The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 40
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr. 9, 2008
    Posts
    1,233

    Default Perf. Std: Disadvantaged Riders & Regions

    As some of you may be aware, the 3 data nerds have continued to nerd away. We have analyzed ~45,000 scores from 2008 shows from all regions and all levels.

    Some interesting stuff is emerging.

    Would people be interested to know that there are some "low scoring regions?"

    Would people be interested to know that there are some "low scoring breeds?"

    Would people still support a qualifying rule if the lowest scoring region scored, on average 2.5 points below the highest scoring region?

    These are not rhetorical quesitons. What should we do with this info?
    Last edited by pluvinel; Sep. 20, 2008 at 02:02 PM.



  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep. 25, 2003
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    512

    Default

    Well, there are other data-data nerds on this board.

    I think you should post it, along with a brief description of where you found your source data and a description of what analytical methodology was applied to lead you to your conclusions.

    Then, the rest of us data nerds can evaluate it for you. Hey...it's not a peer-reviewed journal or anything, but I doubt that the USDF connection or Dressage Today is going to publish your findings no matter how sound your analytical method may be......



    (Wouldn't it be nice if our national organizations actually used a data-driven approach before making decisions?????)



  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan. 25, 2001
    Posts
    1,354

    Default

    I agree -- post it here and email to the GMOs for discussion before the upcoming USDF conference. Send to John Long at the USEF too. Decisions need to be made on data...not opinions and anecdotes.
    "Dreams are the touchstone of our characters." Henry David Thoreau
    Touchstone Farm
    www.bytouchstonefarm.com



  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan. 16, 2007
    Posts
    2,169

    Default

    I'd love to know about it.

    It could make a great difference and certainly raise some questions that should be looked at more closely.

    Not that I give a hoot about showing but I like patterns and facts.



  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb. 9, 2000
    Posts
    2,395

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pluvinel View Post
    Would people be interested to know that there are some "low scoring regions?"

    Would people be interested to know that there are some "low scoring breeds?"
    Interested, but not at all surprised. Would like to know which they are, to see if they match perception.



  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar. 1, 2001
    Posts
    1,031

    Default

    I'd be fascinated - as a non american, non nerd, non mathemetician - it's interesting but it would need to come with a stats for dummies type explanation!



  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar. 27, 2001
    Location
    Between the Medina River and a hay field
    Posts
    9,894

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pluvinel View Post
    As some of you may be aware, the 3 data nerds have continued to nerd away. We have analyzed ~45,000 scores from 2008 shows from all regions and all levels.

    Some interesting stuff is emerging.

    Would people be interested to know that there are some "low scoring regions?"

    Would people be interested to know that there are some "low scoring breeds?"

    Would people still support a qualifying rule if the lowest scoring region scored, on average 2.5 points below the highest scoring region?

    These are not rhetorical quesitons. What should we do with this info?

    Id love to see it (Im a math nerd too).
    www.spindletopfarm.net
    Home of Puerto D'Azur - 1998 NA 100 Day Test Champion
    "Charcter is much easier kept than recovered"



  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun. 6, 2005
    Location
    The Big Mitt
    Posts
    1,714

    Default

    I vote yes as well. I think it would be helpful. Might help various GMOs figure out where their area stands and could lead to helpful, knowlegeable, improvements.



  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov. 3, 2006
    Posts
    106

    Default

    Would people be interested to know that there are some "low scoring regions?"

    Would people be interested to know that there are some "low scoring breeds?"
    I am curious as well.

    I can see the "low scoring regions" going either way. There are the big dressage areas like Florida and S. California, where we'd assume the scores would be higher (regions 3 and 7), but then there are also areas where dressage is not so big and where it is not unheard of to hire generous judges to encourage people to participate at all, and there is also the fact that although regions 3 and 7 contain Florida and S.Cal, they also contain other non dressage heavy states, which could also skew the results in terms of speaking regionally. In other words, I don't know if determining high scoring regions would really mean anything. Nonetheless, I'd still be curious!

    It's the same with breeds, we can rather well guess which breeds are higher scoring and lower scoring, or can flip thru any Yearbook issue to see All-Breeds results. I'd still be curious in your specific findings, however.

    While I don't know how meaningful the information may be in terms of the big picture, it would still be interesting.

    I would also be interested in the average score nationwide, per level, to see how it drops as people move up the levels and the work gets more difficult, if this is information you happen to also have easily available.



  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2000
    Posts
    24,408

    Default

    Just looking at show scores I've often thought certain regions scored lower, but also that scores from specific shows average very differently even in a higher scoring region. and certain breeds score lower based on the HOY published numbers.

    I'd really like to see the results of your study to see if my impressions are really valid overall, or just apply for the small number of scores I've looked at.

    Do the scores run higher in california and florida? Are your numbers dividied by professional and amateur?



  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr. 9, 2008
    Posts
    1,233

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by molliwog View Post
    Well, there are other data-data nerds on this board.

    I think you should post it, along with a brief description of where you found your source data and a description of what analytical methodology was applied to lead you to your conclusions.

    Then, the rest of us data nerds can evaluate it for you. Hey...it's not a peer-reviewed journal or anything, but I doubt that the USDF connection or Dressage Today is going to publish your findings no matter how sound your analytical method may be......

    (Wouldn't it be nice if our national organizations actually used a data-driven approach before making decisions?????)
    PEER REVIEWED!!!!! This is brilliant!!!!! We welcome as many eyes as possible on the analysis.

    We're in the process of finalizing the document. The question was basically what to do with said document. The inital results raised a few more questions on how to slice and dice for further analysis....so we're doing that.

    It will take a week or so to finish the report as some of us need day jobs which interfere with this project.

    But once the report is final, lets get a "gathering of the nerds" and have a data fest.

    Give us a couple of weeks, but please continue to give us ideas about where the document should go, if they haven't already been covered.



  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb. 17, 2000
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    3,497

    Default

    Nerd away...I would love to know, I am nerdly challanged.



  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct. 3, 2002
    Location
    it's not the edge of the earth, but you can see it from here
    Posts
    12,079

    Red face

    aahhh... but even regions don't tell the whole story.

    My region includes NEDA (MA) and WNYDA (NY) and shows like NEDA fall, Syracuse, etc.

    My *state*, and my *area* (5 +/- hrs from nearest big NEDA event) definitely don't fare as well as the rest of the region...

    3 recognized shows this year within a 3 hr drive. That's it.

    Still, I'd love to see the numbers.
    InnisFailte Pinto Sporthorses & Coloured Cobs
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Bits are like cats, what's one more? (Petstorejunkie)



  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar. 15, 2007
    Location
    (throw dart at map) NC!
    Posts
    4,786

    Default

    Please post them.

    I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that the trends follow what has been published in USDF connections in regards to average qualifying and regional championship scores by region and the breeding statistics (performance scoring by breed, sire of get, produce of dam, etc. statistics).

    Of course there are lower scoring regions. There will be higher scores in areas of the country where there is a higher disposable income to buy quality horses and take lessons and put the horse in professional training, where there is an abundance of quality professionals, where there is an abundance of breeders-especially quality mare owners, and where english-type riding is the dominant equestrian sport. Likely, the whole of the east coast, especially Florida, and California regions have some of the highest scores.

    I'm sure my region (Region 9) is one of, if not the lowest scoring region. As a whole, Western disciplines are very popular (and draw alot of the horse people with money), there are alot of "nontraditional breeds" doing dressage, and we have relatively fewer quality trainers and breeders than, say, New England or the Mid-Atlantic, for the same land mass. There is also less money as a whole in this region. I mean, in between cities here we have alot of *open space* and ranches - not suburbs and small cities. We hear crap all the time about how terrible the region is as a whole.

    Of course I would also expect low-scoring breeds. I'm guessing the most popular and populous breeds (hanoverians, dutch warmbloods, oldenburgs) are amongst the highest scoring and everything else would be a whole lot lower? I'm also guessing that those with common import breeds fall into a financial bracket that affords them to pay for professional training and lessons. NO DOUBT that increases one's scores. And that top professionals (who score well) are riding them (year end award and qualification stats support this). I'm guessing less TB and QH owners spend that amount of money on training - or they are doing other disciplines as well as dressage.

    I think it is interesting information, but I'm not sure what it really says at the end of the day. We have judges coming to our region *expecting* to see low scoring horses and riders. I also hear people telling others that if they buy XX breed, they'll do better at shows and in the discipline (these conclusions can be supported by the various year-end award stats). This usually ends up with newer and amateur riders being overmounted - exactly the problem that the judges complain about. Who wants to buy an appropriate QH or Welsh cob when they already know they won't score as well as a NA-KWPN? I see this alllllllllll the time. Publishing data about high and low scoring regions, and high and low scoring breeds really needs to come with a real-life interpretation of what the numbers mean. I'm not saying that the stats geeks need to do this , but that people need to keep it all in mind. There's nothing worse than no stats than misinterpretted stats.

    J.



  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar. 15, 2007
    Location
    (throw dart at map) NC!
    Posts
    4,786

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pluvinel View Post
    PEER REVIEWED!!!!! This is brilliant!!!!! We welcome as many eyes as possible on the analysis.

    We're in the process of finalizing the document. The question was basically what to do with said document. The inital results raised a few more questions on how to slice and dice for further analysis....so we're doing that.

    It will take a week or so to finish the report as some of us need day jobs which interfere with this project.

    But once the report is final, lets get a "gathering of the nerds" and have a data fest.

    Give us a couple of weeks, but please continue to give us ideas about where the document should go, if they haven't already been covered.
    I'm a scientist nerd, and would be thrilled to be a part of the "gathering of the nerds". i love data fests!



  16. #16
    Join Date
    Aug. 7, 2000
    Posts
    3,946

    Default

    I'm not a numbers nerd, but I KNOW this data is relevant and important; that it helps to dispel the myth that U.S. riders need a Standards Rule; that it helps to explain WHY the Standards Rule as presented will not work and has no operating system in place to help make it work.

    BUT--

    Honestly-- I think the only numbers that will interest John Long and the BOG are the economics.

    If the people who vote are made to understand that this Performance Rule will undermine their cash flow; that this Performance Rule presents as elitist and is unattractive to riders and possible future riders...then I think there is a chance they will vote no.
    one oak, lots of canyons

    http://horsesportnews.wordpress.com/



  17. #17
    Join Date
    Oct. 16, 2002
    Posts
    1,289

    Cool

    FWIW, I vote to publish your data on the BB's. I think you would get some interesting feedback from many of the posters here and on TOB.


    Also, these 2007 vs. 2008 stats you posted on TOB were interesting. The 2008 scores are actually lower at T-4th levels (statistically significant )

    Quote Originally Posted by pluvinel
    In 2007, the average scores across all regions was (truncated at 1 decimal place):
    Training-62.3
    1st-61.7
    2nd-60.5
    3rd-60.1
    4th-61.3
    PSG-60.3
    Int-60.1
    GP-59.1

    In 2008, the average scores across all regions was (truncated at 1 decimal place):
    Training-61.9
    1st-61.7
    2nd-60.3
    3rd-60.160.0
    4th-60.9
    PSG-661.0
    Int-62.0
    GP-60.7

    And of all the scores, in all the regions, in both 2007 and 2008, only 0.03% of the scores were 40% or below.....

    Remember, the score of 4 means "insufficient"....ergo, the judges are NOT sending the message to the riders that their riding is BAD....

    The descriptors of "bad" starts at 3-"Fairly bad"...then 2-"Bad".....then 1-"Very bad"....so if the judges want to have the riders get "the message" then the score need to reflect bad riding when it so merits."



  18. #18
    Join Date
    Oct. 11, 2007
    Location
    Andover, MA
    Posts
    5,621

    Default

    One data nerd here, would love to see this!!!



  19. #19

    Default

    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by pluvinel View Post
    As some of you may be aware, the 3 data nerds have continued to nerd away. We have analyzed ~45,000 scores from 2008 shows from all regions and all levels.

    Some interesting stuff is emerging.
    are there also any juges who consistantly give low scores all round ??? also I know in some other breeds/sports there are judges who are hired just because they are cheaper than all other folks...and sadly their opinions matter as they shape the year end scoring...

    best
    Production Acres,Pro A Welsh Cobs
    I am one of the last 210,000 remaining full time farmers in America.We feed the others.



  20. #20
    Join Date
    Sep. 25, 2003
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    512

    Default

    Let your fellow nerds know when the data are ready.......would be glad to have a look.



Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 5
    Last Post: Nov. 6, 2011, 10:55 PM
  2. Is there a listing for regions?
    By BEARCAT in forum Equestrians with Disabilities
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Oct. 11, 2009, 07:12 AM
  3. Breed Cert ? frozen semen sold.....Perf. Sires
    By ancientoaks in forum Sport Horse Breeding
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Jun. 21, 2009, 02:30 PM
  4. Replies: 17
    Last Post: Jul. 25, 2008, 08:40 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
randomness