The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 77
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Dec. 22, 2000
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    15,328

    Default

    I can see Margie's point.

    She did the trials in March, finished second there (on a scoring technicality), did the required number of observation events, did quite well in a couple of those classes, and ended up lower on the final list than Charlie, who was ranked 35th after missing the trials. Charlie was not granted a bye, like McLain or Via Volo.

    I'd imagine Margie would have gone to Spruce Meadows if she had known it was down to the wire.

    Don't get me wrong, I think we have a strong team, but I can understand someone questioning those results. Why put the wear and tear on the horse all week in the initial selection trials if they have so little bearing on the end result?



  2. #22
    Join Date
    May. 16, 2004
    Location
    Ft. Lauderdale, FL
    Posts
    13

    Default

    I think we are forgetting the topic of subjective vs objective or as combination of the two. As far as the WC Margie had a severe concussion right before she left and was not suppose to even be riding and Indigo did not have multiple bad rounds he had one with 12 faults in Ky. and 4 clear rounds and 4 with 4. which is pretty consistent..Did no one notice the large black eye and scrapes during the WC
    . As far as other horses this year she did well on l have seen the nice new 8 year old stallion Royce who has been in the top 3 placings in the last 6 GPs he has entered this year including winning 2.
    But l still think we are getting off topic. What do you think the best selection process should be?



  3. #23
    Join Date
    Nov. 6, 2001
    Location
    Fairfax
    Posts
    2,126

    Default

    We got it, you're here defending Margie. Rich's performance demonstrably tops in the field. Reed very consistent and with two horses. Beezie, steady low fault performances on two mounts. McLain coming back from injury. Limited 2012 results, but stellar international record and brilliant rides.

    Yes ME had only,one 12 fault round, but just one of those sinks a nations cup team. Everyone they selected including Jayne has been reliable low faults in the observation events, particularly the most recent ones.

    As to subjective vs objective, I think the mix we have now is reasonable. The objective scoring in the trials provided a good foundation for the long list (along with the bys) and the selectors used the observation events to look at consistency, team composition, and to see who was peaking as the summer months approach.

    Best of luck to ME going forward.



  4. #24
    Join Date
    Dec. 22, 2000
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    15,328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jr View Post
    Yes ME had only,one 12 fault round, but just one of those sinks a nations cup team.
    Not when you can discard one score.



  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jan. 1, 2002
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,276

    Default

    I like the idea of the first, two slots for the top two qualifiers of the selections trial and then the second two slots and alternate being subjective. Seems to have a bit of the best of both worlds......



  6. #26
    Join Date
    Nov. 6, 2001
    Location
    Fairfax
    Posts
    2,126

    Smile

    Mhm, not true. You want to use the drop score for that unlikely rail, not to cover an 8, 12, or 16 fault score. The best teams often have a just 0 or 4 fault scores across the board, and use the drop to cover the unlikely rail. Without the ability to use the drop that way, you're very likely out of the medals.



  7. #27
    Join Date
    May. 4, 2009
    Posts
    338

    Default

    I say drop the trials all together. Just have 8 or so Olympic observation events, top 4 riders at the end make the team.
    Life is short, ride the best horse first.



  8. #28
    Join Date
    Dec. 22, 2000
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    15,328

    Default

    I beg to differ.

    You discard the worst score on the team, whatever it may be. Trying to decribe something as an "unlikely" rail is a waste of time. Rails are rails on the scoreboard.

    As I said before, I think we have a strong team, and I hope to see them on top of the podium in London, but I can understand why people might scratch their heads a bit over the whole selection process at this point.



  9. #29
    Join Date
    May. 16, 2004
    Location
    Ft. Lauderdale, FL
    Posts
    13

    Default

    Bentley that sounds like a good system and very constructive comment to use a combination of the two. l dont think it ever hurts to review a system and try to make things a little better and more understandable.
    And l agree that it is a strong team and wish them all the best and much success.



  10. #30
    Join Date
    May. 27, 2008
    Posts
    72

    Default

    I did get off track for the title of this thread. My surprise in Charlie being selected over Margie in no way means that I think we should go back to purely objective teams.

    I also have not been on that level of the horse show circuit for some time now, and I bow to the superior knowledge of the selectors (not that they care if I didn't ).



  11. #31
    Join Date
    Jan. 9, 2003
    Posts
    1,575

    Default

    I understand (though don't necessarily agree with) Margie's points, but I feel that it was in extremely poor taste for her to verbalize them publicly the way she did. It really came out sounding like very sour grapes to me and I wish she had kept them to herself. The part where she mentioned an extremely unlucky rail in one of the events, and said that that round could have easily been clear left an especially bad taste in my mouth. Of course that happens, but why should her one rail not count? Should the committee ignore the one rail for everyone because hey, that could have easily been a clear round, except it just wasn't? Reed had some four-faulters throughout the process, but blamed them all on rider error. And blaming her decision not to go to Spruce on the fact that she didn't know it might have been a good idea? After that 12 fault round, maybe she should have thought harder?

    Her comments were just way too much blaming everyone but herself for my taste. And the whole "I totally support the team, BUT..." was awful in my opinion.



  12. #32
    Join Date
    Oct. 2, 1999
    Location
    Mendocino County, CA: Turkey Vulture HQ
    Posts
    15,765

    Default

    The completely objective teams for SJ (and eventing) have been disasters.

    I think the new system is a pretty reasonable one. You are excusing the very best from the rigors of the trials. You're able to watch the horses and decide if a bad performance was unlucky or uncharacteristic. You can add in the factor of experience and soundness, to avoid sending a team full of young horses or inexperienced riders. You can build a mix so that any one weakness is not overrepresented. I am pretty happy with the combination of objective and subjective they used here.

    I feel for Margie... but a 12 is a bad score. If it's not our drop score, we are out of the medals. When you've got so many other combinations out there doing as much jumping and not having scores like that, it's a big factor. Cedric and Laura Kraut had a 12 and also were not selected, despite getting the third bye for the trials.

    I recall that in 2004 Margie was also pretty vocal about her disappointment in not getting a bye. I think the end result for that team showed that the selectors were right.

    Margie has been to the Olympics and the WEG, and I'm sure she'd love to go again. It's unfortunate that we can only send 4 to compete for the team. I hope she'll have a great horse for WEG/Normandy in 2014.
    If you are allergic to a thing, it is best not to put that thing in your mouth, particularly if the thing is cats. - Lemony Snicket



  13. #33
    Join Date
    May. 16, 2004
    Location
    Ft. Lauderdale, FL
    Posts
    13

    Default

    I dont think it was sour grapes at all. She has said nothing negative towards the team but quite the opposite has spoken highly of them. l believe she is just trying to do something positive and work on improving the system. And l too believe a combination of the two systems could achieve this and would be very easy to understand and not leave people scratching their heads as to what is going on. And this was the system used in the last two Olympics and the Weg in 2006 which were very successsful for the US.as combination of the two. l think she is just to say she was disapointed ( which is not very harsh) as l think anyone in this position would be or they would not be trying to make the team especially being moved all the way down to 9th from 2nd.



  14. #34
    Join Date
    Jan. 9, 2003
    Posts
    1,575

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by horsense View Post
    I dont think it was sour grapes at all. She has said nothing negative towards the team but quite the opposite has spoken highly of them. l believe she is just trying to do something positive and work on improving the system. And l too believe a combination of the two systems could achieve this and would be very easy to understand and not leave people scratching their heads as to what is going on. And this was the system used in the last two Olympics and the Weg in 2006 which were very successsful for the US.as combination of the two. l think she is just to say she was disapointed ( which is not very harsh) as l think anyone in this position would be or they would not be trying to make the team especially being moved all the way down to 9th from 2nd.
    No, I know you don't think it was sour grapes. My point is that I do. It's perfectly fine for us to have opposing opinions. I thought her comments were uncalled for and somewhat immature (I also thought the timing of her voicing her opinion was inappropriate), which was disappointing to me considering how long Margie has been in the business. She did mention that it might not have been fun for the owners of the horse to hear this news, so maybe her reaction was business related, but this is how it goes with horses. I just felt she should know that by now, and she should have taken it more gracefully in the name of sportsmanship. I wasn't under the impression that anyone should feel as though he is a shoe-in for the Olympics based on the selection trials when there were multiple observation events to follow, and Margie's comments in the article made it sound (to me) that she felt differently. I was just very disappointed by her comments for multiple reasons.



  15. #35
    Join Date
    May. 16, 2004
    Location
    Ft. Lauderdale, FL
    Posts
    13

    Default

    you are totally correct to say that it is fine and healthy for people to have different opinions. Interpreting someone elses words to say what you want them too is not ok.



  16. #36
    Join Date
    May. 11, 2008
    Posts
    42

    Default

    She should have gone to Spruce no question. That's where it all came down to the wire....



  17. #37
    Join Date
    Feb. 11, 2007
    Location
    Misplaced Californian
    Posts
    478

    Default

    I know Indigo had 12 at KY, but Mika had 12 at Spruce Meadows and was still on the nominated list- 7th I believe.



  18. #38
    Join Date
    Apr. 2, 2011
    Location
    Westchester, NY
    Posts
    2,634

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by findeight View Post
    Little surprised she said this.
    Same.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lucassb View Post
    Margie is a great rider but I can imagine that the selectors did have concerns about her horse's consistency, and although it's sad for her on a personal level, I think the right riders are on the team and have a good shot at doing very well.
    ^this

    Also, I did think her comment about not realizing she maybe should have gone to spruce sounded a little arrogant. When you look at this board and people's predictions for the team, most people were pretty spot on about who the top contenders were. And if people on a BB can see that, I'm surprised Margie didn't feel a little more pressure to go to spuce and prove herself over beezie, mclain, etc.



  19. #39

    Default

    FWIW...I'm sure it was a VERY tough decision to make, to leave her out. I totally understand how she feels about this. Who wouldn't be bummed at the loss of that opportunity?

    However, I feel her response in the article was said in poor fashion.
    There are times when its best to keep things to yourself and put a smile on your face, even if you have to force it. This is one of those times.



  20. #40
    Join Date
    Sep. 30, 2010
    Location
    SE PA
    Posts
    618

    Default

    Count me as another who believes her comments to be in poor taste.

    If she felt that she had to say something about the system it would have been better said after the Olympics rather than the day after the team was announced.



Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 10
    Last Post: Mar. 7, 2011, 08:45 AM
  2. Replies: 14
    Last Post: Aug. 21, 2009, 10:43 AM
  3. Replies: 157
    Last Post: Jun. 5, 2004, 06:05 PM

Posting Permissions

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