Questions I would ask the judges of the AHSA Medal Finals if I was...

[Twister]

...Randy Sherman. Why did you make my first Medal Final be from favoritism, at least in appearance if not in fact? I am going to have no trouble winning the Medal finals under my own steam sometime in the future. If I was better than the three people ahead of me on the standby who were dropped off, while I stay on, why wasn't I ahead of them from the start? If I wasn't better, why was I still in, while they were dropped off?

...Eva Gonda. Why did you embarass me by making me stand in the spotlight and receive a rosette in front of a thousand people who knew I shouldn't have even been in the second round? I am trying to figure out how two judges missed the fact that I cross cantered about five strides from the second jump of the four to the single, then flat miss at the wedge oxer option then not have the sense to wait for the six and ran like a scalded rabbit for the oxer to get there in five and still left from here to East Egypt? It wasn't my day so why did you try to make it so?

...Tiffany Cornacchio. Maggie Jayne has an excellent second round and moves from 22nd to sixth. Eva Gonda has a mediocre second round and moves from 15th to eighth. I have a second round that was at the very least as good as the top three and I go nowhere?

[Twister]

...Randy Sherman. Why did you make my first Medal Final be from favoritism, at least in appearance if not in fact? I am going to have no trouble winning the Medal finals under my own steam sometime in the future. If I was better than the three people ahead of me on the standby who were dropped off, while I stay on, why wasn't I ahead of them from the start? If I wasn't better, why was I still in, while they were dropped off?

...Eva Gonda. Why did you embarass me by making me stand in the spotlight and receive a rosette in front of a thousand people who knew I shouldn't have even been in the second round? I am trying to figure out how two judges missed the fact that I cross cantered about five strides from the second jump of the four to the single, then flat miss at the wedge oxer option then not have the sense to wait for the six and ran like a scalded rabbit for the oxer to get there in five and still left from here to East Egypt? It wasn't my day so why did you try to make it so?

...Tiffany Cornacchio. Maggie Jayne has an excellent second round and moves from 22nd to sixth. Eva Gonda has a mediocre second round and moves from 15th to eighth. I have a second round that was at the very least as good as the top three and I go nowhere?

[pwynnnorman]

I'm not following you very well here, and I'd like to. Can you explain a bit more for those of us who weren't there and haven't kept up with it? Thanks.

[stop4]

That is so funny and so true!!!!! I would love to know what those judges were thinking. If I was Eva I would definatly be embaressed to.

[Twister]

Pwynn, as the class progresses, a standby is issued so all 288 kids aren't wondering if they made the second round. After the first hundred, they had a standby of 20. I believe Randy Sherman was 18th or 19th at that point. Fron that point on, the standby changed as other riders competed and were better than those at the bottom of the list. The total number on the standy also went from 20 to 25. At the end of the third standby, Randy Sherman was 25th. At the end of the fourth standy, he was also last, but two people above him had been dropped. for the final list, he was still last but another rider above him had been dropped. It gave the appearance of favoritism, since the list was in order of preference. If the list is Not in order of preference, the announcer says so, or the riders on the standby are listed numerically.

Eva Gonda, good rider though she is, did not have a good day. There was a forward four followed by a left turn to a single then a 270 degree turn to an option, which Eva rode as an oxer, to an oxer that was set on a straight forward five or a bending six. Eva's horse landed on the right lead after the four and only changed his lead in front, so he cross-cantered to the single. He then took a big spook at the option oxer and she was well behind the motion in driving him over. Her horse stuck hard off the ground but her plan was obviously to do the forward five, and she stuck to her plan, even though the stick off the gound meant he was landing with less forward motion than is preferable. She did the ole hook-and-drive to get him there and he got there, but it was an extremely long distance and she was again behind the motion. She went 92nd and when they had her 3rd on the standby after the top 100 had gone, I was amazed.

The only thing I can say about Tiffany is she was as smooth as silk over the second round and got nothing for her efforts. I was sitting with two other judges and we all had her in the top six, instead of Maggie. Even though Maggie also had an excellent second ride, she came back in 22nd place, while Tiffany was in 12th.

[Twister]

I forgot one other thing! Thanks for the e-mail reminder.

The dotted line box was pretty ambiguous. Riders crossing into the box were subject to elimination. Brian Walker, who came back on top had crossed into the box. A few others had, also. He obviously thought he was going to be eliminated, since he was in the chute in tears. Since it was 'subject to elimination', it is apparently at the judges discretion. I personally think this renders it pretty much meaningless.

For example, say after the first standby, riders on the standby were also those who had crossed the dotted line. Crossing the dotted line allowed for a much smoother ending circle than turning soon enough to avoid the dotted line. Well, once a rider is on the standby with a circle through the dotted line, everyone does it. Now, you are stuck either retroactively eliminating riders already on the standby, or continuing to allow everyone to do it. It becomes meaningless.

[This message has been edited by Twister (edited 10-22-2000).]

[brilyntrip]

I understand what you are trying to get across here.I wasnt there but I understand your point and Tiffany can be absolutely marvelous .For some reason I find that some judges dont take her seriously .Why I don't know because she is very good.CANT Explain the cross cantering miss stuff with Eva at all.You'd have to ask the judges.Hey why don't we see how brave the judges are?Maybe they can be asked politely to entertain questions?

[carla]

Twister, I was there too and I agree with your post and I have more to add....Jennifer Berol Bliss also crossed the dotted line and made it to the second round....Cody Baird did something weird in the first round, made it to the second round and trotted twice....Cathleen Calvert crashed through the last fence and made it to the second round..anyone else who took the last rail down was dead meat and Sarah, who in my opinion did not earn the win, almost fell off her mount... all these riders are big name riders, is that the reason these things were overlooked? I honestly didin't understand the judging....

[3eme]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pwynnnorman:
I'm not following you very well here, and I'd like to. Can you explain a bit more for those of us who weren't there and haven't kept up with it? Thanks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm with pwynn. I'm lost. Please explain for those of us not in the loop.

[pwynnnorman]

OK, guys and gals. I appreciate this report, for obvious reasons given what opinions I've posted in the past. Are any of you willing to step up to the plate and name the TRAINERS of the riders mentioned (favored riders as well as less favored ones)? It may be nothing, but I'd kinda like to see if there's a pattern somewhere--and, yeah, I'll admit that my suspicion always lies with who the trainer is.

BTW: "Since it was 'subject to elimination', it is apparently at the judges discretion. I personally think this renders it pretty much meaningless."

SUBJECT TO? I find that utterly incredible. How can a "rule" exist subject to an individual judge's opinion? So if a rider goes off course, can the judge ignore that as well? Or falls off? Or runs over the ringmaster?

[Twister]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pwynnnorman:
OK, Are any of you willing to step up to the plate and name the TRAINERS of the riders mentioned (favored riders as well as less favored ones)? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think Randy Sherman, from California, is trained by Karen Healey.

Eva Gonda, also from California, is trained by Nicky Shahinian

Sarah Willeman is trained by Missy Clark.

Jenni Jones is trained by Christina Shlusmeyer.

I don't know who trains Tiffany.

Maggie Jayne is trained by her dad.

The girl who was the last to be booted off the standby in favor of Randy staying on is trained by Jeff Cook.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
BTW: "Since it was 'subject to elimination', it is apparently at the judges discretion. I personally think this renders it pretty much meaningless."

SUBJECT TO? I find that utterly incredible. How can a "rule" exist subject to an individual judge's opinion? So if a rider goes off course, can the judge ignore that as well? Or falls off? Or runs over the ringmaster?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The dotted line thing does fall into a grey area. It was first started to help expediate trips and prevent riders from making a grand tour of the ring before starting their course. In my opinion, it either needs to be a firm rule, or not be used.

[2stirrups]

i agree tiffany should have been way higher, but Dont you think Jenny should have won? If they wanted Sarah to win they just should have stopped over the second round. Not do a final test, with the top two switching horses, Jenny rode the boots off grappa while Sarah was just "ok" on Pik Trump 2. I agree the judgeing was just a tad bit odd.

[Sparky]

Twister, I agree 100 % with what you observed at the Medal finals, but have to tell you my impression of Eva's ride. I thought that she was the first rider to carve out a clear track, to have a plan that she stuck with, and to ride aggressively even though things were obviously not going as smoothly as planned. Being aggressive does not always translate into being pretty, but the bottom line is she got the job done and if I were judging, I would have also put her in the second round. I'd have to see the video to be sure, but I think her horse landed on the cross canter, I don't think he just changed in front. Be that as it may, I still think she was among the first to at least try to make her plan work. The other comments you made were totally on the mark!

[brilyntrip]

Tiffany is trained by Lisa Rex and Tiffany was veryu successful at Uset finals weird huh?

[Retrophish]

Along the same vein of conversation, but on a much more smaller scale - the Maryland Gittings Finals (for anyone that is in Maryland for WIHS and actually saw the class) was positively the worse judging witnessed by not only myself, but also many others (of the smallish crowd) in the grand stands. And what a shame because the course was great, the riders (except for a few and unfortunatly, 3 of the final four) were terrific and so competative, and so many of the horses were beautiful. Why a judge would then choose to award the blue to a rider that not only had a less then stellar performance (based on the riders credentials, I would think that even this rider was aware that the course did not measure up to many of the others), but an even worse test, is absolutely beyond me. Especially when there were half a dozen undisputed quality trips to choose from. I would have been embarrassed. I cant believe it is the rider's name or the coach's name for alot of reasons. Im wondering if it is just a long day for the judge and they get a little ADD and go with the rider that had the best sounding BIO or they have actually being influenced some other way.

How many people agree that when a tests is called out as "canter straight from your position on the rail to fence 1, gallop fence 2, trot fence....." it means gallop all the way to the fence. The first placed rider galloped to the fence, then five strides away, dropped back to the canter and jumped. Wouldn't the directions for that sound more like "canter fence 1, gallop around the corner, canter fence 2....."?

The jumpers look better and better every year.

[Flash44]

Who were the top 4, Retro?

And at the MHSA Adult Medals, I saw very few hand gallops as requested. Now me, I can go fast. Might demolish the jump and can't halt afterwards, but I will be galloping...

[Jumphigh83]

AMEN, Retro!

[This message has been edited by Jumphigh83 (edited 10-23-2000).]

[Retrophish]

When the top four were called back I became so ill that I needed to leave the arena. I hate to see the things described above in this post start happening on a local level - especially when it seemed that there was a lot of talent in this group of kids. This MD, VA, PA areas seems very talented. I watched each test but could not bear to see the final placings although I heard later who won. I almost hate to print who Im speaking of because it really isnt their fault that the judging was in some way flawed. Every one goes in and rides the best they can and I think even the favorites cant be sure the judge will roll over for them. Any way, here goes.

Called back in what I believe was the order (as opposed to reverse order) was Matt Lowe (coached by James Cornwell), and I get a little sketchy here as far as the exact order, then it was either Betsy Parker (coach??), Another student of James' on the nice albeit shorter strided Even Steven, and then ___ DuPont (David Lohman coaches) on a fabulous horse. She should have won the class and the other three shouldnt have been in the top four (or ten for two of those three). Matt was the eventual winner despite the faulty gallop fence. Everyone else galloped and did well except for one gallop to the CHIP (that matched the chip from the first course). I know I sound cruel, but I was not alone in my surprise and distaste for the judges poor skills.

Such a shame because, like I said too many times now - there were many fabulous rounds. The boy that started the class, Will somthing, I think, should have been in the top four - got tenth!

Hey Flash, I know what you mean about the gallop thing. Now that I can do.

[Sunday]

Gittings finals were very strange. Megan Schoellhamer was called in 2nd behind Matt. She rides with Miranda Scott. I orignally thouht they were called in reverse order. I was in the shoot when the judge radioed the announcer with the results. James was even shocked. We all thought Bailey was on top.

Betsie Parker ended up around 8th?

[Kerry]

Sarah won the Medal finals becasue it was her last year as a junior. Jenny Jones deserved to win but has another year (at least) to do well. The same thing with Eva Gonda-it was her last time at the medal finals as well.

Karen Healy was quoted as saying the judging was f#!*! travesty.

Tiffany lost because she is trained by a no name, so to speak, in the equitation world.

I hate that this happens, but let's not fool ourselves, it isn't the first and it certainly will not be the last time this sort of thing happens.

One of the judges posts here all the time, I wonder why there isn't any feedback??

[This message has been edited by Kerry (edited 10-24-2000).]

[Retrophish]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kerry:
Sarah won the Medal finals becasue it was her last year as a junior. Jenny Jones deserved to win but has another year (at least) to do well. The same thing with Eva Gonda-it was her last time at the medal finals as well.

Karen Healy was quoted as saying the judging was f#!*! travesty.

Tiffany lost because she is trained by a no name, so to speak, in the equitation world.

I hate that this happens, but let's not fool ourselves, it isn't the first and it certainly will not be the last time this sort of thing happens.

One of the judges posts here all the time, I wonder why there isn't any feedback??

[This message has been edited by Kerry (edited 10-24-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

because "this sort of thing happens" is a pathetic excuse as well as "because it was her last year" Are there no judges out there with the morals, integrity and backbone to do what they are supposedly being paid to do? Or, do they not know how to judge so they rely on reputation and heresay instead of skills that are actually displayed right there in the ring. Where or what is the pressure or driving force that causes judges to do everything BUT judge. Am I to believe that there is some sort of horseworld mafia that says who, where and when a rider will win? This sort of favoritism does nothing for the sport or the message being sent to our future professionals and leaders. PATHETIC. To admit it happens and then act so blase about those facts only supports the type of prostitution in which the judges seem to be engaging. There really is no prestige or pride to be had from winning within a league that is so embroiled in incestuous politics that riding skill is not even a consideration anymore.

Karen Healy was right on with her comment, but I want to know who's going to take the steps to clean up this mess that has been allowed to become our sport?

[Kerry]

Do you think Sarah really and truly believes she deserved to win?

There is a short list of riders before the first horse sets foot in the ring. I heard more then one person say if you want to win the finals you darn well better ride with Missy Clark because one of her students was going to win the class no matter what. If you were there to see the finals you would know that that is exactly what happened.

Retrophish is right-it is pathetic!

[Magnolia]

I didn't see the finals or whatnot, but if she truly didn't earn her win, it must be embarrasing....
It is sad that judges look at the name of who's in the ring and not how the course was ridden. Unfortunately, the opinion of the judge is just that - an opinion.
I like dressage, where you get a numeric score for each element, with comments and on a piece of paper for all to see. It makes it hard to "miss" big mistakes. Just a thought, esp. for big competitions like these.

[Mazzy]

What excellent points all of you make. As an adult rider coming back to the sport, I am increasingly disappointed by the judging issues in the equitation ring. No wonder so many kids would rather do the jumpers and are not enjoying doing the big eq. If you don't have the big name trainer (read: co-train w/ Missy Clark in your final year) and the $250,000 flat-jumping 17.0h warmblood push-button machine, you can't win the big finals.

I thought the point of equitation was to produce effective, stylish riders with emphasis on the word effective. Yet it seems that the division can almost be purchased if you have the money and the results are too often a stiff, robot w/ little feel for their horse. I feel incredibly sorry for the super upcoming riders like Tiffany (BTW, Lisa Rex maybe a "nobody" in the equitation world but she has trained Tiffany for years and I'd say the product speaks for itself....Lisa also happens to be a tough but fabulous person) and Sarah Willeman who want to win for the prestige and work extremely hard (not to mention through injuries!!). If the judging at the top levels continues w/ blatant favortism, the prestige and honor will be gone.

So what can we do......protest as spectators, boo the results, write into the Chronicle, avoid the eq. ring in protest, appeal to big name trainers to protest even when it harms their students??? Unfortunately, I think until some top names make statements (i.e., politely declining a call back when the round was disaterous / trainers lodging complaints) nothing will change.

My last suggestion: what about the creation of an Equitation Challenge Division - (1) competitor will be entered under number only, no names (trainer & competitor) announced or available to the judge, (2) scores announced post each round immediately for crowd to hear, (3) 2nd round limited to four riders every time, switch horses w/ one person, random drawing and ride again, (4) points awarded 1st-4th only with direct multiple for number of entries in class (ie., 4 points for 1st x 45 entries = 180), (5) ten best classes to count for year end standing and may only attempt 15 classes in total all year so pick carefully and don't chase!!, (6) finals ride in reverse order of year end standing.

I think it may help remove some judging bias towards trainer name, rider name; prove skills on unfamiliar mounts (like intercollegiate); reduce some of the dependance on having the "best" eq. horse so maybe some the less wealthy kids can rise to the top too, hey there would even be value in having a tough entry!!; limiting the number of tries would increase prestige of even qualifying and raise value of each individual class; give some value to the year-end standing and the accomplishment of the first place rider by letting them ride last in the order at finals. What are your thoughts folks or am I out to lunch??

[Diva]

I think its disgusting the way you openly discuss who deserves to win and who doesnt. You obviously werent the judges so it isnt your call. Sarah is a wonderful rider, and after coming back from her injury in august, i give her more credit than anyone else out there. Sarah deserves everything she gets. And she has nothing to be embarassed about, unlike those catty poeple who are wasting their time criticizing her win.

[Janet]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pwynnnorman:
BTW: "Since it was 'subject to elimination', it is apparently at the judges discretion. I personally think this renders it pretty much meaningless."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
There ae lots of things in CT that come under a similar category- they MAY be grounds for elimination "at the discretion of the ground jury". It doesn't make them meaningless.

[AHC]

Diva, although it's tough when names are mentioned, I read most of these posts as being about the judges not the riders. My guess is that most would agree that Sarah is a wonderful rider who has worked very hard and had to get ready with only a couple of weeks of riding after her injury this summer.

Having said that, I have watched many finals classes and most of the time have seen judging that was extremely political and seemed to me more based on who the trainers were and what the riders had done before as opposed to their performance that day. I'm not sure how to discuss that subject without mentioning some names.

[JumperEq]

I was at the Medal Finals and while I may disagree with many of the judges' decisions, I agree that Sarah Willeman should've won that class. To me, she plain, flat out rode the best on Sunday. I'm not taking into consideration "oh she had a broken foot, she deserves it from all her hard work" and the judge's shouldn't either. They were looking at that ride that day.

~Erin

[Timex6979]

gee, and people ask me why i quit doing the eq and hunters? uuummm...how about not being able to afford the big name trainers, the ultra-fabulous packers, the "right" tack and clothing, etc? yes, there are people that don't have the big bucks and the big name and still do well, but they are in the minority. i for one, got sick of being placed dead last behinds a dozen kids perched on packers on autopilot. they used to laugh and ridicule me! but they got theirs when i beat them all at HITS on my little roper-turned-hunter. from last to first, from one weekend to the next. amazing what a little fair judging will do. i don't mind losing, when it's fair, but when it's not, gggrrr.......

[Retrophish]

Good suggestions MAZ. Will have to think them over.

Still, I wonder why you have to limit the information the judges are exposed to instead of expecting them to remain subjective. Im trying to invision what horrors might befall me if I were a judge and DID NOT choose the popular winners, but instead, the best riders on that day for that class.

[Retrophish]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Diva:
I think its disgusting the way you openly discuss who deserves to win and who doesnt. You obviously werent the judges so it isnt your call.As has been pointed out in the earlier posts, just because a person is a judge does not guarantee that they behave like an impartial one. Of course it is the judges call, but the results are soiled for everyone when the judge engages in political choices that reflect prior knowledge of a riders history. They are suppose to be judging that class at that time, not thier entire riding career.

Sarah is a wonderful rider, and after coming back from her injury in august, i give her more credit than anyone else out there. Her injury shouldnt enter into this competition. Period. Undoubtably, she is a wonderful rider and it is certianly fine if you want to giver her credit, BUT, the finals arent a biography, they are a single class. Everyone has off days and that's a shame, but the judge shouldnt be sitting there making comparisons to past rides by the same rider. Sarah deserves everything she gets. And she has nothing to be embarassed about, You sound like you are well on your way to becoming a judge that agrees and subscribes to the methods mentioned earlier unlike those catty poeple who are wasting their time criticizing her win.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How sad for you to think that intelligent and thoughtful conversation regarding how things can be made better, more fair and more of a test of a riders ability as a waste of time. It is this blind faith in the popular that threatens to make not only our sport, but also our society stagnant. I dont believe that anyone is critisizing the riders, they are just as much victims of this system as anyone else, whether they win, place or show.

[brilyntrip]

BTW LisaRex is not a no name trainer ,all th e judges know her they just aren't as threatened by her as by others .Unfortunately I have been "approached" upon occasion by disgruntled trainers sometimes they actually want to know why?But sometimes they want to threaten.It happens to judges a lot I guess some judges pay no attention but some are infuenced .I doubt that many judges are influenced .The top end of our business is a very tightly woven group that doesnt allow many new members in.I have confidence that Trainers like LIsa Rex will soon be considered "TOP" trainers it takes along time to be accepted .15 yrs ago Missy Clark wasnt who she is now.

[MintJulep]

I am very glad to see that people are actually aware and honest about what goes on not only in the eq ring, but in the hunters as well. It has always saddened me that our "sport" leaves out many extremely talented riders who do not have the funds to show at certain levels, train with certain trainers or own horses that cost more than a nice home. It is even sadder that the riders who are able to compete in the sport have to be judged based on who their trainer is, what type of saddle they are riding in and how many more years they have left in the division. We have all seen the hunter course where a rider with a chip at fence scores in the 80's while a rider with a less well known trainer or the wrong type of jacket but a beautiful ride scores in the low 70's. Unfortunately, I think all of us who have shown in these divisions know that it comes down to the judge's opinion and we have to live with it, unfair as it may be. The only thing to do is ride for your own satisfaction, or, move on to the jumpers!

[Retrophish]

In what way is a judge threatened? Threatened to be punched out or to be blackballed from venues? Seems to me that a judge has the same right and plenty of power to report such threats not only to the organization that hired him, but also to regular authorities such as the police.

How true about Missy Clark, but it must have taken at least one judge to go against the grain and recognize her talent in order to allow her to bring herself to the forefront.

[Diva]

Retrophish, how can you refer to this as an intelligent conversation?Could you imagine how Eva Gonda or Sarah Willeman would feel to read this post? For me it would certainly hamper my excitement about a medal finals win. Secondly, her injury didnt enter into the competition, i simply mentioned it because i think it was a great effort for her to overcome that, to go through reconstructive surgery, and to still ride well enough in the medal finals to put most of the other riders to shame, whether or not you like to admit it, politics or not. And as far as the politics aspect, and as far as kids buying these machines, im sick of hearing people complain about how only the rich have a chance. Ever hear of a working student?? There are plenty of those out there, take Tiffany for example, she doesnt even own a horse. Or how about Leigh Hughes? I was a working student and somehow managed to do respectably at finals,people should stop making excuses for not being up at the top end of the sport, i know its hard, but money or not, its about talent and dedication. Oh and Sarah, on the off chance that you read this, congratulations, dont take these people seriously.

[ponyperson]

Actually, this is Jenny's last junior year. She is trained by Christina Schlusemeyer, who is just as famous and competitive with her riders as Missy Clark, but Missy just has more of them, and has trained just as many winners.

[J. Turner]

I realize there were a couple of other judges, but I think Linda Allen (who judged it) is very honest and concerned about the industry and would not stoop to favoritism.

[Rocky Pony Rider]

RETRO! i was left totally confused after the gittings finals! the winner didn't even make an attempt to trot the trot fence, he just cantered right up to it. now no one can say that this rider doesn't have awesome eq ut his 1st trip was um, well, it shouldn';t have even been in the ribbons. i thought the second place girl was awesome and maybe one of the best trips int he finals. i would be interested to find out who you think was good in that class, lol email me so not to hurt anyone's feelings (lol), but i definately thought that some of the ribbons were awarded to rides that were a ton less then perfect.

Will someone explain to me how you can miss a key part in your test and win over others who at leaset tried to do it??

[Rocky Pony Rider]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Flash44:
Who were the top 4, Retro?

And at the MHSA Adult Medals, I saw very few hand gallops as requested. Now me, I can go fast. Might demolish the jump and can't halt afterwards, but I will be galloping...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lol i have to agree agian /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif i thought second place should have beaten first. didn't the winner miss a lead change or two and cross canter a couple of times? i know econd place galloped and did everything right. oh so very very confused...

[Rocky Pony Rider]

the top four for MHSA were:
(this is how they were called back, in reverse order)
Matt Lowe
Megan Shoellhammer
Jackie Atwood Dupont
Bailey Hale Dent

i don't knwo i altogether did not understand the final placings...

[AAJumper]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by J. Turner:
I realize there were a couple of other judges, but I think Linda Allen (who judged it) is very honest and concerned about the industry and would not stoop to favoritism.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with you. Unless you watched in detail every single moment of every single ride from the discriminating eyes of a highly trained judge, I think it is unreasonable to pass judgement on the judging. And even then, judging is always going to be somewhat subjective. That's the nature of it. But for people to just toss around statements insinuating that the judging of this particular event was biased seems very petty, unreasonable, and disrespectful.

[carla]

I still would like someone to explain to me how those top 25 riders got to be there. As far as Sarah goes, she is a wonderful rider with an accurate eye, but she was far from brillant....definitely the sentimental favorite going in to the Final and has won just about everything else to date this year. I hope in the medal finals still to come , the judging is a lot less controversial, otherwise you might as well hand the blue ribbons to Sarah now and call it a day.

[pwynnnorman]

How nice it is to have new voices in this crowd. Last year, when I brought up exactly this subject--and got lambasted for critizing Emily Wiliiams' win (NOT to say she didn't ride well and/or "deserve" it, but rather to say why did they ALSO have to hire Clark, when her father was really the person who deserved the credit for developing).

We aren't criticizing the riders, we aren't really criticizing the trainers either. We aren't even criticizing the judges--not directly. What we are really criticizing is the SYSTEM. Whether favoratism exists or not, whether threats from trainers occur or not, whether riders are strategically manoeuvered to win in specific years or out of sentimentality (yeah, yeah, as well as having some ability and often VERY expensive horses--granted Emily Williams', in spite of her mom's cancer, won on a comparative greenie and has since proven herself beyond the eq, which is the best proof of all).

Anyway, regardless of whether ANY of these things are reality, it is the APPEARANCE of impropriety that should be of greatest concern. THAT is what the big names don't care about. How things appear to the public in general. They only care about how things appear to those who can afford to be their clients.

And doesn't that sound just like the most recent batch of AHSA officials and decisiomakers?

[pwynnnorman]

Next. What can we do about it?

For you relative newbies, we HAVE done something about it, and we continue to do so.

We've proposed a very specific rule change which would require the use of posted score sheets so that judges would have to be accountable for their decisions. We also want to see more standardization built into the judging process so that it isn't "up to the judges discretion" when it comes to such things as crossing the dotted line and also to things like a chip or not galloping the entire approach. We've proposed using scribes and establishing specific point penalties for specific common errors, while still allowing judges freedom to grant or withdrawn points through "overall impression" kinds of categories similar to what is used in dressage.

There's a lot more to our proposals, but what it basically boils down to is what has become the mantra of our campaign:

The Right to Know and the Right to Vote.

If we, the members, have POWER to bring about change, by knowing who is doing what (from establishing policies as committee members to judging classes in the show ring), we might be able to drag the sport back from the super-elite domain of what has been called the "2%" and return it to the majority who pay its bills.

Too many of the winners are "trained" by too few of the trainers. Too many winners are actually trained by lesser knowns, but then pay their dues by hiring the right name to insure that they get the attention they deserve. ARE those big names that much better than the rest? NO!!!

IT ISN'T ROCKET SCIENCE, PEOPLE! It doesn't take a genius. It just takes money and connections. P-E-R-I-O-D.

If you are as frustrated as we are about this, here's something you can do and it's FREE and EASY:

Write or email to receive your FREE "AHSA Members Want the Right to Know and the Right to Vote" campaign button...and WEAR IT AT THE SHOWS. Go to www.hunterjumper.org (http://www.hunterjumper.org) and email your request or write to Snowbird Acres, 204 Schooley's Mtn. Rd., Long Valley, NJ 07853.

If you want to do even more than wearing a button, you can donate funds to this effort by sending a check to the above account. We are placing at least one, possibly three, ads in one or more of the COTH special issues and other publications, repeating the Right to Know, Right to Vote theme. One of the ads will definitely appear in the Stallion Issue. To see the content of the ad, also go to the website www.hunterjumper.org. (http://www.hunterjumper.org.)

If you look at the last year of issues in Horse Show, if you look at the "mood" that its content represents, if you examine the websites that are out there, including AHSA's, NHJC's, NHJA's and now NHJO's (that's what we're calling ourselves: the National Hunter Jumper Organization--membership is 100% voluntary and there are no dues whatsoever), you'll see that CHANGES HAVE TAKEN PLACE thanks at least in part to the discussions and concerns that have been expressed in this and other forums.

What we have to do now is keep the ball rolling. So USE this frustrating Big Eq result to fuel your fire and JOIN US!!! As they say, you CAN make a difference!

[Oh, and while you're at it, there's this other little thing called a national election. Something about a president? Might help if you made sure you did a little thing called voting on that occasion as well. Apathy gets us nowhere.]

[Snowbird]

Well some of the good questions that came up!
How is a judge threatened?
As a show manager I can tell you there is some sort of a black list. We know when we get phone calls wanting to know where a certain judge may be placed in one of our four rings. We are informed that no one will come to be judged by that person.

They are threatened by the fact that they will not be re-hired by certain prestigious shows. Many very good judges are not used at these shows because they are independent. A judge's value to a show is the fact that they will attract entries and not discourage them.

I find that while I have never had an inquiry regarding the footing, the jumps, the secretary or the food stand, I have had many calls indicating which judges will bring in entries and which have lost favor and are no longer acceptable.

Some circuits have lists of approved judges they will hire, those are usually the one who will award ribbons to the "regulars". This is a fact of life and appears to be systemic. It is a fact that some judges who have actually challenged the system are never heard from again, they vanish off the prize lists.

I had a conversation a few years ago with a judge at the end of the day, and mentioned that some exhibitors had complained. They felt that he had awarded ribbons to people with obvious errors, and he said whell you didn't tell me who was supposed to win.

The point is the current system of subjective judging no longer works.

Whether this because there is too much money at stake, or because the level of competition has changed, or for that matter any other reason that you choose. The simple fact is that the perception is so scarred that it just doesn't work.

Now, if you all want this sport to grow and prosper the rules need to fairly enforced for everyone whether Suzie is in her own two horse trailer or with the most prestigious trainer.

We did 15 years of the "Finals" between my two daughters. There is no argument when the best riders are judged, and we all know a good trip from a bad trip. The problem seems to be interpretation of "judge's opinion".

Therefore, I reiterate Pwynn's statements above. If you don't like what's happening you can sit around and complain, you can vent your feelings here on the BB, but unless you are all willing to put a little risk out there in front of your name...unless you are willing to spend a little time...unless you are willing to put some effort into effecting changes..IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN!

I believe this is a pivot year for the AHSA and the NHJC and we should go to the convention and be heard.

I believe that if you will bring "SUGGESTIONS" how the sport would be improved you can be heard, if you get the vote you can tell them how you feel by ballot.

A small group of us are trying to take an affirmative position by recognizing problems and suggesting ways to correct them

Equitation is the bedrock of this sport. You should know how to ride, not just look pretty and you should be judged objectively against the standard of perfection individually. Equitation should not be a popularity contest between trainers.

How, can that be accomplished?

This original group filed two proposals that directly affect all national finals. We proposed a rule change for the qualification of judges, and we proposed to extend "Junior" to the age of 21 to agree with the international standards.

If you care, then attend the convention! Get the right to have your opinion count, help us to revise the By-Laws of the NHJC so that you can be represented on your sone committee. End the incestuous relationship between the exisitng trainers and show managers.

Go to our website: http://www.hunterjumper.org
email to us and wear the button that says you want the right to know and the right to vote.

Put our ad in all of your newsletters, put an ad in all your newspapers for horse people. There are at least 40,000 people who are members of the AHSA and NHJC(which is now mandatory)and there is no excuse for why only 30 people should be able to have an opinion that counts.

[Retrophish]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rocky Pony Rider:
RETRO! i was left totally confused after the gittings finals! the winner didn't even make an attempt to trot the trot fence, he just cantered right up to it. now no one can say that this rider doesn't have awesome eq ut his 1st trip was um, well, it shouldn';t have even been in the ribbons.
Yep, there was that too, besides the gallop, canter, jump thing. Forgot about that. I agree that I have seen this rider put in great courses, but this class isnt suppose to be awarded on career highlights. I didnt see a spot one - ten that he belonged in.

i thought the second place girl was awesome and maybe one of the best trips int he finals.

Help me out here. Im confused as to who was riding Even Steven, and the place she got, and who Megan Shoellhammer was riding. I could have sworn that Betsy Parker got called back on that roan horse - dust buster??. I know that the Dupont girl was also called back. I saw all the first rounds and like I said before, was in the process of leaving after being flabbergasted by the callback. I was distracted during the testing.

i would be interested to find out who you think was good in that class, lol email me so not to hurt anyone's feelings (lol), but i definately thought that some of the ribbons were awarded to rides that were a ton less then perfect.

I thought the Dupont girl rode the winning course. There were so many good rounds that its hard to say since Im not familiar with everyone. Its easier to note the ones that had major problems and Im not going to do that. I thought the girl that rode Even Steven had a nice, precise round but it didnt flow as much as some of the rides on longer strided horses. I liked the first rider that went into the ring - Will Ryan. Megan S. also seemed to do well. I thought that Jennifer Terzi looked great until her horse spooked a little in the three stride. If the judge was going to look at Matt, then he should have looked at her too since errors werent consequential. Tracy McFarland had a nice round, just a tad bit weak. Certainly worthy of 4-10th. How would you have pinned it? I will give judges credit, it's always easier to pick first place and maybe second and third. It gets really hard to place from 4th-10th, especially if you arent familiar with any of the riders. Its easier to remember people that we have some association with. But then again, Im usually not sitting there and writing things down.

Will someone explain to me how you can miss a key part in your test and win over others who at leaset tried to do it??[/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is no explanation except maybe the class was already determined and the test was just a formality.

[MintJulep]

In response to the portion regarding being a working student, that is wonderful if you are in an area where there are available facilities and a need for working students. However, there are also many young people who live in areas where it is not possible to be a working student. I think these are the riders I was referring to who I feel are at a strong disadvantage when they try to compete against riders from the well known trainers. And does anyone disagree that a rider with beautiful equitation and a perfect course riding an arabian would be placed behind a course with some glitches ridden by a better known rider on a fancier horse? Unfortunately for the most part money does play into this sport.

As far as the riding goes, even George Morris wrote an article, I believe last year, regarding the demise of classic equitation, as he was astonished at the long stirrups and lack of a good seat in today's young riders. Although I agree that there are some wonderful juniors out there who deserve a great deal of credit for their accomplishments, I maintain that there is quite a bit of favoritism going on in many shows today, all the way from the locals on up.

[Retrophish]

pwynnnorman and snowbird,

This is just why I had to vent - was waiting for someone to pick up on it that actually has an idea for solutions. Thank you for showing how and where to make the difference. Count me in to campaigne and join the push to do what is right, bring free enterprise and the right to make a living back into the monopolistic hunter/jumper world.

[Magnolia]

I think it's a shame that all of this is going on. Is it fun to "buy" ribbons? Why even bother. What happened to pride in a job well done? I would be ashamed to know that I had a bad trip, but won b/c the judge knew my trainer well and was worried about not placing me. I can't believe that judges are blackballed! Goodness gracious. I'd rather not place and have a great trip than chip and win the blue.
Just another reason I'm glad hunters are out of my financial reach these days.

[Probable Cause]

Retrophish:

I don't know this for a fact but I'm pretty sure that the girl riding Even Steven was Bailey H. Dent. I happen to know that she is leasing him from Matt Lowe right now and rode him to 2nd place in the VHSA Medal finals.

[Rocky Pony Rider]

retro:
jackie atwood dupont i think was awesome and should have one (she was second ont he big bay horse)
Bailey Hale Dent rode Even Steven and it hink she had an "ify" fence in the first course
Megan S. has great equitation (she was on Montana Blue, the grayish and i guess somewhat blueish horse) but i don't think her course was as smoth as it could have been and then there was Matt on his horse.
it was just a very odd class...

[MsHunter]

Snowbird, I call and ask who is judging<G>!
We are coming to your show as I am OK with who you hired. In fact we will show most of the time anyway, but I like to know what I am in for, and my clients before we attend.
I would never say I believe any are political, I have not experienced that in our area. I also have to watch what I say, but I will say there are about 5 judges that are judging a show every weekend in Zone 2.
It GETS OLD. PLain and simple. And they only do these Zone 2 shows. It is frustrating to show under the same people all of the time, and when we go to the A shows where we get a judge who does mostly A shows we feel pleasantly refreshed.

[Snowbird]

Well Jane, there's the old two edged sword. Show management usually hirse the judges about whom there has been no negative reaction from the exhibitors.

I don't know any show managers anxious to hire someone that the exhibitors dislike. So, the other side of the coin is that there are too many familiar faces. The problem for show management is that entries are down so much they can't afford to pay expenses so they use local judges that won't charge mileage and traveling or motels.

[gwen]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snowbird:
Well Jane, there's the old two edged sword. Show management usually hirse the judges about whom there has been no negative reaction from the exhibitors.

I don't know any show managers anxious to hire someone that the exhibitors dislike. So, the other side of the coin is that there are too many familiar faces. The problem for show management is that entries are down so much they can't afford to pay expenses so they use local judges that won't charge mileage and traveling or motels.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I had a question...is there still a horse named Corona there? I got him for IHSA regionals one year when we had out show there...he was so cool!! I was just wondering if you knew him..He was a cute chestnut with a little white on his face...just wondering!!!

[Snowbird]

Yes! Mam! He is a sweet horse with a big heart. He's been voted into the family, which simply means he's here until he can't be anymore.

We never let the good guys move on, we keep them and retire them here.

[gwen]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snowbird:
Yes! Mam! He is a sweet horse with a big heart. He's been voted into the family, which simply means he's here until he can't be anymore.

We never let the good guys move on, we keep them and retire them here.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup!!! He totally gave his heart out that day..he was so awesome!!! YAY...That was a good 5 years ago but I remember it like it was yesterday..I always remember the GOOD horses!!!! He's a great one!! He's lucky to live his life out with you!! He helped get me reserve champion in the open fences!! I watched the video we has taped the other day...of course to critisize myself and I remembered how comfortable he was!! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif He's a keeper....

[This message has been edited by gwen (edited 10-25-2000).]

[brilyntrip]

This is how it happens >..Pretend that you have just finished a day of judging you are walking too your car minding your own business.Trainer walks up to you and either asks to ask you about something or literally says why didn't you like or pin so and so .As judge you have a few options here,say "you'll have to get the steward first then I'll be glad to talk to you."or say sure what can I do for you?or say nope I don't talk to exhibitors ever.If the steward comes (the safest bet) any nasty threat type comments will be on record and formal charge can be brought.If you are naive (I was) and you speak to some one with no witnesses anything can happen like "well how could you pin that one over mine or you'll never judge in this area again!!!!"and on and on .If you are new to this(as a judge) you'll remember this incident if you are nervous you might let that kind of threat change or shade your pinning or it will make you less inclined to talk to anyone (it did me).I am not saying that this type of thing did in fact happen at the recent Medal Finals but it can happen and does .It takes a very long time for trainers and horses to be accepted amongst the elite top end of our business,that isn't going to change any time soon.

[NorthEast]

Matt and Bailey were great! They were the classiest riders there. I think that this thread is really unwarrented. True judges can do some bizarre things and we may not be happy. But there are two sides to good sportsmanship and taking it out on the riders who were given what was deemed fair on that day is just low and cheap.

Judges don't just overlook a mistake or bobble they weigh it into the equation.

[This message has been edited by NorthEast (edited 10-26-2000).]

[This message has been edited by NorthEast (edited 10-26-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Erin (edited 10-26-2000).]

[updownupdownupdown]

NorthEast: **ouch**. That's gotta hurt no matter who you're slinging it at!

[Erin]

NorthEast, I don't think insults are very constructive. Keep the conversation civil, please.

[Snowbird]

The first time you see an error you may a victim. The next time it happens you are an enabler. And, if you see it three times then you are a co-conspirator.

This is the essential fact of when we see violations and we do nothing but sit around and sling mud, call names or use the opportunity to vent safely and securely behind being anonymous.

This dialog is only worth while if it leads to constructive suggestions that will make sure it can't happen again, assuming that it did happen! I think most judges would rather be honest and call it as they see it, I think most would also rather not be placed in a vulnerable position because they depend on their income from judging.

So how to give the judge the freedom from intimidation while protecting the welfare and interests of the exhibitor?

Change the criteria! Change the system! Change the way judges get their licenses.

How many of you were there when the issue of the "fast track for judges passed? How many of you understand what that means exactly? How many of you cared? The Licensed Officials Committee was opposed and yet it passed. Do you know why? Do you know who put the pressure on the Committee to pass the "fast track"? Do you know why they were successful?

The Medication and Veterinary Committees both wanted more stringent requirements for competition. They didn't succeed. What did you do to express your opinions? Why did it pass in spite of the Veterinary Committee statements that it was necessary? Who were the people behind the changes for easier conditions to use medications? Why did they need the medications?

You have to do your part too! Join us who are trying to create a democratic situation where the entire hunter jumper discipline is not managed by 30 people and where you don't have the right for an opinion.

Talk is cheap, action costs us but we can leave a better sport for the children.
email to: members@hunterjumper.org
visit the website http://www.hunterjumper.org

Get involved, get informed and then do something besides complain.

[Flash44]

What would happen if the judges were not listed on the prize list and their names were not released? And if you dressed them up like pumpkins, no one would know who they were. I guess you would have lots of spooky (no pun intended) horses going down the judges line, but at least the judge would feel protected!

[Snowbird]

Now there's a concept no one has suggested. Perhaps the judges should be anonymous. We should not tell anyone what their name is.

[pwynnnorman]

Some folks need to take their heads out of the sand, me thinks.

I must admit that I was shocked to hear that Linda Allen was one of the judges, for I am a tremendous admirer of that lady...

...which just goes to show that it probably IS the system (and the odd individual here and there) that results in these PERCEPTIONS.

Linda Allen has posted here on occasion. I think if she is reading this, she is probably very upset by this conversation, but I also hope she recognizes how a system such as the one we've proposed would PROTECT good judges from exactly this kind of indirect character assassination.

Whenever there is no information out there, supposition and rumor step in to fill the gap.

Standardized criteria, posted scores and WHAT-you-know-not-who-you-know-or-how-much-you've-won, stringent, testing criteria for qualifying judges would inject the system with heavy doses of information. Greater understanding would ensue, morale would improve, and new names would crop up more often to freshen the picture and encourage others to try.

[DiamondMine]

i think that this thread is horrible and very immature..
You weren't sitting in the judge's chair and see what the judge saw...
This thread shows poor sportsmanship more than anything.. there have been maybe three posts about changing the system, but talking about the riders like that is just horrible, and shouldnt be tolerated.
Those riders who placed in the top four work very hard to be and show where they are showing. The time and preperation, dedication and hard work that goes into showing is so much, and everyone here knows that or should.
~If you want to complain about the system fine, do that, but DONT put others down, especially those riders, in doing it.
this thread only shows poor sportsmanship.

[Palisades]

How does this thread show bad sportsmanship? No one posting is saying that they were competing and should have won...they are making unbiased comments on a public event. I have not heard anyone say "so-and-so is such a horrible rider" I have only heard "I know they're really great, but they weren't having a good trip that day". I certaintly don't have a problem with that. This thread has evolved into a great discussion about the pressure on judges to place the "right" person. I think this topic has been handled in a very mature manner (oh no, now I sound like my mom!) and I'm proud of everyone for taking on such a controversial topic and doing so respectfully.

[Snowbird]

Dear Diamondmine! You are right it's not fair to pick on the riders who won and diminsh their win.

And yes! we've been taught that's bad sportsmanship, but if we can't face reality then how do we manage to change the system which creates a perception of politics and prestige vrs. quality and ability.

I have no doubt that Linda Allen is willing to fly into the face of politics as it is. I also know that I wasn't there and most did not watch every trip. We also don't know the private fetish of every judge as to what is the most important in their perspective.

But, we can evaluate the terms and conditions for judging us fairly. Our problem is we don't know what they are! And, we should! In most of the other sports at that level there are 8 to 10 objective judges from every aspect of a discipline. They all judge independently and separately. The scores are then averaged to get a standing.

We have been frozen in time.

[Genesis12]

Tiffany trains w/ Lisa Rex

[Bertie]

Snowbird, the New England Medal finals aren't frozen in time...They have 5 judges whose individual scores are shown on the scoreboard next to their names after each round, and the scores are averaged.

There aren't many complaints about the placings there. Is it because the judging is better than usual, or is it because everyone has more insight into the judging?

If a local finals like the NEEC can do it, why can't the national finals follow suit?

Linda Allen has earned our respect on this BB. Because of that, perhaps we can agree that the Medal results were NOT political? That there were reasons for the placings that were not obvious to the negative posters on this thread? I hope so, and if so, some good young riders have been treated very poorly on this thread.

[Snowbird]

It just takes the courage of a few to change the game. I'm happy that your groups have set such a good example, and yes there is no reason why that system can't be adopted it sounds like the future.

There will only be change if you all take the time to let those few in charge know that you care and that you have good suggestions on how to fix it.

If I accomplish nothing more than to get you all to recognize that you are entitled to have the opportunity to make suggestions and to solicit support for you point of view, I will consider that the time and effort I have spent was worth while.

The future is in your hands, not theirs. You are not chattle to be used and thrown away. You are the sport and the industry, so stand up and be counted.

[pwynnnorman]

Thanks for bringing up NEw England, Bertie. So it CAN be done! We must all remember that example. Tell me, though: would you say that it took more time to have the judging expressed that way? Did it seem like a headache for the show managers? Did it go smoothly and how did the competitors feel about it? Do you think it would still work if there were only three judges? What about only ONE judge (whose score would be posted immediately after the round)? Did it take a long time for the judges to flash their scores? How was the final score calculated?

Sorry for the bombardment, but if there's a successful model out there for what we are proposing, I'd love to know more about it. Thanks.

[Palisades]

I don't know Linda Allen- I don't have a grudge against her, nor am I friends with her. Coming from a completely objective point of view on this topic I feel compelled to raise the issue of reputations once again. People who weren't there to watch, who don't know what went on, are willing to assume that all the judging was fair and legitimate because Linda Allen was one of the judges. If she has a reputation for honesty, then that's great and I applaud her for it. But we will never be able to fix problems in the industry if we ignore them because "so and so was involved and they would never do that". We have to ignore the names involved and focus on the issues. Things like subjective use of the dotted line and dropping people off a standby list out of order are real issues that should not be ignored because Linda Allen was judging.

Maybe we should change this thread into a dicussion of these topics instead of a "who is coached by who" name dropping argument.

[Bertie]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pwynnnorman:
would you say that it took more time to have the judging expressed that way? Did it seem like a headache for the show managers? Did it go smoothly and how did the competitors feel about it? Do you think it would still work if there were only three judges? What about only ONE judge (whose score would be posted immediately after the round)? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll try to answer the best I can, but please bear with me...my memory isn't the best! /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

It takes a little more time, since the next rider doesn't begin their round until the score for the previous rider is posted. The scores usually appear on the scoreboard around the time the rider leaves the ring, so really it's only a matter of seconds, maybe half a minute.

I've never thought of it as taking too long, since everyone's eyes are glued to the scoreboard as soon as the rider finishes the round, waiting for the scores. There are always a lot of entries (usually close to 200 I think for the juniors) and it never seems drawn out or too long.

It doesn't seem like a headache for the managers at all. It's been run like this for years, and there seem to be few or no glitches. But a member of the management would be best able to answer that question. It's run by the New England Equitation Committee, which is an all volunteer group made up of local trainers. Joe Dotoli plays a big role - as do all the committee members.

It goes very smoothly and the competitors love it. As I said, there are few complaints about the judging. It's nice to see some of the best young riders in the country anxiously looking up at the scoreboard awaiting the scores, totally involved.

I think showing the scores of 3 judges or 1 judge is decidedly better than NOT posting their scores. But the multi-judge panel really lends to an overall objectivity in the final score. The individual likes and dislikes of the judges tend to get balanced out with the averaging.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pwynnnorman:
Did it take a long time for the judges to flash their scores? How was the final score calculated?
.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The judges have keypads in front of them where they punch in the score and it appears right away. The scoreboard goes through 3 phases....The rider's name, number, hometown and the horse's name, are shown as they ride the course. Then the screen flashes a list of the judges' names, with the score from each judge beside their name. The final screen shows the rider's name, the averaged score, and the rider's current numerical rank in the class, based on their score. If it's a two round class, and if this was the second round, the final screen also shows the cumulative average for the rider's two rounds.

During breaks in the showing for ring-dragging, etc., the scoreboard runs a list of the current standings in the class, starting with first place.

It's always been a let down to go from this show to one of the national finals where the scoreboard is hanging there above the ring, but it goes un-used.

BTW, I met some spectators at the NE Finals who had never been to a horse show (they were at a home show nearby and wandered over to see the horses). They started watching, got a feel for what was a good round by watching the scoreboard, and ended up staying for the whole class, including the presentation ceremony. They were so enthusiastic after the class - said they had a great time and wanted to see more. Unfortunately, I couldn't think of another show to recommend where they'd have a similar experience.

[This message has been edited by Bertie (edited 10-28-2000).]

[MsHunter]

OK, not to lighten this up, but my Junior just IMed me and said "It is supposed to
SNOW at SNOWBIRD tomorrow.. Vicki???
It was cold last year there, do you think it is going to snow tomorrow? Arghhh
And she still wants to go<G>!

[HSM]

I just popped into the end of this thread and have to say wow! I love the idea of scores that are visible and the other things that Bertie described. It just seems to make so much sense. I'm wondering - what would the arguments be against this method, if any? Seems to me it would also help to make this sport seem more like a sport to the people who currently don't feel that way.

[This message has been edited by HSM (edited 10-28-2000).]

[Snowbird]

OH! Jane,
There have to be some advantages to the mountain, No WNV, the birds are leaving the mosquitos left because it was too cold to hibernate.

NO! What I get from our weather report is WINDY. We've staked down all the standards.
You can't get much closer to heaven and still be in New Jersey.

Now, you know why I'm such a tough old bird. Shoot this is mild, we've had snow in September on the rough years. Did you ever notice that all those nasty little critters love it warm and wet. No problem here on the mountain.

[This message has been edited by Snowbird (edited 10-28-2000).]

[MsHunter]

We are on our way.. Vicki this means I have to body clip on Monday.. I was hoping to wait until Thanksgiving. Their hair will all go poof in this weather.. It is amazing to be in such a small state and have such different weather conditions. It is 445-50ish here right now. It is beautiful on your mountain, but I still like living closer to the shore<G>!

one last point, as far as judges go, most people never fill out the forms and complain.
Just like when people apply for a permit, the names are listed, no one ever seems to state their views.

[Twister]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 2stirrups:
i agree tiffany should have been way higher, but Dont you think Jenny should have won? If they wanted Sarah to win they just should have stopped over the second round. Not do a final test, with the top two switching horses, Jenny rode the boots off grappa while Sarah was just "ok" on Pik Trump 2. I agree the judgeing was just a tad bit odd.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here's how it went between three of us. After the top six rode on their own horses, Sarah was first and Jenni was second. After the switch, I and another moved Jenni to first, the other left Sarah on top. Her rationale was that Sarah only had to hold first while Jenni had to take it away.

I based my move on the fact that there was a lot of movement among the top 25 and then among the top six. After the switch, I thought the best trip should win.

[Twister]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sparky:
Twister, I agree 100 % with what you observed at the Medal finals, but have to tell you my impression of Eva's ride. I thought that she was the first rider to carve out a clear track, to have a plan that she stuck with, and to ride aggressively even though things were obviously not going as smoothly as planned. Being aggressive does not always translate into being pretty, but the bottom line is she got the job done and if I were judging, I would have also put her in the second round. I'd have to see the video to be sure, but I think her horse landed on the cross canter, I don't think he just changed in front. Be that as it may, I still think she was among the first to at least try to make her plan work. The other comments you made were totally on the mark!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If her horse landed in the cross canter, it would only make it worse, because the cross canter lasted even longer. A cross canter is a MAJOR error. It doesn't get much worse until you start getting to major faults and dangerous jumps. She did handle her problems extremely well, but it can't put her ahead of a more problem-free round.

[Kelsy]

I thought that the winner at the MHSA finals should have been Jackie. I'm not sure, but I just thought she put it some great trips. Baily or course was awesome! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Baily and Matt are both really great riders.

[Bertie]

Twister, as a judge (I think you said you are a judge on another thread?)what are your thoughts on the use of scoring and of a panel of judges such as in the New England Finals, described above?

[This message has been edited by Bertie (edited 10-29-2000).]

[Diva]

Speaking of the New England finals, with their open numerical scoring system, how about George Morris? His judging was hysterical. He was at LEAST ten points off, above or below the other four judges scores. I think it proves that his time is up, hes outdated. What do all the George Morris followers out there think of his judging at new england finals, if any of you were there to see it. I found it quite comical.

[pwynnnorman]

Thanks for those details, Bertie. Clearly, there's an example out there that works. Now, do you suppose the system itself can work so that such successes actually get more widely considered/implimented? I think if a regional competition can do it, there's no excuse whatsoever for the national finals NOT to.

BTW, just as an aside, to the person who got upset because it seemed that people were criticizing riders: whatever happened to the "sport" part of a horse show? Are contestants and the events themselves to be considered only from the riders' perspectives and needs? What about from the spectators' perspectives, like other sports? Why should riders be protected from the opinions of spectators when other athletes aren't? To protect them, in fact, IMO, implies that they aren't athletes participating in a sport at all, but perhaps more like models in a contest or something. I would think that they would WANT to be considered as athletes with strengths and weaknesses that are exposed to discussion by spectators just like in any other sport.

[Diva]

Pwynn, im sure then you'd be happy to have your riding openly critiqued by tons of people who dont know you. I think that if you are going to criticize someone in the way that people on this webpage seem to, you should surely be able to outride those you criticize.

[Diva]

Another thing you need to consider is the fact that the professional sports players we love to criticize are just that, professionals, who get paid millions and millions of dollars a year to do what they are doing. The riders you critique are amateurs, they dont get paid anything to do this, in fact, they are the ones paying to do it. I think for millions of dollars a year i wouldnt mind a little criticizm. But after a long weekend at any finals i would not want to come on the internet only to find a whole bunch of people criticizing my ride from the weekend.

[dbtoo]

Just to add fuel to the fire /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif . For the past couple of years I have buying video tapes of the 2d medal round and tests to watch on the rare days that I can't ride. Do you think this years tape would be worth purchasing for instructional/inspirational purposes?

[Trooper]

Diva - whoa - don't bash Pwynn for encouraging people to make comments - there are a whole lot of non-professional athletes out there who are severely critiqued in every sports-cast about college athletics, and for most sports that are Olympic disciplines (gymnastics and ice-skating being two). We may not like it, but its a fact of spectator sports, the spectators comment. I for one want them to be intimately invovled in what they are watching, and educated enough to make comments on my performance.

How much fun would college football really be without avid and sometimes obnoxious fans that comment on everything?

That is just part of sports. And I truely believe that if you can't take the pressure and angst of the possibity of everyone watching having something to say about your riding - then stay out of the ring. Competitions are comparisons, especially when they aren't based on speed (ie jumpers) and they are completely subjective. That's just how it is.

This is a great discussion on how to improve events, and I especially like Bertie's comments on posting scores immediately after a round. It builds suspense, gives you something to focus on and ride against. Lets face it, most of us that enter the ring have a real competitve spirit, and knowing the scores of those ahead of you, and what you need to win, would add to the drama and excitement that is competition.

Sarah

[This message has been edited by trooper (edited 10-29-2000).]

[This message has been edited by trooper (edited 10-29-2000).]

[Twister]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bertie:
Twister, as a judge (I think you said you are a judge on another thread?)what are your thoughts on the use of scoring and of a panel of judges such as in the New England Finals, described above?
[This message has been edited by Bertie (edited 10-29-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A panel, even of two, is almost always better than one. They also must sit in different locations.

Open numerical for such a huge number of competitors could get unwieldly, with lots of 83.7625 type scores, which can sometimes not accurately reflect the true gap between riders. Also, separating riders with major faults into 45.6 and 47.2 would be pointless and exhausting. Further, I often put two competitors next to each other on my running tally and mull over the two trips before I come to a firm decision on who would be the 83.5 and who would be the 83.75. Perhaps the first round could be divided into decades. 'Number such and such scores in the 70's.' Hhhmmm, I'd have to think about that part further.

The additional time it would take to post numerical scores before the next rider would actually be welcome, up to a point. Judges would have time to clear their minds before watching the next competitor, without trying to also come up with a number for the previous competitor. Time that is not available in the course of a normal horse show, but should be for a big final. However, it would have been next to impossible for the Medal Finals without making the competition last two days.

It does bring up another point that should be addressed and soon. 288 riders was WAY too many!! Probably 100 of those riders could have taken two or three different shots at the course and not significantly improved their scores because they are not capable of riding at that level. I think the Medal standards need to be raised and the courses set to be something more than s/d/s/d. Unfortunately, I cannot think of a way to change things without helping perpetuate the other problems endemic in horse shows.

[Bertie]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Twister:
Open numerical for such a huge number of competitors could get unwieldly, with lots of 83.7625 type scores, which can sometimes not accurately reflect the true gap between riders. Also, separating riders with major faults into 45.6 and 47.2 would be pointless and exhausting.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for responding, Twister. In actual practice, it's not as confusing/exhausting as all that. The scores go up to hundredths of a point; i.e., 82.75. I don't recall any actual ties after two rounds, although there have been some very close scores. With 5 scores being averaged, ties just don't seem to be a problem.

The third and final phase is a test of the top scorers that's not openly scored. So even if there was a tie after two rounds, it could be broken in the final test.

A round with major errors could end up at a 45 and tie with another 45. Ties outside of the ribbons are not a factor.

The NE Finals does have many entries, (2nd largest finals in the country behind the AHSA Medal Finals) and the open scoring method, which has been used for a number of years, has worked well and been efficient timewise.

It's encouraging that the USET Finals East this year used open scoring in all the phases.

[TeriKessler]

1) I don't mind being publicly critiqued by qualified and credentialed professionals even is my name is used. But I don't think everyone is educated,experienced and knowlegeable enough to critique riders in a public forum, especially by name. Frankly, if you cannot demonstrate that you have ridden or trained at my level with my sucess, keep your criticism of me out of the public forum because you simply aren't qualified to judge me. And if you do feel qualified to judge me publicly, you MUST place YOUR name as prominently as mine. Otherwise, I categorize you as a cowardly potshotter. Some of you know I have recently had some experience with this phenomena.

2) Goodhearted horsepeople who consider themselves very knowlegeable about hunters and equitation sometimes lose track of the fact that they are NOT EXPERTS, just good,knowlegeable, enthusiastic lovers of the sport.

To illustrate this, compare my knowlege to the vast pool of knowlege a great horseman like Kenny Wheeler posesses. He knows more than I could possibly know about the paragon hunter trip. Training and riding some of this sports greatest horses makes judges like him uniquely qualified to pass judgements you and I might not understand. Even a fairly knowlegeable enthusiaste, like me, who in their love of the sport may overestimate the breadth of their knowlege (as I admit having done), may question Mr Wheeler's, or Mrs Allen's or Mr Morris'judging not realizing that there is a very real knowlege gap between me (despite my high opinion of myself as an amateur rider and horsewoman)and someone who has trained and showed a horse like Superflash, Showdown or Cap and Gown. It was a seminal moment for me when my former trainer, Katie Prudent sat me down to watch a class in order to educate me about the intricacies of judging. As I offered my opinion on each horse, she showed me how many of the nuances of greatness and mediocrity had gone right past me. I learned how very much I don't know. Thanks to her, even when I do not get the ribbon I honestly feel I deserve, I KNOW that I am far from qualified to judge a class on the circuit and that I probably missed something important.

My point is, it's fine to criticize and fun to play amateur judge, but unless you are certain that you are a real authority on quality in showhunters, you probably have gaps in your experience base. I personally would be embarrassed to sit with most current judges and try to critique a class aloud as if I were an expert! I prefer to keep my ignorance to myself and try to keep learning!

An enthusiastic amateur is a great asset to this sport, but it is a mistake to think you "know it all" and have nothing more to learn! Try to keep an open mind and question "what is it I don't know that prevents me from agreeing with or understanding this judge's opinion", instead of turning to the excuse of politics or incompetency.

All that aside, mistakes do happen because humans, not automatons, judge horseshows. I can't imagine that a judge who makes an obvious error doesn't cringe a little when they find out about it. This happened to me at a horse show in Florida this year and at the moment, I and my husband were spitting mad. Good sense and sportsmanship finally caught up with me (assisted by my very experienced trainer) and I found the strength to let it go. That result may have cost me a presigious circuit award. But I believe the judge was doing his best in the circumstances. I'm no pushover, but life went on, and I feel good about my ability to keep things in perspective.

Sorry this is so long, but I think it's a complicated subject.

[J. Turner]

Regarding NE Finals, I sat about 10 feet to the of George for about the second half of the class to the end. While George's scores weren't really in tune with the other judges -- he was fairly consistent with himself. He seemed very harsh with some rounds, however, he seemed equally willing to reward a brilliant round. He was tougher on those that had a swap in front of the jump, those that did a 4 to 5 or 5 to 5 on the S-line, those that rode backwards to fences even if their distances were relatively okay, those that didn't have scopier horses (tended to be less solid riders, too). He didn't penalize (too much) the horses that slipped in the turn following the bounce and had a late or "stabby" change because of that, he encouraged (from afar) those that had tough rides (clucking, growling "jump", using "body english" to help them around), he watched very carefully as the testees changed horses while the other judges chatted, he walked the second course with the course designer. I noticed no travesties (like a high score with a chip, or an obvious x-canter (although a couple horses did for a stride or two in the corners b/c of the footing). I think perhaps he looks for very subtle things in position and effectiveness that he is willing to reward or punish. I saw some rounds in which the distances were all pretty much fine, but the riding in between wasn't that great (you could tell the horse was packing the person around, for example) or rough around the edges, or hurried/disorganized -- he definitely slammed these riders -- especially those who didn't support the horse through the corners or didn't create and execute a definite, purposeful plan, although it might've been okay in the end. He did reward a couple more forward-y rides for TB type horses, although those riders weren't quite perfect enough to make the ribbons (one did, but I can't remember her offhand).

I'm not absolving him of any mistakes he might of made, but I do think there's more rhyme in his reason that you would think. Like an umpire in baseball, you can only ask that the official be consistent with him or herself and not change the strike zone in seventh inning -- if you're going to call the low pitch then stay with it. If you're going to slam the touch on the "out" of the bounce because of a too forward ride, then do it for the first rider and the last.

[Bertie]

J. Turner, you clearly gained a lot of insight into GM's judging preferences because you saw his score/opinion of each rider immediately after their round. You've illustrated one of the great things about open scoring.

[Bertie]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TeriKessler:
1) ...And if you do feel qualified to judge me publicly, you MUST place YOUR name as prominently as mine. Otherwise, I categorize you as a cowardly potshotter....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What a great idea, Teri! I feel very defensive for the riders who were anonymously critiqued on this thread. If names accompanied the derogatory comments they might be less offensive. And the name should be followed by a list of the poster's experience/accomplishments to verify their qualifications.

I read the argument that all sports competitors are criticized, but I think that's only typical for professional athletes and high level college athletes that are about to become high paid pro's. Mostly the criticism is about team sports, where the spectator is angry because their favorite team lost, or they don't like the opposing team. I don't see much criticism of high school sports stars or amateurs in the newspaper or other media. Most stories about them are encouraging and/or congratulatory.

[This message has been edited by Bertie (edited 10-30-2000).]

[pwynnnorman]

Well I DO put my name out there, and I'm nobody, but neither stupid, nor blind. No "sport" should be so obscure that years of watching and doing don't qualify someone to make statements about what they see. If it DID, where would all the trainers come from? Of all the trainers out there, how many "qualify" to open their mouths and speak under your criteria?

Arm-chair judging is part of the pleasure of the sport. And as long as it is a subjective sport, there are no experts, just people whose credibility in that particular area is perceived to be more than that of others by a certain group of people. Change it to a more objective sport and then you can talk about expertise. When was the last time some of the older judges actually rode a round? And yet they remain "qualified" in spite of years of ONLY WATCHING. That implies the sport hasn't changed sufficiently in the years since they rode for them to have to ride again. That's hardly the case. Do you really think that what it took to win 20 years ago remains the same as what it takes today? Hardly. And yet they still judge. They are still "qualified." Perhaps because "winning" at a certain level ISN'T the real criteria for judging at all. Being observant and educated (in the sport) is the criteria, regardless of whether you competed and/or won OR WHEN you did so.

Moreover, I think the attitude expressed about not wanting public criticism is whimpy, quite frankly. In fact, the only solid argument that I'd respect in this area is the one which wasn't mentioned (unless I missed it): that these are kids who may lack the maturity and strength of character to take such public criticism. BUT the particular group we are discussing aren't even THAT young.

In fact, what about the fact that some of those individuals WILL go on to become professional? All the more reason that they should learn to "take it" and develop the inner confidence that does NOT come from the protectist attitudes expressed.

Indeed, I wonder if that same attitude isn't at the heart of the resistance toward standardized, publicized scoring. When the details of results become public, it becomes tougher to accept kudos for the best round of a bad bunch. You (and your trainer) also have to live with the embarassingly low score rather than just being vaguely "out of the ribbons."

Hmmm...same fear? Don't criticize, don't publicize, don't standardize.

Well, then again, it's "your" sport. Those fears may be exactly the reason why some riders choose to ride hunters rather than in those disciplines where their failures are glaringly out there for all to see and understand. I will admit to arguing from a trainer(of horses, not riders)-breeder-seller's perspective, not a rider's or trainer of riders.

Indeed, I'm beginning to see things another way (not that I'd change my views on it). I'm starting to think about the psychological aspect of the sport and what function it serves for its participants. Maybe there does need to be some area in horsedom where riders can escape the harshness of objective standards and public opinion. (After all, there are places like that in the educational system. Why NOT in horses?). If our efforts to change the subjective system fail, which is super-duper likely, I think I am now more able to understand and accept why.

[Flash44]

There is nothing wrong with voicing your opinion about someone's riding. However, as TK pointed out, few here are qualified to judge, train or ride professionally. yet for some reason, they feel it is OK to critique in public to well over 2,000 individuals. I'm not saying don't discuss the medal finals or Olympics, but just think carefully abot what you are saying because you are saying it to an awful lot of people, who just might be ignorant enough to believe you.

[Twister]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pwynnnorman:
Maybe there does need to be some area in horsedom where riders can escape the harshness of objective standards and public opinion. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is! It's called 'riding for pleasure'. I show because I am competitive. When I step in the ring, I want to win! When I step in the ring, I am asking to be judged and I do not show in secret, I am showing in front of an audience.

It is a rare individual who has never commented on another's ride.

As far as being anonymous or public with ones identity:we have no knowledge of the identity of anonymous posters. If Twister is commenting on my ride, why should I care? For all I would know, it's some kid's mother parroting others comments.

[TeriKessler]

I'm not sure I made myself clear. "Don't criticize, don't publicize" etc. is scarcely what I said! I think I said don't criticize under the cloak of anonymity and unless you really know what you're talking about. At least qualify your scathing opinion with, "I was taught xxxxx is a major error", instead of pontificating as if your opinion is definitive. And maybe you should post your real name, your horse's name and where you will next be competing so others can complete the critical experience for you.

And public scores? BRING'EM ON! Hey, if you hook a rail, you can guess your score, as can everyone watching! I've had my share of low 70's and it's nothing to slit your wrist over! My last class on Omar was the stake at Cap Chall. We won it with a 88. The 2nd place horse, I think, was an 84. It's an added bonus to not only win a class, but to know by how much! That's a great feeling! And conversely, when you make what you consider a small error and get a lower score than you expected, you're gaining insight on that judge's subjective preferences. Jimmy Lee hates to see horses feel their way around by their hoofs. Brian Flynn likes you to make an impression at the first jump (if you really want to win, don't poke up to it, make it positive. Else you're leaving the door open for someone to beat you) Some judges really clobber you for a swap in front of a jump because to them, it indicates a lack of straightness. Others consider it a minor error and score it that way. Some will not use a horse that "stabs the ground" before jumping. Some practically eliminate a horse that grunts on the landing, believing it belies a wind condition. These are all subjective opinions that open numerical scores, followed closely, can reveal to competitors and spectators.

And being qualified to publicly criticize me? I think an honest appraisal of one's
knowlege level is one measure of a person's character. Pompous, overblown, self-important people probably aren't capable of an honest assesment of themselves and will blast ahead,unwittingly slamming people who don't deserve it. But I give most people the benefit of the doubt if they just remember to stop and consider themselves before dishing it out publicly to others.

It's really just a matter of humility (meaning knowing your size- not inflating or diminishing yourself). Most people learn that as children, that being a know it all can have embarassing consequences.

And hey, on a note of reconcilliation, we all have our "open foot, insert mouth" moments. I cringe when I think of some of the cutting, unnecessary, self-serving things I've said about other people's rides!!! But sportsmanship is about progress, not perfection! So, when you see you've overstepped your limits (people will generously point this out to you, in case you couldn't tell, with an apalled look! or a posting on this board) instead of steaming full speed ahead defending yourself, consider what you've said and try apologizing. It works beautifully, isn't as hard as it looks, and makes me, for one, sleep better at night.

Thanks for letting the very imperfect me respond.
Teri

[Twister]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bertie:
With 5 scores being averaged, ties just don't seem to be a problem.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are right, of course. I somehow had the impression that every rider was ranked in order. I could easily give my 'close togethers' the same score, and by the time it had been around the block there would not be a tie. I'm so particular, though, I would HAVE to get them in some order. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Bumpkin]

Maybe we should start a line on what certain judges like and dislike!!!
Would that be rude?
I know I would like to know just in case I ever make it to the show ring with Elliot.

[ccoronios]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TeriKessler:
At least qualify your scathing opinion with, "I was taught xxxxx is a major error", instead of pontificating as if your opinion is definitive. Teri<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Teri, I got the feeling (OK - I'm a cockeyed optimist, who prefers to see most glasses as 3/4 full) that the original comments on the goes in question really were that - without the prefacing clause. We have all been taught (even if we don't ride with the super trainers, on super horses) that cross cantering is a major NO-NO, and if "the dotted line rule is in effect", we have the right to question WHY someone placed when they broke this rule.

While some of the individuals named might feel badly, my guess (and it is ONLY that, since I don't know any of them; I am basing this on MY experience, what MY reaction would have been) is that they would agree; their hearts may be hurt, but, in their heads, they know the reality.

I am in complete agreement that this BB should not be hurtful - especially to someone who had no hand in the results. These riders didn't pin themselves - and, if they had, we are so negatively ingrained (we see what was WRONG far before we see what was right) that they probably would have been off the charts.

The thread was based on specific example; I suspect the intent was to lead to the discussion that we've been having - how to "fix" the inequities of the judging system.

[MsHunter]

teri you are so right on with all your comments. I think this thread is starting to get a little out of hand though. Let me add my own experience here. For those who really don't know how hard it is to compete at the junior or A/O level of competition. If you are at a C or B show, things like making an impression at the first jump, whether one stabs the ground, whether one is quick in the air, uses it's front end, cracks it's back or jumps in great form usually doesn't come into consideration. You can score top to bottom by finding 8, getting the changes, rhtyhm and pace, the horses appearance and canter etc. What is really difficult is when you can be consistently 1,2, or 3rd at these shows at the 3'6" but go to a REAL A show, or AA and you get a prize if others make major mistakes. Many people just aren't aware of
what good form is in the hunter ring. I know we took our childrens horse and moved it to the juniors for her last junior year of showing in July. Yes, she has been champion numerous times, yes it is pretty to watch a beautiful horse and rider jump around, and yes she is proud of her accomplishments with this horse. BUT, he plain old doesn't jump good. We know that.
We know he is best at the 3ft where he will be sold so she can buy another prospect and hope to get it competively down the road in the 3'6" ring. If you were to judge her round you would say VGR (Victim of a good ride) and use her. The 3'6" ring in any venue, eq,hunters,jumpers, is EXTREMELY competitive at the A shows. You have to really know how to ride, you have to have
the "right" horse, and sometimes when watching, you may not see that a horse like Omar on his worst day may get a 70 and a horse like ours on it's BEST day may get a 70. Therein lies the issues when amateurs try to be judges. So, please, when thinking you are in the know of evaluating trips and rounds etc, know that there is way more going into this than how many strides, finding the jumps, doing the changes etc.
Just my 2 cents, off my soapbox now.

[SaddlePad]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dbtoo:
Just to add fuel to the fire /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif . For the past couple of years I have buying video tapes of the 2d medal round and tests to watch on the rare days that I can't ride. Do you think this years tape would be worth purchasing for instructional/inspirational purposes?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Where could I buy that tape? (is there a catalogue, we don't have many good vids up here that are easy to find?). Thanks.

[MintJulep]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bumpkin:
Maybe we should start a line on what certain judges like and dislike!!!
Would that be rude?
I know I would like to know just in case I ever make it to the show ring with Elliot.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bumpkin:

I know in the world of dog shows there are actually magazines published which go over what type of dogs have been put up by certain judges etc. Although I am sure some people would disagree, I think this is a great idea. It is very expensive to show and if it is a proven fact that a specific judge puts up a different type of horse than what you have, you would know not to bother with that show. I think it would be very interesting and informative to have solid information on what differen judges like.

[Bumpkin]

Haha Mint that is exactly what I was thinking coming from dog showing:-)
Although the breed standard that I subscribe to in the JRT world is not AKC, we still know who is looking for what.
So who is going to start the new line?
Teri I think you are most likely one of the most qualified, and we all know that this new line is NOT to be a ripping up of Judges, but just what people who have shown under them have found to be what they are looking for.

[pwynnnorman]

Yes, well put, Teri. I appreciate your clarification. Sorry I went off, but there have been other posts that get me going on that subject!

[Rocky Pony Rider]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Diva:
Speaking of the New England finals, with their open numerical scoring system, how about George Morris? His judging was hysterical. He was at LEAST ten points off, above or below the other four judges scores. I think it proves that his time is up, hes outdated. What do all the George Morris followers out there think of his judging at new england finals, if any of you were there to see it. I found it quite comical. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lol i love his judging so much!!! he gave like 5 kids below a 20 in the marshall and sterling semi finals last year. it was great!! but he definately knows what kind of a ride he is lookign for and it hink that is a fabulous way to judge!

[Jumphigh83]

Now that is something to be proud of!

[Flash44]

"I've had my share of low 70's and it's nothing to slit your wrist over!" LOL!! I'm usually not real disappointed with that!

Would it be too unreasonable to ask each judge to write a concise description of what he or she is looking for in a good hunter round or eq round? Put in things that will give you extra points, and things that will drop you right out of the ribbons. I know that technically, all judges are supposed to judge the same, but when pigs fly! Each judge has his or her own opinion, which is why showing can be so challenging. Once judge may "love" your horse and you can be less than perfect and still do well. Another judge may not, and you have to be perfect to pin. Probably a silly idea.

[Bertie]

Good idea, Flash. Could it be implemented?

Post a sheet before the show? or a summary in the prize list? Kind of like where some finals do a bio on the judge in the program, they could include their judging preferences?

[TeriKessler]

Oh my dear lord, I am honored by your faith in me but I am still recovering from my run in with the still anonymous Garcon!!

Seriously, the idea of learning judge's likes and dislikes is a laudable one. The best way to do it is to attend a big aa show, sit behind or near (a respectful distance, please) the judge and judge the class yourself! Yes, I know an entire hunter class of 30 or so horses can be like a strong sedative, but it becomes sort of like solving a mystery or decoding a language when you begin to see patterns in a judge's jog orders. You can definitely do this yourselves- you don't need me! Just arm yourself with a steno pad. Before the class begins, choose your scoring method. For example some people score with symbols denoting a chip, a long winger a missed lead, etc. with an overall comment at the end. I personally like the numerical system that begins with 10 pts per jump adding up to 80. Then I add points for jumping style from 1 to 10 and 1 to 10 for manner of going, suitibility and overall impression. A standard amount of points would be deducted for a missed lead change- 10 for a complete miss, 5 for an unpleasant one (wringing tail, hopping up and down, leaping into it) or maybe 3 for stepping into it a little late, maybe 1 stride or so.
A pulled rail is an automatic 40, so is a stop. You get the gist of it. Then compare your picks with the judges.

Keeping my card organized is my biggest frustration. How do those guys pin it so quickly? They've cleared the jog and I'm still scratching my head about who goes where!!

Anyways, it's a really productive way to spend those long, long hours waiting for your division to go. And you'll learn what matters most to every judge you do that to. Of course, there's always one that you just can't make sense of. At least not yet!!

Not that I change my plan drastically from judge to judge, but I sure don't 4 beat my way to number one when Brian Flynn is judging. And I make sure my horse is jumping cleanly before I show in front of Jimmy Lee. Stuff like that, just doing your homework to give yourself a fighting chance.

Most really good trainers, like my trainer Leo Conroy, have all that down and prepare thier horses and riders accordingly. That's a great luxury, but if you can't afford to ride with someone like that, try figuring it out yourself!

[Twister]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Flash44:
Once judge may "love" your horse and you can be less than perfect and still do well. Another judge may not, and you have to be perfect to pin. Probably a silly idea.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The difficulty in learning judges preferences lies in the fact that they are seen in the context of different classes. You go to one show where you are winning everything and you think, 'Wow! He loves my horse!' Next time, you can't buy a primary color. Well, he might love your horse, but at the second show he loved others more.
A good example: In the first class of the older a/o's at Harrisburg was a big, rather clunky coarse warmblood who was on the verge of being a really bad mover. He jumped in wonderful style but watching him canter between the jumps was painful. His rider was deadly accurate, though and she ended up second. Under normal circumstances, that horse can get beat in front of me all day long, but not in that particular class.

[Twister]

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

Keeping my card organized is my biggest frustration. How do those guys pin it so quickly? They've cleared the jog and I'm still scratching my head about who goes where!!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As each competitor finishes, I put their number on the far right side of my card. I place them in order. The bigger the class, the more important it is to keep a running tally. You don't want to spend ten minutes at the end of the class trying to go back and forth, putting them in order. In a big class, you could lose someone just by needing to look at the back and the front of the card.

When I first started judging, I gave everyone a numerical score. I ended up getting the score confused with the back number, so I kept my running tally on a separate sheet of paper. I no longer give numerical scores (except where required, of course), so I keep the tally on the scorecard.

It is also nice in large classes because once you have ten, and you have questionable trips, you can instantly compare them with the ride in tenth. If they are worse, you don't have to worry about putting them in the order.

[TeriKessler]

Twister, it's really neat to hear from a judge on this board. Thanks for adding to our understanding of judging!!!

I think I should have mentioned in my VERY long post about learning judge's preferences that one thing I don't do is plan my horse show schedule around who is judging where. I count on my trainer to make a schedule for my horse that is mostly based on what is best for my horse mentally and physically, with consideration for meeting my personal goals added in secondarily. If I'm exceeding my goals at a later point in the year, we discuss together what shows can be dropped to afford the horse more rest. Usually, if it's late in the schedule and my goal isn't being met, he'll help me join reality about what can and cannot be done about it, since I'm like the most competitive person alive and it's easy to get more focused on "making it happen" for you, than doing what's right for your horse.

When I open the prize list for a show I'm committed to attending and I see a judge who I think (like Im a swami and can read minds!) won't use my horse for some reason, I play a little mental game with myself that keeps me off the "pitty pot" (giving up, sulking about it, complaining about it--NOT very attractive at all!). I tell myself that this is an excellent opportunity to win this person over. To show them what Omar's got by producing the very best performance I can. To not give them a reason not to use me, like being late with the change, being lazy about measuring inside the lines or riding conservatively. OK, I may be a little weird, but I actually get keyed up about it, and I become more competitive than ever. I really pull out all the stops and try to be brilliant, to not wimp out on any options (let him gallop to the single oxer- which I like to call the "sale" jump, set a tone that exudes confidence to the first jump instead of creeping up, like "Please don't let me blow the first one!". Because, in my dark little mind, if the judge really does have some kind of inclination against you, you really don't have anything to lose by taking the chances that separate 2nd from 1st. And if you gallop up to the chip, hey, you already thought you weren't the favorite, so it's no big deal, you haven't lost a fan!

[Snowbird]

Congratulations! Teri, I think your post indicates the most logical and most heartwarming approach that I have read on these boards.

That is exactly right for a way to show and compete. It is in the oldest tradition of good sportsmanship.

I agree it is difficult to stay focused on your real purposes for showing and not get caught up in the "competition". There certainly have been times when I got my hungarian up by comments from rude self-centered people and almost got sucked into their reasons for competing which it seems is to "win" at all costs.

I particularly, appreciate your comments regarding the "labeling" of judges. If more took your approach the intimidation of the judges would not be successful.

[TeriKessler]

THanks, Snowbird. My husband's always asking why, among all the trophies, there isn't one for sportsmanship at our house.lol! I'm gonna make him read your post tonight and apologize!!!lol

[pwynnnorman]

Teri, that is, and HAS been (for what seems like years and years on these boards) my point EXACTLY.

I have said over and over and over again that it should be possible through sheer observation and experience to understand the placings. It isn't rocket science, I've said over and over again. It SHOULD NOT be a mystery, not for the health of the sport. You can't legislate the opinion out of the process, but you CAN identify the standards that all judges, more or less, adhere to.

You weren't around when we had these discussions, but basically what I and others were saying is why NOT write down those standards? Get the judges together and let them have some huge conference in which they, once and for all, identify those things which they ALL agree on. Assign penalty points to those things, maybe establish the "whys" behind their feelings, write it all out and let that document become available to others.

Reining does this. There are specific points to be lost from over-rotating in a spin and stuff like that. You CAN predict what mistakes can be made on course. And MANY have already written about the ideals in equitation. The fact is that all competitors and trainers should be able to be reasonable armchair judges. They'll never place them EXACTLY like the judge on any given day, but the results shouldn't be far off.

And my experience on the rail, which is like the one you describe, is that that IS possible, most of the time. MOST judges are impartial and follow a system that makes sense. It's the ones who don't that cause the bad feelings, that and the subjectivity in general. So why NOT codify what judges already do? Why not hold ALL of them accountable to one system? Why not head off the criticism with a proactive system that reduces the ability of any individual from abusing a subjective process?

I'm not arguing that EVERYTHING should involve a set of points: some things, like a general impression, should be left up to the judge. But other things SHOULD be written in stone--and for reasons that make sense and thus could be defended to the public. Indeed, by doing so, just maybe the mechanical mounts of today could become a thing of the past?

Right now, a splinter-bellied jumper who goes around like a machine in a pelham with a tight curb rein produces the top equitation riders most of the time. What if a "degree of difficulty" factor were built into the process to lessen the advantage of the "easy" ride? Perhaps we'd be producing the quality of international riders we once did IF we could stop the current trends in equitation somehow. But those trends don't even get addressed because even the judges themselves have little power as a group. They are at the mercy of trainers and show managers. By establishing standards and documenting expectations, judges would be able to step out from under the pressure and become industry leaders, as, IMO, judges should be.

Doesn't it seem odd to you that judges, as a group, aren't very powerful in the horse industry? They get very little recognition, as a group--but shouldn't they? Shouldn't their collective opinions be important to us? Shouldn't we WANT to hear from them? Why should we be so beholden to trainers? And what about the trainers themselves? Wouldn't they, too, benefit from clearer guidance and leadership from judges (again, as a group)?

The more I think about, the weirder I think it is that judges are so silent in this industry.

[brilyntrip]

I have written about this often apparently no one was listening.Judges do not as a rule want to answer these questions.Certain judges do like specific things like some judges want a fabulous jumper above all else that means really using their backs knees etc .Sometimes a horse can out and out miss at a jump and still get a good score.Another judge wants smooth even and doesnt care how a horse jumps.My feelings are as follows I want to see a great jumper but if it xcanters thats a 68 or so . A great mover and jumper finding the jumps smoothly i.e, no pulling on reins by the rider gets over an 80 with me an 85 or better means you were very very good.
What i really really dislike is one that jumps badly as a habit or one that jumps a dangerous jump where their legs are below vertical that kind of trip will get a low 60 from me.

[pwynnnorman]

Brilyn, we've been at this before, so ignore this post if you don't want to get into it again, but I've thought of something a little new.

I think I mentioned this horse before, but in light of your last post, I wanted to bring him up again because he illustrates a point I'd like to make.

I have a spectacular jumper who is a so-so mover. Big, big names have praised his ability and several have stated that he could easily be competitive in the four-foot division, in spite of his movement--he might not win or get to the indoors (not that I could afford that anyway), but apparently he WOULD SUIT.

When that horse was younger (he's 11 now) and just starting to show, I WANTED him to do the 1-2nd yr green divisions so that he could learn to relax around comfortable courses first, before encountering the less predictable challenges of the jumper division.

But my rider, a pro, absolutely wouldn't take him in that division. Why? Because he "wasn't the type" due to his so-so movement and slightly higher carriage. Here she is, someone who has great talent and has ridden with the best, but she doesn't realize something which could have benefitted my horse--something which, because I put him in front of those big names (who also judge, of course), I only discovered belatedly.

And so there was one fewer four-foot horse out there for I would have kept him in hunters through that level, believing in the old-timers way of producing a good jumper through the hunter division (instead of bypassing it the way everyone tends to do it these days).

We bemoan the demise of the four-foot (and other 3'6+) divisions, but maybe it is the lack of clarity in judging that is at fault as much as the amateur riders. I have a three-year-old full sib coming along now and he IS a nice mover with great natural form. This time, I will insist that he spend time in hunters, regardless of where he needs to end up. I will ignore the opinions of others, short of the really big names, because so many of them hardly know any better than I.

Can you understand why that bothers me and why, IMO, it should bother others? At anything less than the top rank (whom I think of as the "in-the-knows") it's practically a crap shoot when it comes to picking trainers/riders, etc. Why does one have to be "in" to know, I ask again? Why isn't there a wider variety of trainers getting riders into the top ten at the Big Eq finals? In my mind (although, granted, maybe not in others') these things are all related.

[Palisades]

Pwynn, the problem with building in a "degree of difficulty" mark is that a good eq round should look as if the rider is not having to work for it. A rider who goes around having to push to every fence, and haul on the reins to slow (on an obviously difficult horse) should not pin ahead of one who has a soft and flowing round (their horse may still be difficult, and they just handle it better). Since it must LOOK effortless, there is inevitably those who buy horses that ARE easy. My solution would just be more switching horses at the high levels. Then you can guage the effortlessness that one rider get's compared to another ON THE SAME HORSE- the only way you can really judge the degree of difficulty.

[Twister]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pwynnnorman:
I have a spectacular jumper who is a so-so mover. Big, big names have praised his ability and several have stated that he could easily be competitive in the four-foot division, in spite of his movement--he might not win or get to the indoors (not that I could afford that anyway), but apparently he WOULD SUIT.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pwynn, the combination of a spectacular jump and great movement is quite rare. It is the epitome, the ultimate goal. There are a lot of so-so movers who do quite well. If the jump is spectacular and he has a perfect trip, it will take a spectaular jumper with a perfect trip AND better movement to beat him.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
When that horse was younger (he's 11 now) and just starting to show, I WANTED him to do the 1-2nd yr green divisions...But my rider, a pro, absolutely wouldn't take him in that division. Why? Because he "wasn't the type" due to his so-so movement and slightly higher carriage. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My goodness, she must have the champion at Indoors every single year!! And she must have so many rides that she literally can't possibly fit in another.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And so there was one fewer four-foot horse out there <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not too late, if you still have him. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Why isn't there a wider variety of trainers getting riders into the top ten at the Big Eq finals? In my mind (although, granted, maybe not in others') these things are all related.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is a wide variety, actually. But, it's just like the trainer of the winner of the Kentucky Derby who suddenly has a Derby contender every year. People who think they have a winner send their horses to a proven trainer.

Many of Missy Clark's students spent most of their riding career with other trainers but, because they think they have a true shot at winning the finals, they get a good polishing from Missy.

Many riders qualify horses for Indoors. But, often, there are a handful of riders with more than one in each division. If I had what I thought was a truly great conformation hunter, I would want to send him to Scott Stewart or Holly Hays or Danny Roberstshaw because they can get him to his top potential. If he is just a so-so horse, I'll ride him myself because I enjoy doing it and I'm not holding him back.

[brilyntrip]

Pwynn,since I have not seen your horse I cannot comment on him but if he is so fabulous a jumper and only slightly high in his head carriage and only a So-So mover most professionals wouldn't hesitate to take him in the ring .Remember that at the really huge A shows a great mover and jumper are the
real item what will get the shot if they have the trip.Be a realist ok if the class has 20 in it and it is filled with great riders who dont miss the jumps dont miss lead changes,then the QUALITY of the animals is the hair splitter.So therefore; the type of movement, type of head set will be what keeps a horse from winning the top ribbons or simply being an also ran, in otherwords a call back.
In the equitation division the subtlety(sp?)of the rider is paramount .How they get the course done without appearing to do much is the real deal.It is very sophisticated to achieve this .It is not whether so and so got the four to the five but how it was done .Did the rider interfere with the horse as they did it? was it smooth ?The problem with the finals that this thread is discussing is that it is being reported that MAJOR errors were allowed to move on to the next cut .Since I had to stay home with my daughters that weekend I cannot comment on what is being reported,only offer an opinion,such as...did the judges miss a mistake?or did they feel it wasn't an important mistake????My only comment can be well fine but so much controversy????It seems so odd that there is so much since I know someofthe riders being comented on I can only say that they are all very good talented kids .It just seems that there is so much contoversy over this particular finals I find this odd.

[Flash44]

Summing it up - hunters are like pretend. You go around pretending you are not giving your horses cues and pretending he is very easy to ride. And eq is a test for the judges to decide who is a good pretender.

[pwynnnorman]

I do understand you, Twister. I sent a filly to Ray Francis to show in-hand for the same reason that others send their kids to Missy Clark.

But I don't think there are that many new names at the top, especially not names that aren't connected to the old names. And I do think that the pro I used wasn't atypical. I suspect there is a tendency to blow some things out of proportion, especially if you aren't out there all the time (and, while she was good, IMO, she wasn't THAT good--to be out there all the time, that is). But that "blowing things out of proportion" is yet another reason, in my mind, to codify the more consistent judging standards.

For example, how about a drawing of the ideal hunter topline? Where would the poll be with respect to the withers? Now THAT would be an interesting study, wouldn't it? Give ten judges four line drawings of horses at the canter: one with the poll level with the withers, one with the poll level with the rider's chest, one in between the first two and the last lower that the withers. I really, really, really wonder which drawing would be preferred.

I know some of you will inevitably say "it depends." But in other sports, such a suggested ideal is indeed documented and utilized as a guide. Why not just agree to an "ideal" frame and go from there with praise or criticism for deviations under whatever circumstances may arise?

As to "degree of difficulty," I think it would possible to at least recognize the difference between equitating on a horse which cracks it back vs. one which doesn't use its back at all. Which is better: the subtle ride on the flat, easy jumper or the subtle ride on the round, energetic hunter? Why can't the judge take into account the type of jump the rider is equitating on? I think GM himself mentioned this somewhere.

[dbtoo]

Saddle Pad

Sorry it took so long to answer you.
You can get the tapes through Action Video. Their website is www.horseshow.com (http://www.horseshow.com) and their telephone number is 1-800-292-4783. I only wish the did the Maclays and the USET too!

[Twister]

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

But I don't think there are that many new names at the top, especially not names that aren't connected to the old names. And I do think that the pro I used wasn't atypical. I suspect there is a tendency to blow some things out of proportion, especially if you aren't out there all the time (and, while she was good, IMO, she wasn't THAT good--to be out there all the time, that is). But that "blowing things out of proportion" is yet another reason, in my mind, to codify the more consistent judging standards.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

One of my dearest friends is a top hunter rider and you should see some of the junk he pilot's around! HE knows it's junk and most of the time the owner knows it's junk, but they are hoping to apply a little 'great rider' to 'junk hhorse' and get something acceptable. Riding is how my friend makes his living. If you pay, he rides.

[Bumpkin]

I just read an article in Show Circuit,Summer 2000 issue,(pre Medal Class) that was an interview with the judges, and they discussed what they would be looking for in the AHSA National Medal Finals.
Did anyone else who was there watching, read these articles?
Were the articles similar to what the Judges pinned?

[Coreene]

I do like the idea of juges only having the competitors' numbers and not names.

[Palisades]

The problem with that Coreene is that judges, if they keep up with the circuit at all, will know who a rider is without hearing the name announced. I know that after I've been to a couple shows, I can name most of the riders in a division...imagine judges who do nothing but watch them ride. I'm sure they would recognize them, unless you made them wear masks and die their horse's coats. I think the only way to deal with favouritism in judging is more regimented testing and certification procedures.

[pwynnnorman]

Love the phenomena, Twister. Oh, well, there's not much to be done about that, except (oh, gosh, gee--I'm so sorry for sounding like a broken record) establishing greater consistency and clarity in all ranks of judging through standardization and posted scores.

What about a WHAT IF scenario? WHAT would have happened IF the finals which started this thread has used standards that forced specific penalities upon riders for specific infractions? What if the judges had to note on a sheet an overall impression ranging from 0 to 10, with ten being perfect and 0 being equivalent to "fell off approaching Jump One)? What if crossing the dotted line weren't cause for elimination, but cause for an automatic deduction of, say, 15 points out of a possible 100? A near-perfect rider could still, conceivably, score in the 80s, but, boy, would the pressure be on them to make up for their mistake.

What if, what if, what if????

What if a rider chips the first fence, but the course has alternative routes which include differing degrees of difficulty which would enable him/her to make up for that chip? Right now, you blow it early and you may as well pull up and leave the ring. The judge definitely stops watching your round and everything else is for naught. A point-based system that enables riders to make up for mistakes by taking chances later on in the course would be SOOOOO much more interesting, both to ride and to watch, IMO!

[Sparky]

pwynn, If I am interpreting your posts correctly, then it sounds like you won't be happy until the day that computers do all the judging for us. My reason for showing in front of judges is one of respect and curiosity-----I've seen most of them ride, train, teach, sell,--in short, I am curious about their OPINION of me and my horse.Yeah its a risk, but so what? If you want to know if you are getting pretty good at something, you don't trot down to the street corner and ask the people waiting for the bus to comment. You load up and go to a show and ask someone who has the knowledge that got him his judge's license. I'd much rather have Jimmy Lee rate my horse through the eyes of a horseman with a lifetime of experience, than force him to mark a card with a bunch of rote deductions on it.
And as far as your comment about leaving the ring after a mistake--ask the kids who rode in the Maclay finals several years ago, who heard the dreaded whistle if they had a major error, and HAD to leave the ring immediately. Humiliating. Much better to try to salvage something, and leave on a good note. It will earn you the respect of everyone for another day.

[Sparky]

Hope this doesn't show up twice, my computer is acting strange
pwynn, it sounds like you won't be happy until computers do all the judging. Me? I go to shows because I value the judge's OPINION. I don't just ask anybody how they think I am doing with my horse. I load him up and take him to perform in front of someone who,to me, has the necessary experience to validate my efforts. I have either seen him, ride, train, show, teach,sell or judge at other times, and I want to know what he thinks about me. I would much prefer having Jimmy Lee observe my round through the eyes of a lifetime of experience as a horseman, than force him to make little + or - signs on a card filled with rote deductions. I care what he THINKS, not whether he can do the math. We're not all going to walk away with a prize every time, but that shouldn't be the point.
As far as exiting the ring after a major error, ask the kids who rode in the Maclay finals in the mid-80's. They heard the dreaded whistle if they had a big mistake, and had to leave the ring immediately. Humiliating. Better to continue and salvage something, and earn everyon's respect for another day.

[pwynnnorman]

We've gotten into this before, Sparky, and so I'll just repeat my standard response: I'm not advocating total standardization, just SOME, for the sake of clarity, consistency and education. I'm sorry I can't get that point across to you, but I appreciate your perspective, since I'm sure you aren't the only one who holds it and I'd like, someday, to figure out how to convince you that clarifying and standardizing and publicizing aspects of a subjective sport is a HEALTHY thing which many, many sports have come to recognize. (I wonder if I'll ever understand why h-eq folks are so different!)

[Janet]

Sparky,
The level of standardization that P... is advocating is NOT computerization, nor eve in as much specificity as dressage judging.

It is more like the judging in figure skating, where there is an overall agreement on WHAT things constitute faults, and on the RELATIVE importance of the different dimensions. But there is still plenty of room for subjectivity and personal opinion- WITHIN THAT FRAMEWORK.

[dbtoo]

Someone was saying that they would like to have a list of what certain judges were looking for. The November Pedlar has such a listing for 5 different judges including Jimmy Lee, Joe Dotoli, Ronnie Beard and others. You can read the article online at www.pedlar.com. (http://www.pedlar.com.)