For those that prefer doing away with the bell curve and using a “set standard” – who determines the standard? The registries that have agreed to accept the results? The testing staff? The stallion owners? The COTH community? :lol:
And how is it determined? Is it based on scores from the previous year’s testing? Or from a range of years? How many years – 2, 5, 10? How far back do you go? And what happens if it gets based on a date range where there were particularly above-par or below-par stallions?
Methinks folks would be grumbling just as much – or more.
It would be up to the registries who accept the results and every registry may have a unique standard.
Personally, I disagree with using past test results. Each test is individual in that it has a different group of stallions, different test riders, different judges, different weather conditions, etc. If you go back far enough (i.e. the 100-day test) than you are looking at different training directors, test formats, management, and locations.
Originally Posted by DownYonder
They are already using a set standard as part of the calculations. I do not believe COTH had anything to do with it.
Originally Posted by DownYonder
I believe you are missing the issue.
Just to clarify ...
An "8" in gaits is a great score where as a "5" would be "okay". You can look at the raw scores to see the areas where a stallion is a stand out. The raw scores show the median and the deviation from the mediation. Here is a definition of the scores:
10 = Excellent
9 = Very Good
8 = Good
7 = Satisfactory
6 = Above Average
5 = Average
4 = Below Average
3 = Insufficient
2 = Bad
1 = Very Bad
Originally Posted by TrueColours
Is there a link for photo's of the testing?
Apparently some folks can’t take a joke. :lol:
Originally Posted by stoicfish
So what IS the issue? That ONE stallion received scores much lower than the other stallions? Is this like kindergarten, where every kid has to get a gold star so his little physche isn’t damaged?
Bell curve aside, this stallion’s scores WERE SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER than the other stallions. I don’t know about you, but for producing PERFORMANCE horses, it seems it would behoove us to NOT use stallions who fall way short of “the standard”.
Little to nothing has been said about the ponies this year. It was very exciting to see 2 ponies at the testing for the first time!!! The quality of the ponies was definitely on par with that of the big boys, and it was especially fun to watch the ponies bravely jump the exact same cross country jumps as the horses. :D
Congratulations to Delores Seketa, owner of Adonis and Jeff White, owner of Highlife's Bulgari Boy!!!!
I'm glad you mentioned that Dianna! We loooooooved having the ponies! We had wonderful ponies this year. Even though the Pony Test does not normally contain a large number of ponies, it is just as exciting and important to us as the 70/30 Day Tests. And just like you cannot possibly compare the different years of 70-Day Tests, it is the same with the Pony Tests. We have different test riders, judges, and circumstances, so while the raw scores can provide some information on the stallions, it will put the stallions at an unfair advantage if you compare the years together. :) Congrats again to the owners of the two ponies, and hopefully we will have more of them next year!!!
Your humour is fine, it was the suggestion that the test didn't already have a standard. And once again, it isn't about any one horse or test, it is about the means of calculating the results. I think Silver Creek works hard to bring a service to NA, I just think the math should be fair also. I know from a couple of years ago, they were talking about changing the minimum number in Germany to ....what is it, 25? For the reasons that we have discussed.I have a hard time believing that they think 12 horses would be representative of a population in NA.
And I am not worried about a horse that got 5's and 6's. More worried that if it is a slow year for stallions, that Silver Creek's test will be subject to math that is not appropriate. The governing bodies should be fair to us in NA and allow us the same standards that they set for themselves. I get that NA may not always have 25 animals but we should be able to have a test, regardless, that is fair in the scoring. They just need to rework the math.
PS If Silver Creek and all the owners can put in the effort time and money, I believe the regulators can work harder to make it as least as fair as it is in Germany.
For the record, they now require 25 stallions for a test in Germany to start, but not 25 to run the calculations. Which means they start with 25, but can finish with only 12. This has happened under the new calculating system. Which, in reality can mean that when this happens, it could be possible for 6 (more or less) out of the remaining 12 to have insufficient scores to meet the requirements for licensing (since the new system does not include the bell curve), whereas when there is a bell curve only 1 out of the 12 (of the original 25) will not have sufficient indexes for licensing.
And also, the word we are receiving is that many of the breeders and many of the powers that be in Germany are more unhappy with the new system and feel that it is more unfair since there is a breeding index (an index score according to the pedigree of the horse) that is used to weight the scores. Some are happy with it, and some are not. So you can see no matter what the system is, there will always be things to critique. It's impossible to find a "fair" system, because everyone's definition of "fair" will be different. I can guarantee you that more Americans will challenge the "fairness" of the new system since it adds a weighted pedigree index and the pedigrees here in America contain many different bloodlines than in Germany.
We will never run a test here with less than 18 to start since we take into consideration that we do not know what condition the stallions are arriving in, and the odds of some showing up here with lack of training/insufficient condition to finish the test is high. So this leaves us a cushion in case we encounter a situation like that. We spend a lot of time working with individuals here in NA and in Germany to find the best system every year and we have constantly monitored the progress in development of different systems and this current system is definitely the option we want to provide for North American breeders that want the ability to have multiple breeding licenses. If a better system is developed, we have the ability and are willing to adapt, but will not sacrifice the reciprocity with all of the registries/associations. It is of highest importance to us to provide stallion owners with an avenue for licensing in multiple registries.
So to be clear, they kicked out the curve altogether or just for a test under 25 horses?
Originally Posted by SilverCreek
And the breeders are unhappy with the pedigree evaluation? Do you know what kind of weight it has? Depending on how it is weighted, I think it is a great addition to the evaluation. Possibly too subjective though maybe. But I could see using the KWPN BLUP's of the ancestors to factor in. But really, if I bred a freak from my no-name mare, it may have high scores but little chance of genetically being consistent for being a sire.
What do you think of that pedigree evaluation Summer? Besides how you think people may accept it.
Thanks for sharing the info!
BTW, I don't think it is about making people happy as much as it is using the bell curve correctly. People will always have issue with things, regardless ;) I think for those that are familiar with it, however, the low sample size is a big elephant in the room. And obviously the German's are re-considering it's use. Maybe to people that are not familiar with it, the whole conversation seems very pedantic.
(and the test is obviously not standardized if we have different rules and even the creators are seeing a need for change)