'd be willing to lead a thread discussion, maybe with some other judges on the Performance Standards, and the reasoning behind it. I don't think the issue is dead - it will rear its head again.
.........

The Nerd Herd members are actively soliciting judge input.


.........
What was the initial purpose?
.......
That is a great question that was posed by the Nerd Herd. One could ask what qualities define a "good" rider? Sitting a bucking bronc? Jumping a 4' oxer without stirrups? Just what exactly are the qualities we look for in a rider? We should clarify these questions before embarking on qualifying.

The analysis of 2009 scores is underway. One rider showed 4th level under 9 judges. The scores vary from ~57% to ~67%. Is that a "good rider"?


......
Oh, I hate to say it, but I think maybe SLC is right about a few things (am I allowed to say that on COTH? SLC was right?). The nerdherd report has morphed into something more than it started out to be. Sure, it statistically shows that scores are lower on certain breeds and in certain regions. Does that equal judge bias? The nerdherd didn't say it did, but many took it that way. No, it just proves that if you don't have the money to buy a fancy horse, and you don't have the money and access to training, your scores will be lower. Yup... And their is no proof that judges were not doing their jobs - without looking at individual movement and collective scores, we can only make broad conclusions. And we, the general non-judge public, need to understand more about how a judge scores before we can beat them up for how they score.
.....
Perhaps some people on this board "may" be confused between the concept of statistics on "samples" and statistics on "populations."

Sample statistics: You have a POPULATION of 100 people. You randomly select a SAMPLE of 10 to measure height. The conclusions you draw infer what is the average height of the other 90 even though you didn't measure the other 90.

Population statistics: You have a POPULATION of 100. You stand them all up and measure every person. You then compute the average height. The measurement of average height is "truth" abouth the height of the population because you measured each and every person. There were no inferences made about height. You measured the heights and computed the average.

The Nerd Herd report measured the entire population (over 45,000 scores) of scores for the 2008 year. The statistics reported were as robust as adding 2+2 to get 4. There were no "inferential statistics" used when computing average scores by region, breed, level. The report did not make any assumptions as to "why" there were difference.

....
Anyway, not sure if dressagejanet is still here - but I thought a thread on the thinking behind the PS would be really interesting and worthwhile - and hpefully people could keep their emotions under control and make it a civilized and informative discussion?
The Nerd Herd are asking for an active discussion to:
(1) Define "the problem" that gave rise to "perf. std"
(2) Solicit judges' opinions of the state of judging
(3) Provide a forum for ideas

[MaximumChrome]

Hi Pluvinel and DressageGeek. I do understand the difference between population and sample of the population. When I say the study "morphed", I meant many readers came to conclusions, perhaps not conclusions mentioned in the report. That is easy to do, especially on such a public bulletin board.

Such as the conclusion that judges are not doing their jobs. Or that judges are biased against everything except Warmbloods. The report doesn't tell us that - the report tells us that un-Warmbloods score lower in total. Of course, when we look at all other factors, we realize that might be because people who can't afford a Warmblood may still want to ride in dressage. They usually can't afford the extensive training and coaching needed, just as they can't afford the more pricey horse. They still compete, they still ride, but they do score lower. They might have even converted their beloved horse from another discipline - I see that happen all the time. Is that breed bias? I would say no, that is training.

And people who don't just compete in dressage may choose an un-Warmblood because that horse does better in other disciplines - so they 'multi-task' their horse (for example, the Arabian owner who wants to show on the Arabian circuit in hunter and western pleasure, also chooses to do dressage). They don't focus their training efforts only on dressage. They score lower (but when you consider they are also showing several other disciplines, pretty good for that horse and rider!). So there are many conclusions I might draw from the actual results - that un-Warmbloods score lower.

So, I don't disagree with the statistics presented, I just don't think all readers come to the same conclusions based on those statistics. The statistics tell us some regions score lower. I agree with that - can't argue with it. That doesn't mean the judges are tougher in those regions. It might mean there is less access to good training - which means less high level pros showing (bringing the scores down), and less help for the amatuers and local pros (bringing the scores down).

Another thing to consider - it was a study of a single year, not of multiple years. It would be interesting to look at a multiyear analysis to see if the trend shifts in any of the variables. I know when I look at a single year of a single breed's results (USDF All Breeds), it can shift dramatically, since it is now a much smaller population. Is that shift reflected in the broader trends? Has their been a shift with higher scores to the Warmbloods and lower scores to the un-Warmbloods? And - even more interesting, what happened at 2nd and 3rd level and 4th level before the rule change allowing the double at 3rd, and afterwards?

So, I am not questioning your methods or the initial conclusions at all - I question the assumptions that people draw from the data. Many people have made varying assumptions, hence the morph.

I hope USEF and USDF are considering the report as well. And I feel your requests to define the problem and ask for input (in a public setting/forum) from judges and the dressage community are excellent ideas.

Oh, Pluvinel - in response to your question about the 4th level rider. I would say we can't conclude whether the rider is good or not based on the information you provided. We can't tell if the judges felt the rider was good or not. What rider score did that rider receive - range, median, mode, and mean score? I'd also say - if the horse/rider combo got a 57 once, a 59 once, then 7 scores of 65 to 67, we can probably conclude the horse's training and the riding is fairly good. If we knew there was a major storm, mud and wind, durnig the 57 and 59 ride (now we have more data), we feel even better about our conclusion that horse and rider are consistenly fairly good.