Article re: 8 Days of Judging at Devon... a real joke!

[Silver Bells]

I couldn't even finish reading this arrogant depiction. I'm sorry, but this columnist is really sure of herself.

I really hate to bring up poor judging again but...What does everyone else think of this justification?

[Silver Bells]

I couldn't even finish reading this arrogant depiction. I'm sorry, but this columnist is really sure of herself.

I really hate to bring up poor judging again but...What does everyone else think of this justification?

[FLF]

I must have missed something - where's the article?

[Mav226]

Where is the article?

[Silver Bells]

You can read this article in the current issue of the COTH...

[GirlNextDoor]

Um, wasn't "this columnist" one of the judges at Devon? Ah yes. I'm really sure she would proclaim in big bold print I made mistakes judging at Devon! I'm horrible! People on a BB think I'm an idiot! Maybe they are right! Somehow I doubt that. (most likely I doubt this because it is just plain wrong and stupid)

Really now. What do you want her to say? Obviously she made those decisions at Devon and she has the guts to stand by them. Props to her.

She obviously cared enough about what people were saying that she felt the need to justify her judging. I think that is awesome of her. You should be thrilled that someone listened to the rants on this board and felt the need to respond to it.

What more do you guys want to be done about the judging at Devon, something everyone on this BB seemed to believe was a disgrace. Give it up. There are no apologies needed.

[SAM]

I read the article yesterday. I found it to be pretty good and it was nice to see someone confront the situation. I was not at Devon so I cannot say just how bad the judging was. However the one thing I did agree with in the article was the judging is subjective and is personal preference. Not everyone is going to agree with the results. I wish I was there to see why people were so upset. Was it really that screwy??

[Flycatcher]

I don't think the column was really a justification of the judging at Devon. Someone at that point in their judging career shouldn't have to justify how they place a class. The column was a well written account of what it is like to judge at a show like Devon, the hard work that goes into it, and how we as members of the horse community should take a moment and look at horse shows from another point of view, not just the exhibitor's point of view.

[DMK]

Sorry. I read the article and I have no clue what you are talking about.

[Hopeful Hunter]

ummm.....I read the article, and I have to say, as someone who's worked in both PR and journalism, I found myself wondering what the point of it was.

I didn't get it. Was the author intending to say "judging a multi-day show is difficult, but the best horse really does usually show itself?" Or was she saying "the organizers did a great job with this important show?" All I know is that she thought the Grand Champion was wonderful, and that she and her fellow judge had TOTALLY different ways in which they judged, and I think some disagreements about how different horses went.

Again...I'm not sure what the "nut 'graph" of the piece was. But maybe I'm just not enough in the loop to get it?

[Snowbird]

Nope! Hopeful Hunter I think you got the jist of the right idea. There is no standard by which the hunters are judged. The judges don't know and you and I don't know. If enough important people think you agree with the way they judge then you get approved for your card. If the Hunter Committee thinks you're good people you can be "Fast Tracked" for your license.

This is why last year I suggested (didn't know then the zones were not functioning and going to be phased out) that we rotate the Judging clinics to each zone around the country and that way more people would be willing to try and judge because it wouldn't cost $2,000 for a one day clinic. If it costs too much then the judge's have to charge more to cover their costs. And, we could invite the trainers, the parents and the competitors to audit the clinic so we all would know what was being judged. Who knows these clinics might then be free to the judges because we all would cover the expense.

But in this era we don't want to share power and authority do we? We have to trust the raw opinions of those selected to judge us just because they're called judges.

I think those judging that consider it a career want to keep it a closed market. I remember a very well known judge who shall stay nameless who said he wouldn't be involved in the "Learner Judging Program" because he wasn't going to teach anyone to take his jobs. And another who said to me that he expected to be paid to teach and he wasn't going to teach anyone to take his jobs and not get paid for what he knew.

I wasn't at Devon, I had no one competing at Devon and I don't know if the judging was as bad as described or not. BUT I do think we have a problem in the criteria used and the standards to be judged by for scores.

I think scores are a good idea if they calculate more than just the fences. I think someone should know that they only ranked a 50 and won the class because it was so bad instead of thinking they were wonderful. I think if there is only one person in a class they might get a 3rd and not necessarily a first. I don't think that being the worst of 2 others as a bad third should be more points than someone who won in a class of 26 at a C-Rated Show. There is no different level of difficulty. I don't think money is the the right reason for a rating, I think there should be levels of difficulty and you should have to win your way up to the next level.

But then what do I know, I'm just one of you who is supposed to happy to have other people do my thinking for me because they're "In the Know".

[pixiestix13]

does anyone have any pics from devon? I really want to know what kind of horses won???

[GirlNextDoor]

really pretty ones.

I think COTH had the pictures from the devon article on the website but I'm not sure if they are still up. Try and find the issue of COTH with the devon results--amazing pictures of amazing horses.

[Bumpkin]

I should get the article in a few weeks, interesting that a judge would take the time to reply to negative comments.
If that is what was done, and kind of uplifting if you think about it.

[xegeba]

So Silver Bells, what the hell is your problem with this judge and the article? Did your horse get the Big Brown? Don't go to Devon if you don't like the odds. Or pony up and increase your chances.

[Silver Bells]

Personally, I have no problem with this judge/columnist. In my opinion the judging at Devon was extremely inconsistent. The author seems to have set out to justify actions, and compliment peers.

[FrostbiteFamily]

It is so easy to sit outside the ring and be a "backseat" judge. How many of you that feel you need to critique a judge have actually had the responsibility of holding the clip board. It isn't easy - I have been there. And, judging is subjective, anyway - just like figure skating, ballet, dressage, etc. How many times have we seen a figure skater fall down and still win a medal. Go figure, but that is skating! So, until you have acutally judged stop the belly acking. There is only one winner in every class so you going to have some people upset with the pinning of a class. So let's move on, get over the judging nonsense at Devon and stop being sore loosers. This judging thing is sounding like a vendetta and there isn't any room for this.

[monalisa]

If you are participating in a show and the judge does not pick your horse when you believe he or she should, then make a note of who the judge(s) are and make sure from that point forward that you don't go to shows with that judge. THEN, if everyone did this and someone really was a BAD judge, then guess what, no one would turn up at those shows and the show mgt would be forced to look long and hard at the judges they select. I know this is simplistic and not totally realistic, but quite whining and do something if you don't what is going on.

There are judges that don't like my horse and I make sure not to show under them. I know who they are......

Are those people that are complaining the same people who complain about how the country is run but have not voted in the past four elections???? Probably.............

[CuriosoJorge]

Um yeah right, MonaLisa. Skip Devon after spending many thousands of dollars and mucho time to qualify, just because you don't like who the judge is?

Doubtful. Although there was one pro who was conspicuously absent this year, so maybe the barn in question was taking your advice?!?

[CatherineConnor]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Silver Bells:
Personally, I have no problem with this judge/columnist. In my opinion the judging at Devon was extremely inconsistent. The author seems to have set out to justify actions, and compliment peers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't want to start a fight but in my opinion from Devon results, the placing were almost too consistent! Not inconsistent! The horses who were Champion and Reserve were 1st & 2nd in most classes, the same people placed in the equitation the whole time, and the horses who were champion and reserve are very top top horses and some of them have already won there! That's consistency...

[Gracious]

Maybe I'm a little slow today, but I cannot find the article. Anybody care to post a link?

[blondy]

I actually did watch devon. I did not have a horse this year, nor did I know anyone showing in the division. It was VERY "different" judging. Certain BNT horse's mistakes (rubs and swaps) must have been missed by the eyes of the judges b/c those horses won every classes. And those with no BNT who displyed perfect trips went home with 6 ths and 7ths.


What should we take from this; come to devon with a BNT or don't come at all?

I LOVE devon, and wanted to be there next year. But why should I work so hard for this goal if the ribbons are pre-determined.

http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif I hope they fix this problem http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

[Go-Go]

Gracious - I don't think the Chronicle posted that one to their website.

And as for all you sour grapes out there, get over yourselves. Seriously. You sound like a bunch of whiney brats - calling the judge "full of herself?" are you freaking kidding me? You clearly have no idea what the heck you are talking about. That particular judge, who, BTW, took time out to explain her judging process to people who didn't seem to get it (she didn't have to), is hardly arrogant. Silver Bells, you didn't even finish reading the article, so where do you come off attacking someone who has been in the business more years than you can even count?

If you don't like the judging at a horse show, by all means bring it up with the management or the governing body. Lodge a protest. If it still doesn't suit you, then think about doing a discipline where you are not subjectively judged. But don't whine. It's not becoming, and it makes you look like a poor sport.

Edited because we all know that Go-Go says mean stuff all the time.

[Kellsboro Jack]

If only Go-Go didn't sugarcoat her words we'd know how she really felt http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[Go-Go]

Oh, please. Trips at Devon ain't ego trips, they are big league hunter trips, and if you can't hack it, stay home and let someone else go.

Edited because I certainly wouldn't want to hurt someone's feelings.

[Snowbird]

Go-Go I hardly think that being rude and insulting is going to prove your point it only confirms the average exhibitor's opinion that you hold us all in low esteem and not worthy of consideration.

Obviously, there is a lack of understanding regarding what is the criteria being used. That then is not the fault of the Exhibitors who do not understand but the administration which does not teach or establish clearly defined and understandable standards.

It is your kind of snobby superiority that creates the great divide. There are good judges who have never made a famous great horse and there are many of us "little people" who are capable but do not have the opportunity for the extravagantly expensive youngsters to work with as a base product.

Let's then be polite and understand that superior knowledge is not just in the hands of a few self appointed experts.There is a possibility that many of those who have "never made a famous "End of the Year Champion" have made remarkable improvements in what they have to work with and are proud to be close in their accomplishments.

And some of the those who have made famous "End of the Year Champions" have used methods that are hardly to be admired.

[Go-Go]

Snowbird - I just get fed up with people whining about something that has been hashed out over and over. The OP didn't even finish reading the article in question, for Pete's sakes.

[Snowbird]

Go-Go what you call whining is really complaining because they don't understand the rules. That is the crux of this whole dilemma we face as hunters even with the new association.

When there is full disclosure, when the exhibitors and the trainers not in the inner circle of important have the information then what you call whining will stop. The subject keeps coming up because it is never clarified but rather covered over with a "Well, I know and you don't know so keep quiet and respect my knowledge". Respect is earned and cannot be ordered.

[Go-Go]

Well, Snowbird, I hope that whole standards business gets worked out in due time, though hopefully they'll leave it so that the best horse still wins, even if (horrors) a BNT and a moneyed rider are training/riding it.

I don't think I was wrong in my reading of the OP's meaning, which was to call the judge arrogant without even having read her entire article. That's insulting.

[CuriosoJorge]

Go-Go, I thought you didn't do the hunters.

Am I confused here?

[Snowbird]

Go-Go we do agree because I don't believe in discrimination or unfair practices against any group. As the old saying goes "Some of my best friends are rich and famous".

[Go-Go]

George - I don't anymore, but I did for many years, and I still follow it - especially red coated bandits! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I will in all likelihood get back to it at some point, too, but only if I'm guaranteed a championship at Devon. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

[horsepop]

The key to all these discussions is that there may be standards but every judges standards seem to be different. Even in the COTH article the Judge explains that she often dissagreed with the other Judge.
Although there may not be any simple solution there needs to be a set of basic standards which all judges start their subjective decisions from.
A while back Billy M. said he judges on a point system, although that sounds really good, he also states that he knows the quality of the horse before it even starts a trip and that faults for one horse might be overlooked while the same faults for a horse he rates lower before performing will finish lower in the pinning of a class. Although I would say that his first impression is subjective the end results are not fair at least he has a method.
But, because these kinds of self proclaimed judging techniques are not consistant from Judge to Judge we need some standards that at least will bring a judge closer on any given day with all other judges scoring methods.

[Silver Bells]

Very well stated HORSEPOP! Hopefully this discussion will help bring the necessary changes desperately needed!

[Snowbird]

And therein you put your finger on the problem the specifications for hunter of fences says "Performance and Soundness" it does not say pretty, it doesn't say appointments and it does not say way of going to be counted.

Performance to me means whether it leaves the ground at an appropriate distance to make a good arc and lands apprpriately on the other side of each fence in a safe steady pace that is forward and agressively attacks the fences.

Therefore what any judge thinks he knows of any previous performances is irrelevant and should be discounted. It is the judges opinion of that one minute in time and how that horse performs during that one minute in that particular test of the horse that is being judged. Dirty tack can be counted as a flaw of performance and any violations of the regular tack should be a violation and that is all.

We had great equitation classes in the long past because then the judges knew that they were judging the rider and even if the horse was lame it didn't matter and if the fault was a horse fault it wasn't counted against the rider.

In horse classes only the horse is being judged, not the trainer, not the rider JUST the horse.

[QueenMother]

And if it does, SilverBells, it certainly won't be as a result of your observation that the author of the commentary (one of the the hunter judges at Devon) was so arrogant you couldn't bear to finish the article.

Although, I guess, it is arrogance of the first order to "judge" someone else; hence, the judge is arrogant.

(Otherwise, I did try to find the "arrogance" and couldn't. Sorry.)

[MsHunter]

Believe you me I have seen bad and political judging, especially in the Hunter Breeding ring.

I did watch ALOT of the hunters at Devon and OF COURSE the models!

I just thought they were on the money. I was duly impressed. From reading here, it appears I am not in the majority.

I don't think it had to do with BNT or BNR or whatever. Some of the horses that were there REALLY didn't belong. It had nothing to do with their trips, as much as how poorly some of them jumped. On their best day it wouldn't equal an average day of a horse like Indian SUmmer.

I personally REALLY liked the ones Rob Bielefield rode as well as Indian Summer and of course Popeye K!

[Lucassb]

I think the point of contention is this: while hunter judging is certainly subjective, there are certain faults that most knowledgeable people consider major. Major enough to disqualify a horse from a ribbon, or at least enough to move them down. Should trips with swaps, rubs, rails etc *ever* be pinned above trips that are technically faultless? Maybe... depending, I suppose, on the horses involved. But (in my own, personal opinion) I think that should be the exception, not the rule.

We may never agree how much "credit" a horse should get for being super fancy, a great mover or a spectacular jumper compared to one that is just pretty, a good mover and a good jumper, but I do think many would agree that there must be some penalty for major faults no matter how fancy the horse is or who is standing at the ingate while it canters around.

And let's remember that at shows one qualifies for (not just enters) I think we can assume a certain minimum level of quality for the competitors. While there are some truly incredible horses showing at Devon, they are not exactly showing against scruffy, just pulled out of the field types the last time I checked. So please, let's leave the "backyard" commentary out of the discussion. (Note, I do not equate "backyard" with poor quality.) To suggest that the horses that pinned despite major mistakes because the competition, while faultless, was not of sufficient quality at this venue is ridiculous.

[DMK]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Silver Bells:
Very well stated HORSEPOP! Hopefully this discussion will help bring the necessary changes desperately needed! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I sincerely doubt that any conversation that starts as an attack on the person rather than the process will achieve that, but hey, it could happen...

[nycjumper]

Who wrote the article?

[lauriep]

Susie Schoelkopf.

[Go-Go]

Oh, please, Lucassb, I was responding to this comment:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by blondy:
What should we take from this; come to devon with a BNT or don't come at all? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Which is to say that by qualifying for Devon you subject yourself to the rigors of being in the big leagues. You can get lucky and qualify, BTW, and you can do it with a noname trainer - nothing stopping you there, but don't get your knickers in a knot because you didn't walk away champion like you usually do at the shows at home. The liklihood that you'll pin is not necessarily as good as someone who has been there before, is used to the pressure, and has been in front of that judge more than once and therefore knows what that judge is looking for. By no means does that mean that you can't walk away champion; shoot, I hope you do and they make a really sappy movie about you. But don't be sad and berate teh judge if it doesn't.

You all can argue the pros and cons of making subjective judging less subjective all you like, but going after a judge that went out of her way to explain the judging process - even going so far as to call her a joke - is little more than poor sportsmanship.

[Lucassb]

Actually, to some extent I agree with you. A first timer to the Dixon oval is not as likely to win as the been-there-done-that type who has won there many times.

However, I do not agree that trips with major faults should *routinely* pin over faultless trips in that venue at that level of competition and presentation.

[Go-Go]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lucassb:
I do not agree that trips with major faults should *routinely* pin over faultless trips in that venue at that level of competition and presentation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nor do I, but judge bashing isn't helpful.

[horselesswonder]

Would someone please scan and post this article? I'm really curious now.

I only watched the hunters a couple of times during the show. One day it was rainy, windy and cold, and the professional divisions were going. I frankly would not have wanted to be in the judge's shoes on that day because it appeared that none of the horses that I saw (and I did not see all of them) were going as well as they probably could have. It was wet and unusually chilly for the time of year, and there were a number of spooks and refusals in addition to swapping off before the jumps, pulling rails and naughtiness in the corners.

The other day I watched the hunters was the second day the juniors were going. I watched a bunch of trips, and again, it seemed the judge's job would not have been easy. Again, I didn't see all the trips, but of the numerous rounds I did see, no one stood out as the clear winner. There were deep spots, swapping off, adds down some of the lines... Judging the best of the worst must be particularly challenging I would think. Which is not to disparage any of the horse and rider combinations. Everyone had lovely horses and certainly looked the part. But not everyone had a great day, it seemed.

So now I'm curious to see what the judge said. I gather from other posts that the author of the article judged the professional divisions?

[FrostbiteFamily]

Ok, now how many of you out there actually have held the clip board and judged. I suspect not to many of you. And I doubt if you were a judge, you would have much to say. So until you have gone thru the process, gotten a liscense and spent time in the judges box - NOBODY IS REALLY QUALIFIED TO SAY MUCH! Just try judging an "A" show like Devon and see how difficult it is. Since most of the trip are great, great riders and great horses, it then comes down the type of animal and your personal opinions. Move on guys - Enough of the SBS bashing!

[FrostbiteFamily]

And by the way - my new column will be up on Towerheads.com very soon and I am sure you will all have something to say after you read that. I did poke at the misinformed on bulletin boards!

[Snowbird]

Well Frosty I might have tuned in to your column but now that I know what you probably said, I'd better not it would be really bad for my stress level and I wouldn't want my blood pressure to peak.

No one can ever accuse you of unbiased reporting can they? By the way how many times have you judged at Devon? Don't you think if you're not a licensed judge an opinion on either side it equally invalid?

[GirlNextDoor]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Go-Go:
judge bashing isn't helpful. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It isn't? Nooooo. I could have sworn by all the people on this board and their bashing comments that bashing MUST be helpful! Otherwise, why would people waste so much time doing it? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Sadly, this board with stop bashing judges only when they start getting their way. It's sad.

[FrostbiteFamily]

Snowbird - now you went where you shouldn't. I have built three day courses, I have designed many a grand prix course AND I have judge the AHSA medal finals and all of Harrisburg, not to bore you with the rest of my credentials. Now if this isn't a dead give away!!!!! And I knew Judy Blackwell Spreckles when she wrote for the Piggin String - gotta on that one!

[Lucassb]

Agreed that judge bashing is not helpful (nor is exhibitor or poster bashing, for that matter) but I do think the ISSUE of judging standards is a reasonable topic of discussion.

[Go-Go]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lucassb:
Agreed that judge bashing is not helpful (nor is exhibitor or poster bashing, for that matter) but I do think the ISSUE of judging standards is a reasonable topic of discussion. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sure it is. Go for it. I'm out.

[Snowbird]

Well now Frosty that shows you're entitled to your opinion but it doesn't make it right.

Maybe you're sensitive because you were one of the judges that got bashed. Could be a little sour grapes because you didn't think you were appreciated. Are you still Judging the Big Time Shows?

[Kryswyn]

Disclaimer: I am not a judge. I have not shown at Devon. I have not trained a HOTY.

None of that prevents me from having an opinion of course http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

To say that only Rated Judges can critique other judges is wrong. It's like saying only stockbrokers can say whether other stockbrokers are good at picking stocks. Yes only other stockbrokers may know exactly what another stockbroker goes through trying to pick winning stocks, but it doesn't prevent the stock owner from deciding that his broker is no good and taking his portfolio elsewhere.

While I no longer show horses, I do show my JRTs and yes, there are some judges I won't show to. In my experience, they don't use my dogs (whom are consistantly placed by other judges) and whether it's because they don't like my dogs, my attire, or the fact that I post on certain JRT bulletin boards doesn't matter. I won't show to them. I vote with my pocketbook, and if a trial chair asks why I'm only doing performance events, I'll be honest enough to tell them I don't like the judge she's picked. Trust me, I'm not alone in noticing who seems to always pick the same kennel names and reward dogs I would immediately spay or neuter. The costs of a trial being what they are, if attendence is down and the chair learns it's because of the judge, that judge does A WHOLE LOT LESS judging next year!

I also think, despite what an earlier poster said, a judge should be able to justify his/her placings in EVERY CLASS; that's why they have cards.

In terrier trials, they usually just call the placements in the timed go-to-ground events. We've started asking them to announce the times, because everyone is given their score sheets back immediately after they've competed and placement discrepancies (unintentional I am sure) have been corrected.

So while you should be able to look at a judges card, it wouldn't necessarily improve your placement since you could only look at YOUR card, but if you'd been put down for 3 chips and a swap you didn't make, you might want to avoid that judge in the future.

[FrostbiteFamily]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snowbird:
Well now Frosty that shows you're entitled to your opinion but it doesn't make it right.

Maybe you're sensitive because you were one of the judges that got bashed. Could be a little sour grapes because you didn't think you were appreciated. Are you still Judging the Big Time Shows? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Snowbird, I do not judge anymore. I frankly got tired of the travel and the critics. I would say that most people liked my judging but certainly not everyone -that will never happen. But, I have judged with the best - Arty Hawkins, Steve Hawkins, Betty Oare and more I think we all are on the same page (at least I was when I was doing it). But, as we grow older we find other things in life to do. HF

[Snowbird]

Well now anyone who was friends with Steve Hawkins can't be all bad. He had pretty good judgment in my opinion.

So we have certified you are entitled to have your opinion but then why would you think that bashing the exhibitors and the newbies who might not understand as well as you do is entertaining to anyone?

I don't see anything constructive about telling people they're too stupid for an opinion when they are only at the stage where they want to learn and no one is kind enough to explain to them what it is that being judged. If we want this sport to grow so that you too have a bigger readership as well; then we need to be generous and share our knowledge with those less experienced and have less subjective standards.

I don't think we're talking about any backyarder that has qualified to compete at Devon. I think the biggest weakness in this sport is the rudeness and bad manners of those who claim to know to those who would like to know. Why not put your great talent to work for the sport?

Young inexperienced trainers and competitors need to be treated kindly and then I think the Officinados will receive back in kind good manners and respect.

[GirlNextDoor]

Sorry Snowbird, but what are we saying the newbies or original poster might not understand? The OP posted comng off as she knew what she was talking about and that's why she was so disgusted by the article. Why can't people choose to disagree with her without you saying that she "doesn't understand".

Sorry if this isn't clear, i'm having a hard time puting what i'm thinking into words right now.

[Go-Go]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snowbird:
I don't think we're talking about any backyarder that has qualified to compete at Devon. I think the biggest weakness in this sport is the rudeness and bad manners of those who claim to know to those who would like to know. Why not put your great talent to work for the sport? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The OP has mentioned in prior posts that they have over 30 years experience at Devon, BTW, so is hardly a newcomer.

[FrostbiteFamily]

I am afraid to say that there is many a young trainer out there who are a little big for their breeches! That being said, they need to learn a little respect for those who have been in the business a long time. Most of the young guys out there couldn't tell you who Danny Lenehan was, ever saw David Kelly, seen Joanie Boyce ride every horse in a Corinthain class at Devon in the days when you jump out to the ring, made your lap over the outside course and jumped back in (remember those days?). Or even an opportunity to see Jimmy Williams show a hunter. So, the lesson here is - you younger pro's out there - you earn your place in the business through respect from your peers and your elders. HF's lesson for the day.

[rileyt]

OK. Ouch. I like history. I respect my elders. But you're not really suggesting that because I am 30-something, and was never blessed to have met Jimmy Williams... that I'm not entitled to have an opinion about judging, or,... horrors, even SUGGEST that something might be a wee bit off if horses with several major faults are pinning over horses with clean trips?

My God. Your post doesn't sound at all like you're encouraging people to respect their elders... it sounds like you're suggesting that if you're not part of an elite group of old blue-bloods, you'd better not even open your mouth?

Nice.

[Snowbird]

Oh! Frosty now you're dating yourself. We don't teach that way any more. Moms even can't say "Just because I said".

Because they didn't have the advantages that we had to know and learn at the knee of the greatest universal horsemen doesn't mean they can learn from today's crop of experts. Why? because they don't share as well and they don't explain their techniques.

Thereby is the creation of the problem of misunderstanding. Who will we all leave this sport in the care of if we won't teach them. They're not too big for their britches they are typical young people just like you and I were once. They ask questions and if they don't get answers they get mad. We would have too except the old time horsemen were thrilled to share and teach us.

[Silver Bells]

For the record, I have been around for more years than I care to remember, and some years are so cloudy I have no recollection. I attempted to get a judge's card some years ago, sat with everyone mentioned in this thread and more, and decided that sitting still 8+ hours a day was not for me. I respect the posters on this thread, even though I may be getting "bashed", and justly so.
I am very passionate when it comes to this sport. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, including myself, judges, exhibitors etc. In my opinion something happens to the people who judge at Devon, and they tend to do things there that they may not do at another show.
I will continue to participate at Devon as long as I can. I will also continue to voice my opinion regardless of it being good, bad, or indifferent.

[FrostbiteFamily]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Silver Bells:
For the record, I have been around for more years than I care to remember, and some years are so cloudy I have no recollection. I attempted to get a judge's card some years ago, sat with everyone mentioned in this thread and more, and decided that sitting still 8+ hours a day was not for me. I respect the posters on this thread, even though I may be getting "bashed", and justly so.
I am very passionate when it comes to this sport. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, including myself, judges, exhibitors etc. In my opinion something happens to the people who judge at Devon, and they tend to do things there that they may not do at another show.
I will continue to participate at Devon as long as I can. I will also continue to voice my opinion regardless of it being good, bad, or indifferent. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[FrostbiteFamily]

OOPS, sorry about that. Silver Bells, you are most certainly entitled to your opinion. Democracy - doesn't make either one of us "Right" or "Wrong" but let's think about the people on the receiving end when they are "busting their gut" to do the right thing in probably the most difficult place to judge, and judge from - you noticed the lack of privacy in the judges box with all the swells to the left, right and behing you! See how well that works out for anyone - really tough! I've been there. HF

[QueenMother]

OK, so your opinion (per the original post), is that the writer (judge) was arrogant. I'm still trying to understanding what you meant. Your opinion was just that she was arrogant and you couldn't finish the article.

Now OTHER people used your "arrogant" comment to jump back on the old (I thought was commented on to the bloody nth degree) "judges at Devon not fair" bandwagon. I'm not sure why your comment or even the article inspired yet another round of judge bashing, but YOUR comment was a "critique" of the article and nothing more.

Still waiting for the arrogance . . . .

[Silver Bells]

I guess arrogance is in the eyes of the beholder.... get what you can and leave the rest.

[findeight]

I wasn't at the show. Didn't sit through all the trips.
Do know some good ones pinned well and some did not and heard some rumblings...but I wasn't there.

Worth noting that artical said the two judges did NOT agree..and I read no arrogance into it...maybe some rambling and poor editing.

[Janet]

I didn't think it was arrogant, but I DID think it was defensive.

[findeight]

Janet..that's a fair statement.
May have been written in defense.

But some of the same great jumping horses that win elsewhere because they have great trips won here. I'd not condemn every decision...unless I sat thru every class, and I sat thru none.

I just don't base my opinion of the whole discipline on things I did not see.

[Snowbird]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR><span class="ev_code_red">you noticed the lack of privacy in the judges box with all the swells to the left, right and behing you! See how well that works out for anyone - really tough! I've been there. HF <HR></BLOCKQUOTE></span>

I think in the above quote Frosty herself verified what we have all suspected about the pressure put on the Judges. She refers to the fact that there were VIP (I assume thats what she means by swells; there no ocean there)surrounding the judges who have no privacy. That is a situation that will compel undue influence on anyone's opinions and it's quite true.

She herself implies it is too difficult to make a good judgement call under those conditions. We could then take the next leap of faith and understand what the judges mean when a good judge is defensive about a bad situation.

Perhaps they are right and the blame is properly on the shoulders of the VIP Trainers that put the pressure on the Judge instead of the judge who may capitulate.

[findeight]

Especially if you are looking at the best jumping Hunters in the country..all with minor mistakes.

[blondy]

On a positive note; I'd like to think that all of this attention to this matter has awakened some judges. People are paying closer attention b/c so manyfolks at Devon this year were so upset with the judging. I hope some eyes are opened, and maybe some good will come of it.

It's too bad they don't make judges score every round, and keep the judges from talking. That would REALLY help.

[findeight]

Actually, I have long been in favor of scoring every round and have posted that fact.

If the NRHA judges can score 100 trips????
What excuse do Hunter judges have?

SCORE US ALL. Stand behind your score, it's OK, it is your opinion but have the guts to SCORE IT. I have the guts to take it.

[Heather]

I'm not a show hunter person, don't play one on TV, couldn't find Devon with mapquest . . . you get the picture.

However, I do read and study as much as possible, and did some super brief hunter dabbling last year when one of my eventers wanted a career change.

It seems to me, FWIW, as an outsdie observer is that the problem is that there are sort of, how to put it, two sets ofhorses and riers in your sport (all the sprts, really).

In the perfect world, a perfect moving, perfect jumping, perfectly ridden horse with a perfectly flawless trip wins. However, since perfection is rather rare, and sometimes it deserts even the best of competitors at the worst of times, it seems there does need to be some sort of scale/contingency in place that is easily understandable.

It seems to me that when you introduce people to the hunters, they learn first and foremost thatthe horse must go around dead quiet, dead even, hit all his marks, so to speak, and look to be doing it auto pilot--the famed invisible ride. I imagine paritally that's because that's an easier concept to quantify to newbies than the more esoteric qualities of a good hunter trip. However, it's also because those are the skills you want the newbies to learn how to do, and the niche for those horses that aren't four foot or even 3'6 candidates.

The problem seems to me arises when you've drilled this concept into someone's head, then they go to Devon, see the workings go, and because of adverse conditions, see lots and lotsof mistakes. The classes get pinnned, and everybody goes what the????

Then we start telling them, well, what it's really about is brilliance, style, look, way of going, etc.

It kind of reminds me of the old joke about how you learned about the cause of the Civil War. In the third grade they told you it was about slavery. In high school they laughed at thenotion of anything as simplistic as slavery and told you it was about states rights, and if you took history in college, they find the simplicty of state's rights to be laughable.

It seems to me the easiest thing to do, would be to make it clear that at say the children's/AA level, that it's about the quietness and steadiness of the trip, and that "brilliance" is not to be rewarded over way of going, or whatever sets of words you want to use. This keeps a great niche for the good soldier types that lack big fence brilliance,and can provide a solid foundation to new riders. Then you can say at 3'6 and above, brilliance is to be rewarded over the quiet trip so that the horses that just jump out of their skins but maybe play through their changes can be justly rewarded for the athletes they are?

I realize there is something sort of like this in thehunter rules already, but why not make it extremely explicit? I'm certain there are politics in hunters, because I know there is in ANY subjective sport. I also think most judges try hard to do the right thing. The problem is they get stabbed in the back by the amorphousness of the rules, and all the "hidden rules" (like 4'0 horses who are brilliant can get away with mistakes a 3'0 horse couldn't). That way newbies feel like they get the concept, judges won't be accused of politics so much, and both types of hunters will have a niche to fit into.

[findeight]

Heather, for a non Hunter person you seem to grasp the basics..and this BB is slowing down big time...Kerry takes the podium in 27 minutes, then I guess it will stop or start posting Samoan time again as 10k reporters hit the net..............

Anyway, thoughtful post for a non Hunter person...did you stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Heather]

No Holiday Inn Express for me, and I tuned out just after I posted to watch the speech too.

Thanks for the compliment findeight!

[Snowbird]

I think there is enough blame to go around for everyone and not just the Judges. Obviously, the Judge's Clinics are not properly informative. As at most horse people meetings everyone is only listening to what they have to say and they don't hear anyone else.

The Officinados ought to be able to come up with a judging criteria that works for everyone.

Judges spend too much time judging and not enough time listening to how other people feel about what they do. They get defensive instead of awakened. Maybe it goes with the turf and the semantics of calling them a "judge" have influenced their own self evaluation.

The Trainers who are so anxious to politic the judges's subjective opinion do put a lot of pressure on management and judges. We get phone calls "who's judging the Oval Ring?" Oh! well I won't come to show if you use so and so! And I want whois or my 10 horses will go to another show a little closer to home.

Judges feel compelled to have a following so they can command better fees. Shows hire judges with a following to get more entries. It's a vicious cycle that never ends until there are definitive criteria which say a little play in the corner is OK! a chip in is worse that a long distance. Or don't count the first fence.

Lot's of things can be clarified and improve perception of the exhibitors, comfort of the judges and security for the trainers whose livlihood depends on winning.

Certainly there is never an excuse for an extra 30 points on top just because the horse or trainer has a big reputation. I find it offensive is horse number 250 goes into the ring and starts with a score of 50 because the judge doesn't know the horse or the trainer and it starts with a score of 80 if it's well known to be a winner.

[MsHunter]

FWIW JMHO. I went to a clinic in WPB (H&E) where SS was the clinician along with Jimmy Lee and someone else , maybe tim kees, can't remember.

Anyway, I thought it was informative, lots of discussion, professionally conducted.

I think what bothered me was that we scored the horses and put them in order and then compared notes with the clinicians as a group.

I had the same horses on top that they did, and maybe swapped a 5-6th etc, which really when it is a CLOSE like 78/80 trip that can happen.

I have yet to get my card, however, the person right along side of me was NO WHERE on the page with the models or the jumps, was in LEFT FIELD!
AND THEY GOT THEIR "r".!

Who knew? NO ONE.

WHy not stop being so nice? Take those cards, make people hand them in, score them grade them whatever, but PLEASE find a way to see if the learners know how to judge, not whether they can just pick out one nice horse.

Also, when you learner, some of the better judges have you keep your card and then check out what you did and why (I sat with THom Pollard who did this with me). I was fine with it. Others pay no attention to you and at the end you have no idea whether they are writing a recommendation or a negative comment. Your not comfortable because you know they don't know if you have any idea what your doing!

the system needs help and it shouldn't be based on personal opinions. There are MANY jealous people with their own agendas more than ready to take to pen and pencil and write you up.

I had the big guys write letters of recommendation and it didn't help me one iota.

[Dana]

I just got this Chronicle today and read Susie's article.

What she says in the article, IMHO, is exactly the reason that I think judges need to be SEPARATED at these big shows.

"Jim and I each came to Devon with our own standards, and we were very strict with them. We had healthy disagreements and respected each other's views over many of the rounds."

That being said, why should the JUDGES be having discussions about the rounds???? Seperate the judges and give each of them a radio (on a different channel) to call their scores in. Let each judge judge each class and score them appropriately. Let the show management average the two scores and, viola, you have a score that is used to place the class. Why in the world hire two judges to get one opinion from them?

I know we're not talking about a QH show here, but at the QH World, they have five judges who judge each class separately. Drop the high and low score and average the balance to determine placings. Sounds easy enough to me....

Dana

[Snowbird]

That is a logical and rational idea. I agree totally and have for many years. Not only should they not sit together but from totally different aspects of the ring.

In that case the divergence of opinion might be better understood by the perspective. Perhaaps a way to get that done is to propose a rule change that says if there are two judges and they judge independently the competitor will receive double points, for three judge triple points. The scores added and averaged to find the final placings.

I certainly think it a better reason for extra points that just because the show runs 5 days instead of 3,2 or 1 day. And better even than money awarded. Three opinions from there different locations averaged should provide an honest evaluation which then is worth triple points. I am certain that show management would prefer to put their money into three judges than into cash awards most of the time.

[BarbB]

Haven't read this whole thread.....don't care to.

I show dogs and have also judged (so I have been on both sides of subjective judging) and it IS subjective and everyone does their own thing and if you don't like a subjective sport ...don't play.
That said, I have also done my share of whining about blind, crooked, asleep or otherwise defective judges....also part of the game.
If you don't have a thick hide.....don't judge.

An aside to whomever said something about figure skaters falling and winning a ribbon because it is subjective.....partially correct.
Falls don't count except as they disrupt the flow and timing of the program. The fall itself is not penalized....the mistake that led to it probably would be.

[wtywmn4]

Am going to play a little devil's advocate here. Having spoken to numerous judges about this, they are just as divided. Many feel sitting together gives a better perspective overall. One will come, as the article states, with their own views. Discussing what they like and dislike with each other, to many, gives the best score. Others are quite happy to sit apart, seeing different sides of the ring to judge. Personally I think the choice should be up to the judges, and not mandated. You want their opinion, at that place in time, then allow them that option. If you don't want their opinion, then why on earth would you walk into the ring?

[silver]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FrostbiteFamily:
OOPS, sorry about that. Silver Bells, you are most certainly entitled to your opinion. Democracy - doesn't make either one of us "Right" or "Wrong" but let's think about the people on the receiving end when they are "busting their gut" to do the right thing in probably the most difficult place to judge, and judge from - you noticed the lack of privacy in the judges box with all the swells to the left, right and behing you! See how well that works out for anyone - really tough! I've been there. HF <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
frostbite, this was not the opinion you had when you were attacking other people.

I don't know who you are (or any of the other incrowd on this post) but the way you people post on this board has pretty much sealed my decision not to bother attending US hunter shows ever again. Why bother if that is the kind of attitude I have to face? Yes there are plenty of other very nice reasonable people on here but several of you feel the need to make it clear that you and a few others are the shizz and we all would have to play by your rules.

I can go to a jumper show in Europe and have a good time for 1/10th the cost, not be subjected to the opinion that I have not been around enough to deserve to win and be done before tea time! Sweet.

I'll take my money and competitve self elsewhere. Tx.

[J. Turner]

In figure skating (at least at the elite level), the trainers, I read, get an audience with the judges, who give feedback. Now this was from Michelle Kwan's old coach Frank Carroll. Now if it can happen in an old guard, subjective sport like figure skating, why not in hunters/eq? I realize the number of competitors is overwhelmingly different, however, perhaps something would be possible. As a teacher, occassionally I'm observed and required to justify my assessments for administration or at a parent conference. That never ends - no matter how veteran. I don't think it's too much to ask judges to be accountable for their decisions.

[Snowbird]

I think wtywmn it depends on whether we go to numerical scoring as a general policy. I think it would be a good idea even for one judge simply because it would make it clear when a round was finished exactly where the judge placed someone.

Then not unlike Dressage a secretary would do the tally to figure out who won. I think the big first issue that needs to be resolved is whether the judges judge against standard and measure the performance with scores based on that standard or whether they judge it against the class.

There is the issue that if it's a really bad class the top score might only be a 45 but then that's measure by a level of difficulty and performance against what is standard. I think it would be advantageous for the competitor to know they won the class not because they were very good but because they were the least bad.

If that were put into place then even the losers would have a goal to try and improve their performance not only as a personal best but as measured against what is best in the standard. I think then instead of 20 losers in a big class we have 20 people who felt they had learned something.

Perhaps a flaw doesn't show from one side of the ring because it happens on a turn but it's very evident from the other side of the ring.

[silver]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> In figure skating (at least at the elite level), the trainers, I read, get an audience with the judges, who give feedback. Now this was from Michelle Kwan's old coach Frank Carroll. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not to mention, I am sure figure skating officals and judges don't go on public BBs comprised primarily of juniors and amateurs and tell them they can't possibly understand the sport because they don't have the right resources to and that they plan to mock them in print.

I participate in numerous sports and I have NEVER seen anything so stupid and likely to turn off prospective competitors in my life.

The attitude that "you aren't going to win if you don't ride with the right barn, like it or lump it" displayed on this thread is the reason that 99% of the people I rode with as juniors have left the sport. Successful professional adults are leaving the rated circuit in droves to participate in other, mostly non-horse sports.

[Snowbird]

Amen silver, you are right we did the skating thing as well early on. Everyone understands the rules, everyone understands the criteria and everyone is on the same page. I actually admire their system of qualifying up throught the ranks and the opportunties for the grass roots kids to get a fair judgment with or without a trainer.

I think the skaters should also be commended for being willing to amend and evolve their sport so that it is spectator friendly. They therefore deserve the huge sponsorships which they have acquired.

I think what mostly creates the dissention in our sport is not the actual events as the holier than thou and I am an expert and you are a dumbie attitude. I find that repulsive and the ultimate in bad sportsmanship and bad manners. I think that our officinados should be a little more humble and generous to those who being fed into the system so that they can feel like very important people.

Every other sport in which we have participated has a great patience and consideration of those who may not perform in a remarkable a way. You are also right when you say that we are losing riders in droves. In New Jersey we have already lost one third of our horse population and one third of our acreage reserves for use by horses.

Between excessive unnecessary costs, bad public relations and cronyism we will eventually lose our place as a major sport unless we learn to evolve and respect the grass roots and the lower rungs on the ladder.

It is inconceivable to me that any judge who considered themselves worth their fee would be so demeaning about others just because they are not also judges. Especially since our licensing system definitely has some major flaws.

There are so many opportunities for people to spend their money for a sports activity that unless we make it attractive for them this will soon resolve down into a very private club of people who believe they are very special.

Especially if we ever want to get this sport off the social pages and onto the sport pages in the newspapers and on the news stories.

[BarbB]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snowbird:

Especially if we ever want to get this sport off the social pages and onto the sport pages . <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

amen!

[Bumpkin]

I am the proud reader of 3 issues of COTH that arrived this week.
The month of July I guess...
Just read the article, and I didn't see anything that said she was answering to anything posted on COTH.
Did I read it wrong?

[Snowbird]

As I read the article it was her personal report of how the judging went and what she thought while judging. I don't think it intended to answer complaints or even recognize the complaints.

[silver]

Bumpkin it was frostbite who said she planned to write about the know-nothing no-hopers on the internet or something equally chamring.

She apparently is a course designer and judge of some note, or that's the impression I got from her post. I wouldn't mind knowing exactly who so I can make sure I never support a show that employs her.

My family has been involved in motorsport as long as I can remember, a sport with a similarly ludicrous cost to horse showing, and I've never seen anything like the snobbery you get at horse shows. It's often embarrassing to those of us who are young professionals who are occasionally forced to admit we actually compete at them. No-one laughs at my triatalon or marathon running colleagues, just me! for being a prissy stuck up horse girl http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif The irony http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[pwynnnorman]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> if you don't like a subjective sport ...don't play. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Snowbird:

Especially if we ever want to get this sport off the social pages and onto the sport pages .
------------------------------------------------

amen!

BarbB <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm confused by this pair of comments, BarbB. They seem to conflict with each other.

And I must admit to great disappointment in the first one. It is such an oversimplification of the issue. Not only is it NOT play for some folks, but subjectivity without clear guidelines results in IGNORANCE as well. So are those allowed to "play" to be only those who can afford to pay the trainer who shows 40 weeks a year and thus to know what judge prefers what (like those two or three trainers whose riders have won and/or dominated the placings in the top 10 in something like 85 percent of all of the past 10 years of Mclay finals)?

Indeed, I dare say that part of the big-picture problem IS the oversimplification of issues like these.

[LLDM]

I know that some people on this thread have been offended. But despite the back and forth of some hurt feelings on both sides, I must say there has been some very good discussion and some wonderful points made.

Snowbird has been particularly eloquent on this thread and Heather's post was wonderful. Horsepop, Lucassb and Kryswyn also had very thoughtful and insightful posts to share. These are the ideas and insights that will hopefully be heard.

SCFarm

[Snowbird]

Oh! Wynn of course there is in every aspect of this industry the same divergence of opinion. Those of us who think of it as a sport, with rules logic and semblance of sanity and those who think of it as an industry from which they can make a profit in either cash or prestige and which depends on who knows who and how well you know them.

Unfortunately, the two concepts are always in conflict as with subjective judging by people who are approved to judge by those "in the know". Versus those of us most academically inclined who want to know why and what reasoning is involved so we can correct what we do.

The first comment reflects the old boys network of friends and who's an important person, and it play by their rules or don't play. My comments refer to the necessary changes that have to be made if we are going to broaden our scope and welcome in new people and stop being a social exercise and real athletic endeavor.

I had hoped that the change to a National Affiliate would take down those walls and that's why I prefer the By-Laws of NHJA to the generic By-laws of the USHJA which promise no one anything.

I doubt after five years of trying that anyone is listening that is in a position to make any changes. If we gain a few inches it will be a gift and not because of an entitlement. I find that very depressing.

I have been opposed to patronage because the opposite is slavery. Like all human rights I believe we have an entitlement and the machinations that deny that are false philosophies. Can we change it well I used to think so but I'm not sure any more that we are not on an inevitable road to extinction.

[Magnolia]

Did a dressage show this weekend. Liked the numerical scoring - judge saw things I didn't notice - got good feedback. What is nice is that you can get a 2 or a 3 (I didn't), but then get a 9 or 10 (didn't do that either!)on the next movement. I think if you did this in hunters, it would minimize the impact of a major mistake on an otherwise brilliant round - Think - horse chips, pulls a rail, gets a 2, but the other 9 jumps are brilliant - say, 5 -8's, 4-9's and a 10. Total score is 88. Next horse has no major errors, but not a great jumper - maybe jumps pretty flat - gets 2-8's, 4-7's, and 4-6's - scores a 68. So you wouldn't see trips thrown out for a major mistake, nor would steady eddies with no flash be that well rewarded.

Not any opinion from me, but it would be interested to judge the same trips both ways (the overall impression method that would put horse 1 out of the ribbons for having one awful jump) vs (the numerical system that kind of hurts horse 2 who is consistent, but never that brilliant).

[Heather Dobbs]

IMO, chipping and pulling a rail should totally put you out of the ribbons in the hunters, no matter how good the rest of the course. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Bumpkin]

This thread seems to be moving along in a manner that is fairly civilized, and a learning experience for me atleast.
I appreciate the answers and replies thus far.

Re: Frostbite, my impression/understanding is that a group of people, from both coasts make up the one nom de plum.

[Magnolia]

Heather-
Then the numerical system may not work for you! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif A buck/rear spook combo on a circle in dressage can still win in a good class.

[Anne]

Heather makes a good point that in hunters the total picture of the trip as a whole is an important element.

Sort of like the collective marks in dressage, I suppose.

[pwynnnorman]

Snowbird, I wasn't referring to your post, but rather to BarbB's response to it. She started off arguing that if one doesn't like subjectivity, then find another sport, but then she agreed with you on the need to do what it takes to get the sport out of the gossip pages (or whatever). I think those two sentiments are contradictory since the subjectivity of the sport is often what causes the gossip (the grumbles, the bad attitudes, or whatever you want to name).

[Snowbird]

That's a good point I missed Wynn. Yes! it is like the two sides of a coin. You can't have it both ways. Sport has rules and referees and needs to be completely understood by all participants. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif

A social endeavor belongs on the social pages because it is simply an opinion based on a subjective preference. I like garden parties better if the color of the decor is pink?!!?
http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/no.gif

[blondy]

Maybe we should start a petition or something to get the judges to sit seperately and score every round.

Did anyone see the show on A & T totally making a joke of the hunters/jumpers clients for being so "taken" by the political-ness.
I didn't see it, but I heard from someone who did. It was on 2 nights ago.

[Snowbird]

I didn't see it but I have no doubt they said just that which is why we are a bad joke for the social pages instead of on the sports pages.

A petition doesn't work because it is technically not a legal tool and now that we have the USHJA it is the the USHJA that will make those rule change proposals. So you should each send an email or fax to each members of the Board of Directors of the USHJA and reflect to them all your issues.

Congress does not accept emails as a means to take action so probably faxes would be more technically correct. If they each received 150 faxes perhaps they would listen.

[blondy]

Thank you snowbird. Does anyone happen to know the new fax number?

[florida foxhunter]

I know this should be in the hunter breeding column, but on the subject of Devon Judging - what do you think about Kenneth Wheeler winning the Best Young Horse title thirty six years IN A ROW!!! There is no politics there, are there?
It is sort of like why bother going? haha.

[Snowbird]

110 East 59th Street, 25th Floor

New York, NY 10022

(212) 308-7281 (phone)

(212) 308-7361 (fax)

I looked but they don't have their contact information for the Board of Directors on the web but you should be able to locate most of them on the USEF site http://www.usef.org between the Board of Directors and Committees I think you can locate all of them.

Apparently they are using their New York address now instead of Beth Miner's. They have not yet amended their membership application to coincide with the rule changes.

I believe they have hired Donna Rochetti to be the Executive Director so you might still be able to find her address.

If you go to their web site you can find the list of the Directors. http://www.ushja.org

[VirginiaBred]

In regards to Kenny Wheeler's "winning streak" at Devon.......

He has a knack for finding just the perfect horse to hold at Devon every year. If you read the article in TCOTH about that horse, you would have gained some insight to his ability to see a winner.

We all wish we could have an eye like his....

[pwynnnorman]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Kenneth Wheeler winning the Best Young Horse title thirty six years IN A ROW!!! There is no politics there, are there?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly, florida foxhunter! A point I've made often as well, but usually in terms of equitation.

VirginaBred, what is it, ROCKET SCIENCE? How do you suppose it is that HE IS THE ONLY GUY OUT THERE who knows how to do that? Baloney. The fact is that judges look at his horses first and foremost. Everyone else just has to pay their dues and even then, it's an uphill battle.

Ages ago, I had to don a flame suit when I brought up how sad it was that Emily Williams (oh, geez, I hope I've got the name right--maybe it was Sarah W...???) spent years riding under her father, but when it came to the Mclay finals, she just HAD to go to ...er, now I'm blanking out...you know who I mean.

As a result, the person who actually developed her as a rider didn't get anywhere near the credit he deserved. Why? Just because only so-and-so "knows" how to get a rider into the in front of this or that judge? Did so-and-so really "know" more than her father? Was so-and-so really a "better" trainer/coach?

Of course, not. It's far too big and varied an industry for anyone to be the only one with the answers...and yet, time after time, in division after division, that seems to be exactly what occurs at the highest level.

And we know it happens because it doesn't happen exclusively in "our" sports. It happens in dressage, apparently, where, in Europe, you have to pay your dues to get recognized--before you can even begin to earn top scores (no matter how well you perform). Someone else said it happens all the time at dog shows.

Are human beings who compete in/judge hunter divisions at horse shows DIFFERENT from other human beings competing in/judging other subjective sports/competitions (can't call a dog show a sport)?

Heck no. Ergo...IT HAPPENS!

SO, please, give the gentleman his due, but he ain't no God and he ain't no unique horse-genius. Either the competition has given up trying to fight the system or he's got a lock on the politics as well as an eye for a nice horse.

[Bumpkin]

Well said Pwynnnorman, it is all sports and hobbies with subjective judging, even Car shows,haha
Which is why we will probably never show our car in Concours, have enough of "that" in horses and dogs.
http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
You pay your money and take your chances, if you don't want to pay for that judges view, then don't enter is the motto most of time.
Win and loose graciously.

[HSM]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dana:

Seperate the judges and give each of them a radio (on a different channel) to call their scores in. Let each judge judge each class and score them appropriately. Let the show management average the two scores and, viola, you have a score that is used to place the class.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Without commenting on the original post of this thread, I wanted to say that I just got back from the East Coast Junior Hunter Finals at Kentucky Horse Park, and this is exactly how they did it. Additionally, at the end of every round, they announced all 3 judge's scores, as well as the final (averaged) score for that round. They also continually announced the cutoff, which I'd only seen before in classics (though maybe this is done other places too, I don't know.)

It was great to always know where you stood, especially if you did not get a ribbon, you could see how much you missed it by and if you were still in the ballpark going into the final round.

Edited to add: the scores were announced only for the o/f classes, but were available to us for the u/s class.

[CatherineConnor]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pwynnnorman:

Ages ago, I had to don a flame suit when I brought up how sad it was that Emily Williams (oh, geez, I hope I've got the name right--maybe it was Sarah W...???) spent years riding under her father, but when it came to the Mclay finals, she just HAD to go to ...er, now I'm blanking out...you know who I mean. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I beleive that was Emily Williams. She rode with Missy Clark at Medal/Maclay Finals instead of her father, Cody Williams, but..I can see why she went with Missy. I mean, Missy is one of the best equitation trainers out there and can see every little glich or style flaw.

I know some trainers have their students ride with others trainers at times for a different opinion that could change their ride. Not to say either trainer is better than the other, it's just a different opinion. Same way you would ask more than one person on how your outfit looks [or something like that..]

IMO..

[Snowbird]

I am certain that the Ken Wheeler victories are totally legitimate. It's been common knowledge for a long time that if there was a horse that could beat his he bought it, so he couldn't lose.

That's a whole different ball game that having judges that are politically inspired.

[pwynnnorman]

I guess I didn't really mean "politics" as in bias. That's not the heart of it, at least. It's more a matter of credibliity, respect, attention...something like that. Alas, subjective sports allow judges to take the easy way out: in the course of a long, hot, dusty day, why bother expend a lot of energy assessing a round that isn't likely to be a top one? It's far easier to discount the unknown until they "earn" your attention. That's human nature.

And while I accept its existance, I do not think it is inevitable. There ARE ways to lessen the impact of human nature--if only anyone cared and/or had the courage/energy/gumption to insist on encorporating those ways. I guess that's what folks are really asking for when it comes to this subject. It's not a matter of "throw the bums out." The bums are probably few and far between. But how about just taking the edge off the inevitable, taking just a little bit of the flaws of human nature out of the equation?

As to the equitation thing, though--no, I disagree. Not with Missy Clark's skill level, but over the process that enables her (and those top eq trainers like her--there are about three, I guess) to "hoard" (not meant negatively) the insider knowledge that often means the difference between charging $60 for a lesson and $100 or more. The problem is that those little things are not based on skill, but rather on money, as it is supported by subjective judging.

Eeek, now what have I gotten myself into, having to explain that one.

(sigh)

What I mean is, winning equitation is not and should not be rocket science any more than recognizing a nice horse is or should be. Why? Because the judges design the courses (at the top levels). They ask the questions.

So why isn't a study guide enough? Why is a special tutor necessary even for an already well-prepared student?

Special tutors, like Missy Clark, are necessary because you can't know what judges want unless you show under them (you can't know the test unless you or someone you pay well has taken it, and taken it often). It may be just me, but it jsut seems weird that a "sport" should require someone to show under judges often enough to recognize the pattern of their preferences (or have a trainer who has done so, which itself takes money, not skill or talent). I can see that with dog "shows," where talent and skill are minimal factors, but horse "sports"?

If at least some of the criteria were more standardized, it will reduce--no, not eliminate--some of the influence of all this stuff. Those who do their homework well, not just pay the right trainer well, would become more competitive (and would be encouraged to go it on their own (i.e. with their usual trainers), which does not seem to be the case right now).

If I recall correctly, Emily Williams spent about six months under Missy Clark before the finals, right, while she had spent her lifetime under her father? And she has proceeded to build a fabulous career as a pro, which implies that her talent and skill were truly deep seated...so why did she need Clark then?

Sure, Clark knows the little, subtle things--but why couldn't the hard-working, well-deserved Mr. Williams have that knowledge, too? And/or why is that stuff so seemingly important? Could it be that they aren't that important, that only the impressions of them are? After all, they seem to be such little, last minute things--things that are perhaps NOT EVEN DIRECTLY RELATED to the performance itself. Things that could be "learned" in a rather short period of time.

Should the top level of equitation turn on matters that can be learned in so short a time period? Why should those little things even matter? What are they and why are they so significant that the Williams' felt Emily wouldn't/might not be competitive without them?

Equitation (or any sport) shouldn't be a mystery. A sport is a contest of skill and talent.

Granted, equitation is also part exhibition--showmanship, that is. OK, fine. But it still saddens me that even the showmanship aspects are subjective and hidden enough that folks often feel the need to hire an insider to know them. Shouldn't showmanship--the kind that separates first from fourth, for example--be obvious with a little studious observation? Or perhaps shouldn't one be able to have confidence that the "tests" the judges devise when they design their courses ask sufficient questions that all but a few stylistic issues are resolved on their own?

[Snowbird]

Well I totally agree with you and I think it's not so much polish and finish or top secrets these "TOP" name trainers have but an intimate relationship business and social in that circle. Therefore there are debts to be paid and IOU's to be collected.

We could remove the stigma and we could open the doors if it was not for the fact that these same people have a death grip on the administration of the sport. It would be much harder to be a very important person if everyone knew the rules and everyone applied the rules the same way.

This is why so many people go to the jumpers. It's not hard to tell if a rail come down or if it stayed up. Now with electric timers it's harder to play games with the time faults and except for touches which might still be subjective generally the rules are pretty clear cut.

I think it would not be impossible the create levels of difficulty and obstacles to show varying levels of difficulty. So far as I know the style of going and the look is not part of what is being judged as of now.

We had huge equitation classes in the days when the judge understood that in equitation the horse doesn't count. An error could be considered a horse flaw and not count against the rider's ribbon placing. Exactly when that changed I'm not sure but I get shackles up my back everytime I hear someone say they have to have an "equitation" horse. EQUITATION by title is the rider.

Then we have horse classes and those riders who know how to use their bodies to balance the horse so it performs well as not to be acknowledged. It is the PERFORMANCE of the horse and that provided it is sound.

A horse is supposed to have a clean bill of fare whenever it enters the ring. It might have gone around bucking and kicking in the last class but if this one was good it should be rewarded. If not it is being penalized twice for one bad trip. The point is that in a class if it is required to get a good performance for the rider to be sitting backwards with their head on the tail that should not count against the performance of the horse.

There has to be a general will however to make corrections and until the 98% silent majority make themselves heard it can't happen because those who are the benficiaries of the present system are not inclined to do more than make excuses.

[Heather Dobbs]

I'm going to comment one one thing. I train with Missy Clark, and it is completely wrong to say that she is as successful as she is because of anything other than hard work and skill. She teaches us how to ride well, not tell us "this judge is looking for _____". anybody can watch a class and see what a certain judge is looking for. Maybe top trainers are so successful because they are, in fact, the best at what they do? I don't think that's such a farfetched idea. (i can tell you from my own experience that Missy is an amazing trainer, and i doubt there's many, if any, as good as her) People are going to want to train with the professionals that are good enough to produce winners time after time, and i just don't see the problem there.

[Snowbird]

I don't think anyone implied that Missy Clark is not a superb trainer. Certainly not that any of the top people in the industry don't know what they're doing. That would be as foolish as when others think that there is no one else below that level who might also know the methods.

The question here is whether or not it wouldn't be better if the rules were such that everyone undestands exactly what they are and then has a fair opportunity to join that illustrious circle.

If it were so, then at that level there would be more than enough clients for everyone because there would be a way to work up the ladder.

[pwynnnorman]

Exactly, Snowbird.

Again, Heather, you, too, contradict yourself:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> anybody can watch a class and see what a certain judge is looking for <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IF that is the case, then why isn't there greater variance among the top ten? As Snowbird stated, I did NOT say Missy Clark wasn't a good trainer--I DID imply, however, that, chances are, Mr. Williams was a good trainer, too. (And I'm not really trying to be precise here--I don't know enough about the backgrounds to say one way or another. I'm just using this situation as an example.)

Equitation is not rocket science. Ergo, there should be more variance in the results that are routinely exhibited. The fact that there isn't, (or hasn't been--I actually think in the most recent years, there HAS been more variation...but for a while there, the distribution was pretty outrageously narrow) statistically indicates that some factor or factors intervene. Again, though, if it ain't rocket science (i.e. it isn't so difficult that only the rare genius can suceed), then one factor is NOT trainer knowledge or skill.

So, if it isn't knowledge or skill, due to the nature of the challenge, then what is it that resulted in something like seven out of the top ten in one year all being Missy Clark's students?

Popularity counts, of course...that's valid, but I doubt, statistically speaking, it is sufficient to account for all of the variance (that is, the lack thereof).

[Snowbird]

I think the case for politics in judging and insider trading by the VIP circle has been made over and over again.

The issue we're trying to deal with is a solution. Is there any will between all of you to take a step necessary to change the terms of competition. We have a new Association specifically created and invented for the purposes of governance of this sports activity.

So far we have promises for down the road a piece but no committments in the By-Laws, on the flow chart or in writing. In January this will be all cast in stone. So do we have any specific hard suggestions how to communicate and how to notify our would be governance.