PDA

View Full Version : New concept for dressage - 2 judges, one test = 2 shows



snow horse
Feb. 15, 2011, 03:08 PM
Does anyone think this idea (stolen from the Arabian show folks) would ever fly at dressage shows? It is a very efficient, cost saving method maximize our show dollars.

One dressage court - two judges - each judge is considered a separate show from the other judge. The scores are NOT combined for an average. The competitor rides one test and receives two distinct scores, each associated to a separate show number.

This method is popular with the Arabian breed shows. The classes are judged with each judge independent of the other. Two sets of awards are distributed.

For those that say that the scores wouldn't be equal as the view from C is always different than the view from B or E, well yes. It always is. Does it really matter?

I am wondering if this system has a future at dressage shows? The cost of showing is not coming down. I'm not suggesting that the show would cost the same as with only one judge. The class price would have to be increased to cover the cost of the second judge.

The value is maximized for those competitors that need to stable and pay for hotel accommodations for each of the shows they attend. Gas in our area is $3.50/gallon today, by summer it will be $4.00 per gallon.

The value is less to show organizers who rely on competitors needing more scores and more shows to meet GMO and USDF year end award requirements.

Over and over we hear that equestrian sports are pricing themselves beyond the reach of many that have supported the sports for years. Can we take an existing, working, idea from another equestrian activity and utilize it for our benefit?

netg
Feb. 15, 2011, 04:07 PM
The assumption for one judge-type tests is that the judge is at C, and comparisons are made based upon that assumption, so that's where I would see a problem.

Arabian isn't the only breed show which has been doing this for many years, but with all of them - the judging is generally based upon a ranking of the horses present, not a score to be used for comparisons to others at the national level.

A similar idea that my GMO is doing more is two one day shows on the same weekend - so you pay stabling once, haul once, etc., but two separate shows. They have two rings running at once, so the judges just switch places the second day.

atlatl
Feb. 15, 2011, 04:14 PM
AQHA has done this for years.

I don't think it will fly for dressage as netg points out; when there's a single judge, they sit at C.

SGray
Feb. 15, 2011, 04:18 PM
two words "mileage rule"

Velvet
Feb. 15, 2011, 04:25 PM
Love the idea! I would like it. Nice way to get it all done at once, especially with gas prices going up. No mileage rule for us dressage riders. ;)

PineTreeFarm
Feb. 15, 2011, 04:46 PM
. No mileage rule for us dressage riders. ;)

GR308

http://www.usef.org/documents/ruleBook/2011/03-generalrules.pdf

To see the Dressage mileage charts scroll down past the jumper charts.

If I recall correctly, Eventing is not subject to mileage.

mbm
Feb. 15, 2011, 05:03 PM
wow. those rules are insane. who came up with that cr@p ?

snow horse
Feb. 15, 2011, 05:15 PM
We host 3 recognized shows a year and the next closest show is 3 hrs away. I had to prove to the USEF last year that one of our shows was not breaking the mile rule. The show in question was 4 hrs away from our show, over several mt ranges. The most ambitious crow could still not have made the journey in under 100 miles.

Two shows held simultaneously compliment each other, they do not compete against each other.

This concept is probably more relevant to competitors that do live in remote areas. I been involved with managing shows for over 20 years, from USEF selection trials to local * shows. Shows in remote areas of the country are having a difficult time breaking even. The number of competitors is down substantially; one court instead of two; one judge instead of two; shorter days; tests not held due to no entries; and even in some cases, shows canceled due to lack of entries.

We all may have our opinions on the matter but I have never seen any data that proves a score earned at one letter is consistently higher or lower than a score earned at any other letter. A consistently high or low scoring judge will be consistent no matter which letter they are viewing the test from. Dressage is an opinion-based sport based on an established standard level of proficiency. I show an FEI horse. C, B, K, H – I appreciate the judge’s opinion no matter which letter it was viewed from.

Janet
Feb. 15, 2011, 06:28 PM
It would never fly for dressage, because the results go on to be scored (for year end awards) differently.

Suppose you have a really inconsistent horse.

At one show, done the way you suggest, the horse goes well, and gets a 70 and a 72.

The rest of your scores are in the low 60s.

Another competitor goes only to normal (one score) shows and has one good show with a score of 75, and the rest of her scores are in the low 60s (say identical to the first rider).

YOur approach would put the first rider ahead of the second rider, even though the second rider cleaerly did better.

Conversely, if you have mostly good scores, but at one "double" show you horse has a meltdown, you will be unduly penalized compared top another roider who has one meltdown at a normal show.

xQHDQ
Feb. 15, 2011, 08:54 PM
How do you have both judges sit at C? When I've scribed there's barely room for me and the judge. I can't imaging 4 people in that little box!

As an exhibitor, I wouldn't like that. In an ideal world, all judges would be trained the same, so they should score the same ride very similarly. Yes, I know we don't live in an ideal world, but I like to think that our judges are pretty good. So, 2 people (at C) judging my 1 ride wouldn't tell me anything more than 1 judge. I rather have 2 shows on one weekend. It would give me a chance to ride again.

dghunter
Feb. 15, 2011, 09:09 PM
I think I would enjoy hearing two judges' opinions on the same test but not necessarily in this format. Janet makes a really good point about the fairness of it unless all shows were really two shows with two judges and no more one judge, one show type shows. But I don't see that happening!

yaya
Feb. 15, 2011, 09:18 PM
It would never fly for dressage, because the results go on to be scored (for year end awards) differently.

Suppose you have a really inconsistent horse.

At one show, done the way you suggest, the horse goes well, and gets a 70 and a 72.

The rest of your scores are in the low 60s.

Another competitor goes only to normal (one score) shows and has one good show with a score of 75, and the rest of her scores are in the low 60s (say identical to the first rider).

YOur approach would put the first rider ahead of the second rider, even though the second rider cleaerly did better.

Conversely, if you have mostly good scores, but at one "double" show you horse has a meltdown, you will be unduly penalized compared top another roider who has one meltdown at a normal show.

And it is different at the breed shows that do this multiple-judging how??

Say you have a really good horse (Arabian, Paso Fino, whatever) that usually wins the classes he's in. You have a bad day at a double-judged show, and now you have two 6th places (or a 4th and a 6th, depending on whether the judges agree or not) on your points record instead of the usual firsts.

The breed shows don't seem to have a problem with that, why should dressage riders?

I've been to Paso shows where one day might be one judge, one day might be two judges, in the same weekend. The same competitors show both days. They don't seem to have a problem with one day counting more times than another.

It just takes longer to announce the winners when the judges don't agree and you have to go through the placings multiple times instead of handing the riders multiples of the same-placed ribbons.

Coppers mom
Feb. 15, 2011, 09:24 PM
Sorry, but that seems so stupid. If I pay to ride two tests, I want to ride two tests. I don't want to do any "two birds with one stone" crap when I'm trying to get my horse into the ring and ride the tests I need to qualify, get mileage, whatever.

TBDressage916
Feb. 15, 2011, 09:29 PM
I had been thinking about this for the local schooling shows, but slightly different. Most of the people only do up to 1st level with a few 2nd level tests, so I was thinking in the am 1 judge could do say the intro and 2nd level tests, and in a second ring judge 2 could do the training and 1st level tests, and then switch for the afternoon.

that way someone could do training 2 and 3 twice under 2 judges in one day. I know some people think that is a lot for the horse, but personally I think 4 training level tests in one day is more than doable for my horse and I. what do people think of this?

CHT
Feb. 15, 2011, 10:16 PM
Is this about point chasing? I cannot see any other reason to want seperate placings for seperate judges.

If I recall correctly for breed shows, the competitor has to pay for the class per judge, so if that is the case with this plan, then it would make showing more expensive not less so. It would be annoying to be a non-point chaser but to have to pay for double judging regardless.

TBdressage, your idea is interesting, but for me, 4 tests in one day would be a lot. It would be nice to be able to test under two different judges at the same show though. Dissappointing to go to a multi judge show, and not be seen by all the judges at some point.

TBDressage916
Feb. 16, 2011, 07:46 AM
I think that the idea is that it would be cheaper as far as travel money, travel time, stabling ect.

For me it is sort of about point chasing, I know its just a local club but I really want to submit scores for their schooling show year end awards (hey we can't all have olympic goals right?), but you have to have scores from 2 different judges, and there are only 3 shows. So if you have something the weekend of one show and can't make it, and then you have a bad show, you have nothing to submit. So if you held two shows in one day, it would be cheaper in gas, you wouldn't have to stay over, and it would only waste one summer weekend day, since you know some 2nd cousin who would be horribly offended if you don't show up, will be getting married on one show weekend-its a given. and since I think last year I counted 5 1st level riders and 1 second level rider, thats why I thought that riding the same 2 tests twice in one day isn't a lot for most horses.

hoopoe
Feb. 16, 2011, 08:44 AM
the rules restrict horse going to three tests per day. If you are truly warming up and performing at peak, this is more than enough for a horse.

the rule was made for a reason. I saw its need at an Arab show Dressage division where the same horse appeared for easily 7 or 8 rides. It was truly dragging at the end and the scores got lower and lower.

Most shows here are trying the two shows one weekend format. I think a lot of people are happy with lowering the impact of driving and multiple weekends of shows. The opportunity to get 2 Q scores in one weekend is a huge plus.

When working a show with multiple judges, show organizers do attempt to get riders in front of multiple judges over the course of their classes. Savvy managers understand that it is prudent to not have the same judge covering shows in the same area. One year over the course of 5 shows half my rides were judged by the same judge. I was lucky to get Q rides in front of different judges ( just barely)

The multi judge one ring = two shows would require the re writing of the rules too far reaching. There is already a suitable option in place which results in convenience to the rider , an easier impact on the horse and a true evaluation of the riders scores.

In most cases, the same riders would get the ribbons from both judges. It is not likely to spread the wealth.

It would be impossible to get two judges in one booth together. You simply cannot effectively communicate to a scribe and expect that concentration and accuracy ( and truth?) would happen under such circumstance.

The biggest issue is judges sitting at C / E-B a normal configuration, see the ride from two different perspectives. It is not unusual for scores to range about 5%. The averaging of score tempers this effect. If each score stood alone it could , potentially drop someone year end average quite a bit.

jcotton
Feb. 16, 2011, 08:49 AM
I think it is very doable. The judges both sit at C, sharing the c.l., their scribes to sit to the outside of each judge. The scribes must be very attentive and have very good hearing.

The key to this is: if your horse is not going well, you have to get through the ride and take your score. Or know when to excuse yourself and take the loss of no score --which could be a benefit in some circumstances.

Napoles
Feb. 16, 2011, 08:52 AM
In Germany for a lot of the lower level classes, there are a number of horses in the ring together all performing the test at the same time! One judge!! :D

My mum is a dressage and eventing judge and I think looking at it from her perspective, it would be difficult to have both judges at C as obviously they should not be able to hear each other, so I don't know how you would get around that one.

I suppose it could work having one judge at C and the other at E as at Championships/ higher levels etc., - they will have different perspectives on the test certainly, but I wouldn't neccessarily see that as a bad thing.

jcotton
Feb. 16, 2011, 09:04 AM
Having scribed from E alot. It is amazing how many points in a test people lose by being inaccurate.
The halts at X, reinbacks at X (in 2nd level), simple changes at X(in 2nd level), lengthenings that don't start or finish at the letters and lose energy and focus along the way.

Napoles
Feb. 16, 2011, 09:10 AM
Definitely, but it would still be consistent in the same way that if someone had to halt at C, rein back at C etc. The judge at E sees the same thing for every competitor - they are not neccessarily at a disadvantage by being judged by a judge at E as it is the same for everyone.

However, I do think having more than one judge works better to give an accurate score of test when the results are amalgamated for obvious reasons.

Janet
Feb. 16, 2011, 09:13 AM
I think that the idea is that it would be cheaper as far as travel money, travel time, stabling ect.
It can't possibly make the travel time, travel money, stabling etc cheaper PER SHOW, or even PER RIDE.

All it can do is make it cheaper PER SCORE.

As such, it is purely and simply an attampt to make POINT/SCORE CHASING cheaper.

If the goal is to have scores from more different judges, and the show can afford to hire a second judge, have one judge for all the "test 1" rides, the other for the "test 2" rides, and some form of alternation for the "test 3" rides. That way you pereserve "one ride" = "one score", but can get scores from multiple judges at the same show.

Velvet
Feb. 16, 2011, 09:25 AM
Huh. I guess I thought they wouldn't apply with something like this--and with two shows on one weekend. Weird. Never really read the show manager rules too much.

Velvet
Feb. 16, 2011, 09:27 AM
It can't possibly make the travel time, travel money, stabling etc cheaper PER SHOW, or even PER RIDE.



Yes/no. I mean, it will make OVERALL showing cheaper since you can do two shows in one day. You'll save on travel and other show expenses (think about stalls, shavings, secretarial/office fees, etc.).

I see this as a win. Not saying I see it happening any time soon, but it would be a win for show management and for competitiors. They could spend all their time on setting up a show for one weekend rather than two. So for show management that would also save them on rental fees for the facilities, clean up fees for all the stabling, etc.

TBDressage916
Feb. 16, 2011, 09:30 AM
If I only have to drive to one show instead of two shows it does make travel cheaper. It cuts my gas and time in half, and if it is run in one day I do not have to pay for overnight stabling or a hotel room. I would expect to pay for the entry fees as if it were two shows. Gas is probably my biggest expense for the schooling shows I go to.

dghunter
Feb. 16, 2011, 09:32 AM
It's definitely cheaper. You're only paying for one trip instead of two. One weekend of stabling instead of two. One weekend of hotel rooms, not two. Etc... Unless they suddenly jacked up all the rates including hotels and gas. I could maybe see them make stabling more expensive if they were going to be doing less shows but I don't really see hotels and gas being raised because there are less shows. I doubt the gas companies care that much about us :lol:

TBDressage916
Feb. 16, 2011, 09:56 AM
I'm probably not doing a good job of looking at the whole picture, because honestly the only thing that I do is local schooling shows. So I'm not sure how, or if the rules would apply for number of tests per day, and milage, and I know there have been numerous debates of how many tests per day a horse can handle, but I really can't see 4 training level tests in a day being too much, of course we also trail ride for 4-5 hours at a time so 4 4minute tests would be a breeze for my mare!

Janet
Feb. 16, 2011, 10:01 AM
It's definitely cheaper. You're only paying for one trip instead of two. One weekend of stabling instead of two. One weekend of hotel rooms, not two. Etc... Unless they suddenly jacked up all the rates including hotels and gas. I could maybe see them make stabling more expensive if they were going to be doing less shows but I don't really see hotels and gas being raised because there are less shows. I doubt the gas companies care that much about us :lol:
Please read for comprehension.

It IS cheaper "PER SCORE".

It is NOT cheaper "PER RIDE".

It is NOT cheaper "PER SHOW".

IF YOU ARE CHASING POINTS, it might let you go to FEWER SHOWS.

Janet
Feb. 16, 2011, 10:02 AM
If I only have to drive to one show instead of two shows it does make travel cheaper. It cuts my gas and time in half, and if it is run in one day I do not have to pay for overnight stabling or a hotel room. I would expect to pay for the entry fees as if it were two shows. Gas is probably my biggest expense for the schooling shows I go to.

UNLESS YOU ARE CHASING POINTS, what is the advantage of going to fewer shows?

TBDressage916
Feb. 16, 2011, 10:10 AM
for me I work at least one weekend a month, try to clinic one weekend a month, have a family, and have other obligations that clog up summer weekends. So to do two shows in one weekend allows me to have two different opinions from two different judges without having to juggle my schedule as much.

Janet
Feb. 16, 2011, 10:12 AM
for me I work at least one weekend a month, try to clinic one weekend a month, have a family, and have other obligations that clog up summer weekends. So to do two shows in one weekend allows me to have two different opinions from two different judges without having to juggle my schedule as much.

That would be satisfied just as well by having one judge do all the "test 1" rides and another do all the "test 2" rides, etc.

SGray
Feb. 16, 2011, 10:23 AM
if you nixed the mileage rule -- had a facility with multiple rings -- you could have a show in each ring -- so instead of traveling to three different one ring events you could go show three times at one facility at three events under three different judges and if you did well you could be done with qualifying and have the rest of your year free for clinics, etc

just another take on the idea

TBDressage916
Feb. 16, 2011, 10:27 AM
if one judge did both of my test 1 rides and one did all of my test 2 rides, I would only be getting one opinion on each test really. I'm not denying that I do want the points, so it is some about point chasing too, so the oportunity to show under two different judges would benefit that. To me part of joining a club is to have that fun year end award banquet, but I almost never am able to squeeze in enough shows to get the required amount of scores. If I didn't have to change my work weekend, or my planned vacation to get to a show that would just be more convenient for me is my point, and I think that I'm not alone in having a really full schedule as an adult amature who's budget only allows for a limited number of schooling shows.

mbm
Feb. 16, 2011, 10:44 AM
not sure what the argument is about.... here we have weekend shows that are two different shows..... so you only pay for travel/stabling/hotel etc once but get the benefit of 2 separate shows.

the mileage rule is idiotic - seems to me that shows should be under the same pressure as any other commodity..... do well or die.

Halt Near X
Feb. 16, 2011, 10:48 AM
Under the current system, to be in the running for year-end awards, you have to prove: 1) multiple judges will reward your ride with high scores, and 2) that you can perform high-score quality rides on a consistent basis.

Sure, with two judges, one test, you can prove the first point faster.

But you completely throw consistency out the window.

At that point, the scores are less about whether a horse/rider pair have proven themselves over time, and more about whether they had a great day or two during the summer (not even a weekend or two -- which can happen under the current setup -- just a day or two).

I don't find the idea very appealing. I admire someone who can perform consistently well a lot more than I admire someone who can capitalize on one good ride.

dghunter
Feb. 16, 2011, 10:56 AM
Please read for comprehension.

It IS cheaper "PER SCORE".

It is NOT cheaper "PER RIDE".

It is NOT cheaper "PER SHOW".

IF YOU ARE CHASING POINTS, it might let you go to FEWER SHOWS.

I did read for comprehension. I was saying what is cheaper. Not what is not cheaper! I was saying for me personally it would be cheaper. This year will be my first year showing dressage but I did hunters for many years so I'm not new to showing in general! Perhaps you could try reading for comprehension :winkgrin: It could also let people who want to get points but also get experience balance cheaper shows (ie schooling for experience) and more expensive shows (ie rated). That's probably what I would do, a mix of half and half. Schooling shows are much closer to me than rated!

CHT
Feb. 16, 2011, 10:58 AM
I agree with HappyVagrent. If you are point chasing, then you have to go to the shows. That is why they do the year end awards...to motivate people to go to as many of their shows as possible. If you cannot go to the shows, give up on the point chasing.

Alternatively, change the club rules. Have the rules stipulate that riders can submit scores per judge, not per class..so if the show has two judges judging one class, you could submit both scores. Have the rules require say, at least 4 scores, under three different judges and two different shows.

Of course, if shows did switch from one judge to two in a class to make the point chasers happy, the class fees are going to INCREASE per ride, which may make the non point chasers less happy.

Velvet
Feb. 16, 2011, 10:59 AM
Under the current system, to be in the running for year-end awards, you have to prove: 1) multiple judges will reward your ride with high scores, and 2) that you can perform high-score quality rides on a consistent basis.

Sure, with two judges, one test, you can prove the first point faster.

But you completely throw consistency out the window.

At that point, the scores are less about whether a horse/rider pair have proven themselves over time, and more about whether they had a great day or two during the summer (not even a weekend or two -- which can happen under the current setup -- just a day or two).

I don't find the idea very appealing. I admire someone who can perform consistently well a lot more than I admire someone who can capitalize on one good ride.

Yeah, well, we've already thrown out "needing to know how to ride well" and "needing to know how to train a horse to the level you compete" with people buying made horses to get their medals. Why not add this? We've gone past looking over the edge of the slippery slope to throwing ourselves over the edge and screaming "WEEEEEEE..."

Fillabeana
Feb. 16, 2011, 11:37 AM
Much cheaper to:
1)Add a new year-end award, giving a nice trophy to someone who can only show at limited times (ie three shows per year), maybe even to someone whose scores are either consistent, or improving with each show.

2)Get scores via videotape of tests, you should be able to get more than one opinion per test this way. Also, add a year-end award to someone who 'shows by videotape' in some capacity.

3)I like the idea of more than one judge per show, allowing more judges to see you at a particular place. Surely training level horses can put in 4 tests per day, first-level at least 3- ESPECIALLY if one warm-up can suffice for two tests, assuming show rings could be coordinated. For example, ride T1 at 10:20 in one ring and ride T2 in another ring at 10:45. That should give you some time to 'fix' something small, like halts, or trot/canter transitions, that went awry in your test before you go back in the arena.

I don't have a lot of sympathy for point chasing. If your riding isn't about improving your own ride for your own sake and your horse's training, then I dont' really want to hear about the year-end awards. Positive reinforcement, SURE, but point chasing is so likely to get you to make a decision FOR the points, at the horse's (or your own) expense, at some time.

ACP
Feb. 16, 2011, 12:12 PM
At Arabian shows which are concurrent - more than one judge - the dressage classes are not concurrent. Only classes where the horses compete as a group are concurrent. There is going to be a concurrent show in Raleigh, NC, the second weekend of April. It is sponsored by a Region XII group, and a Region XV group. On Saturday, Ring 1, Judge 1, is Region XII, which Ring 2, Judge 2 is Region XV. On Sunday, Ring 1, Judge 2 is Region XII, while Ring 2, Judge 1, is region XV. I may have that slightly backwards but you get the idea. this is appealing as it enables one to qualify for two different Regional Championship Shows. We won't do that, it is too far to haul - eight hours, and we could only afford to do one Regional show anyway. So concurrent doesn't offer that much unless you are chasing points.

suzier444
Feb. 16, 2011, 12:35 PM
To me, one test is one snapshot in time and deserves one score accordingly. An aggregate consisting of multiple scores should give you a good idea of how you're doing on an overall basis, not just on one ride. Anything else just feels like cheating to me. JMO.

TBDressage916
Feb. 16, 2011, 12:39 PM
I don't think that point chasing is as negative as its being made out to be. I'm not going to show my lame horse for a end of a year end ribbon, but if its such a bad thing to want a year end banquet then why don't we do away with showing all together and just do clinics? I love that my club includes those people who can only afford schooling shows. I go to shows to show what I can do, and I enjoy being rewarded for a job well done. It sort of seems like to want to do well makes me a little "white trash" on this board for lack of a better term.

the thought of combining shows makes it easier on a person, and since it is still considered 2 shows would make just as much money for a club, but half as much travel cost for an individual. It seems like a lot of other disciplines have actually done this, and dressage is lagging behind. I don't know why it is throwing quality over the cliff, and I am specifically talking about schooling shows, not messing with the rated shows.

Janet
Feb. 16, 2011, 01:11 PM
I don't think that point chasing is as negative as its being made out to be. ... I love that my club includes those people who can only afford schooling shows. I go to shows to show what I can do, and I enjoy being rewarded for a job well done.

I quite agree. I just don't think the RULES should be changed when the ONLY reason is to make it easier to chase points.
Especially when you can achieve most of the desired result within the rules by having two judges, each judging individually.


the thought of combining shows makes it easier on a person, and since it is still considered 2 shows would make just as much money for a club, but half as much travel cost for an individual.
But if you are charging a double entry fee, it makes it MORE expensive for the person who either isn't going for points, or already plans to go to enough shows no to need the doubling up.



It seems like a lot of other disciplines have actually done this, and dressage is lagging behind.

I am not positive, but I am pretty sure it is only BREEDS, not DISCIPLINES that are doing this. And certainly not any of the Olympic disciplines.


I don't know why it is throwing quality over the cliff, and I am specifically talking about schooling shows, not messing with the rated shows.
It is not "throwing quality over the cliff".

Schooling shows can do whatever they want.

But I don't think you will get much support from the people who are already going to all three shows.

snow horse
Feb. 16, 2011, 01:23 PM
I think it's funny. I proposed this idea from two perspectives: I'm managed shows for years and I seen these shows transform from revenue earners to barely breaking even and some now loose money. Less riders, less horses, less sponsors, and less revenue dollars all around. I also live in a area that requires expensive travel expenses to show. At no point did I think of "point chasing" - which cracks me up because those words never entered my mind!

I truly think that "something gotta give" or our sport will continue to flat line and not grow beyond its current numbers. The USEF tried with the Opportunity classes but the value they offered the competitors was minimal but time will tell if these classes are continued to be offered and entered.

Why can't we take ideas from other disciplines whose numbers dwarf ours?
Why can't we reach across the table and learn from each other - maximizing the strengths and minimizing the weaknesses?

TBDressage916
Feb. 16, 2011, 01:52 PM
If a club holds 2 shows on one day instead of 2 seperate shows, then yes it is cheaper for all people competing, not just us "point chasers". To ride 4 seperate tests in front of 2 judges (judge one at ring 1 and judge two at ring 2) means you only have to travel once. If you were planning on going to both shows anyway then it is cheaper for everyone. If you weren't planning on going to two shows then you wouldn't have to show under both judges if they were in different rings, and you could pick which judge to show under. I think it might raise numbers because if I was only planning on going to one show, I may think "oh what the heck I'll do one more class since I'm already there" and it could bring in more money.

I think the original purpose of this thread (forgive me if i'm wrong snow horse!) is that the price of travel is not getting cheaper, and that shows for the most part are not getting closer, so we need to come up with a way to make showing easier on people, and make it profitable for people to run a show so they keep having them. Which is a great discussion to start!

Janet
Feb. 16, 2011, 02:12 PM
If a club holds 2 shows on one day instead of 2 seperate shows, then yes it is cheaper for all people competing, not just us "point chasers". To ride 4 seperate tests in front of 2 judges (judge one at ring 1 and judge two at ring 2) means you only have to travel once. If you were planning on going to both shows anyway then it is cheaper for everyone. If you weren't planning on going to two shows then you wouldn't have to show under both judges if they were in different rings, and you could pick which judge to show under.
That is very true, and I think that is a great idea.

But that is NOT what was originally proposed, which was to have TWO judges simultaneously judge ONE ride and have it count as TWO VALID SCORES for year end awards.

TBDressage916
Feb. 16, 2011, 02:27 PM
That is very true, and I think that is a great idea.

But that is NOT what was originally proposed, which was to have TWO judges simultaneously judge ONE ride and have it count as TWO VALID SCORES for year end awards.

Then we have been arguing about two seperate things all along. LOL how very Chronicle of us. because this is what I have been talking about since my first post, way back on the first page, I probably just didn't write it very clearly.

CHT
Feb. 16, 2011, 04:08 PM
TBdressage I agree that what you are posting makes sense; two rings with two judges. it is the one ring with two judges that I would have an issue with, assuming of course that this plan would then increase the cost of the class.

Petstorejunkie
Feb. 16, 2011, 06:47 PM
in my perspective, wanting to be judged twice on one ride and have it count for two does two things
hits me doubly hard if my horse and i have a craptastic day
means i don't enjoy showing and want to get it over with.

neither are things I want to see happen.

Alpha Mare
Feb. 16, 2011, 09:22 PM
I agree with Janet.

In comparison to other disciplines the dressage year end awards seem to require much less travel - you could qualify for USDF (with high enough scores) with only 4 shows if each show had 2 judges and you rode 2 tests (here in the NE that is very feasible, there are many 2 ring shows).

Schooling show awards can be anything the club/barn/organiziation wants them to be - high point for the year for a level (just 1 ride), 'achievement' awards with 2 scores from different judges over x% at a level, whatever. And I agree it's nice to have a goal.

The idea of 2 shows, same day with each ring being it's own show makes some sense to me....alternatively, USDF could just eliminate the # of shows requirements and say 8 rides, 4 judges to qualify.

I do not know how the Arabian shows work - are there #s awarded or only placings? If placings (like hunters) the ordinal value (1st, 2nd, 3rd) can be gamed by a competitor going to a 2 judge show with light attendance...

The deal with dressage is the actual value of the score is supposed to be comparable across rides/shows rather than the relative placing.

So, not sure how Arabian class results are tallied... but I really would like them as a breed to adhere to the USDF regs on 2 classes per horse. Have heard from other judges that the riders are doing the horses no favor going in many classes, the scores just deteriorate over the day.

mjhco
Feb. 16, 2011, 09:41 PM
The arguments AGAINST having one class count for TWO has been argued extensively by everyone I know.

In the end, for some shows it has worked very well. For some exhibitors it has worked very well.

The main thing is that enough people kept open minds about possibilities for show venues, rules, opportunities to TRY something new and different.

What works in some areas might not work in others.

But in some venues / areas shows need/needed a kick in the rear to make it reasonable to hold shows and to get exhibitors to attend.

Your mileage may vary

Boomer
Feb. 17, 2011, 08:28 AM
Love the idea! I would like it. Nice way to get it all done at once, especially with gas prices going up. No mileage rule for us dressage riders. ;)

If I had a really good ride, I'd love two great scores!

But if I had a crappy ride, I really don't want two crappy scores (one would be plenty, thanks- lol). :lol:

Interesting idea tho.

Fillabeana
Feb. 17, 2011, 04:28 PM
but if its such a bad thing to want a year end banquet then why don't we do away with showing all together and just do clinics?

Because a competition is about seeing whether we are 'competent' at a particular level/sport. It is also made into a 'who is the best' type of thing.

But anyway, competing is a 'for real' , no 'do-overs', in-front-of-an-expert experience that does not happen in clinic situations, as they exist right now. And that 'for real, no do-overs' experience IS good for you, just perhaps not every weekend all summer long!

And by the way, with some thought on my part, I've decided that my opinion is that year-end awards are a good tool for stallion owners to promote their stallions, and also their get. So, there IS a place for them, I am just disappointed that for some year-end awards, there is a lot of hauling and showing- perhaps beyond what is really good for the horse.

Boomer
Feb. 18, 2011, 06:31 AM
Then we have been arguing about two seperate things all along. LOL how very Chronicle of us. because this is what I have been talking about since my first post, way back on the first page, I probably just didn't write it very clearly.

At Regionals I had two judges for my champ class and had a difference of 6 percentage points between them.

If each judges score counted seperately, not as an average.... you could get a good score and a crappy one at the same time. So if my champ class had been a regular class to qualify, I would get an 64% and a 58% on the same test, but would Qualify with one of those scores? Hhm..

TBDressage916
Feb. 18, 2011, 08:31 AM
Snow horse's original post was about having two judges in one ring like the paint, or arabs do. My idea was holding two shows in one day, two rings, two judges, each counting as their own show.

I was thinking more about it, it might be nice for people to only have to travel once, but do you think that it might be cheaper for a club too, since they would only have to rent a facility once? And once again I'm only talking about lower level schooling shows, where the majority of people do intro or training.

We have a limited area so to hold one ring with two judges is actually really hard because there is a good chance that one of the judges will be judging another show, so if their names are on two tests, you don't fufil the requirements of different judges for year end awards.

xQHDQ
Feb. 18, 2011, 08:48 AM
As someone else mentioned, I show because I like showing, not for points or awards (although those are nice). Having 2 scores for 1 test takes some of the fun out of it.

And, if I don't get very similar scores from the two judges at C, then something is wrong with the judging. (Different scores from a judge at C and B for example is understandable - different perspectives).

netg
Feb. 18, 2011, 10:16 AM
Snow horse's original post was about having two judges in one ring like the paint, or arabs do. My idea was holding two shows in one day, two rings, two judges, each counting as their own show.

I was thinking more about it, it might be nice for people to only have to travel once, but do you think that it might be cheaper for a club too, since they would only have to rent a facility once? And once again I'm only talking about lower level schooling shows, where the majority of people do intro or training.

We have a limited area so to hold one ring with two judges is actually really hard because there is a good chance that one of the judges will be judging another show, so if their names are on two tests, you don't fufil the requirements of different judges for year end awards.

Schooling shows already don't have to follow all the rules of rated shows. The organization doing them can also choose what is required for year end awards. I don't really see the point for a schooling show.

As I stated earlier, for rated shows, what our GMO has started doing is shows two days in a row. We have two rings/two judges going, and having the shows consecutively means they can switch judges' places, so you can show under each if you're working on awards/scores for medals/etc. It also helps fulfill the need to show at a certain number of shows. It saves the organization vs. having two separate one day shows and paying for travel for judges more times. It does, however, make it more expensive for the folks showing - you have to pay double the office fees, USEF fees, etc., vs. when it used to just be two days of showing. Stabling fees are unchanged, at least.

Velvet
Feb. 18, 2011, 10:36 AM
There's one thing this would really help, but it hasn't been discussed. That's that the judges would be able to compare their scores with each other and it might actually help improve judging.

If there was an issue with one, you'd actually have proof by having a second judge giving you scores for the exact same test.

I, honestly, see this as a win-win. Even if you have a bad day, that can happen at any show and you're paying all that money to get there (no including office fees, stabling, etc.) and then you would later have to do another show to try and make up for it. What if you have a crappy first ride and then an awesome ride later? Also, I think the fees could actually be a bit lower with two judges and two tests being scored on one ride. There are financial breaks that could be had.

Also, I don't see that the judges HAVE to be parked with one at C and another on a quarterline or on the side. They could alter the rules a bit for this situation and have the two judges just off C, to either side, in separate boxes/trailers/stands.

I also agree that something's gotta give. We really need to have a change for showing to be viable for the masses. We need to do SOMETHING to improve the popularity and accessibility of dressage in the USA. We can't look to other countries for ideas--especially not the european countries. They're already uber successful, but the countries are smaller, the sport is already popular, there are sponsors, etc.

We might want to also look at why other sports, like reining, are able to offer big prize money and attract more people. Often these start out at the breed level. Maybe it's time for the warmblood breed organizations/registries to step up to the plate and sponsor classes with money to jump start things. I think the QH world might just get out ahead of them if they aren't careful. ;)

yaya
Feb. 18, 2011, 12:34 PM
One thing that would help make dressage shows more viable (and they've already taken a step towards this with the new tests) is to make each test shorter so that more tests can run within the 8-hour judging limit.

H/J rounds, reining rounds, etc., are all much shorter, so more people can participate within a given time frame. More people participating means a lower cost per person showing, and a greater draw for potential sponsors. If you were a sponsor, wouldn't you rather spend your money where there are 30 people in a ring per hour rather than 6?

joiedevie99
Feb. 18, 2011, 01:31 PM
Interesting thoughts. I'm not talking about schooling shows, since they can already run any way they want, but for rated shows I'd support the following:

1. Up to two shows at the same facility on the same day. Either AM and PM if you only have one ring, or two separate rings.

2. More classes (like H/J) that would allow trainers to bring green horses and young riders. Beyond a Materiale for 3 and 4 year olds, I imagine 3 different rail classes: novice adult, novice child, and green horse. If you got enough interest, you could even break novice adult and novice child into never shown above intro and never shown above training.

I think of rail classes as a gateway drug. They feel much more comfortable to people coming from H/J and breed shows. It's also less intimidating to a child for their first show, since they don't have to memorize a test or ride figures. Add in a leadline class, and you've got a way to get new riders out and showing and getting hooked far sooner.

3. Further development of the Dressage Seat Equitation program. I've seen the class run with two or three people all year, and those tend to be FEI pony or junior riders.. I'd like to see a w/t DSE class geared towards new riders, and I'd like to see more trainers backing the program by putting their kids in.