[DMK]

Is the judging card really more embarrassing than your performance in the ring?

Judging by numerous threads asking why they didn't place over a horse that did x,y and z and how many people want more feedback on their trips (aside from placings), there might be a surprise or two.

...or howls of outrage when they found out the judge made a mistake... because they totally do. or even more howls of outrage if they ever figured out the decipher code to identify the sea of bays, chestnuts or grays in the hack... hint, if you have 4 similar horses in the hack, there might be a notation "TSK" next to one (tall skinny kid on gray). Other descriptions can be way less flattering if not accurate.

[RockinHorse]

Judging by numerous threads asking why they didn't place over a horse that did x,y and z and how many people want more feedback on their trips (aside from placings), there might be a surprise or two.

...or howls of outrage when they found out the judge made a mistake... because they totally do. or even more howls of outrage if they ever figured out the decipher code to identify the sea of bays, chestnuts or grays in the hack... hint, if you have 4 similar horses in the hack, there might be a notation "TSK" next to one (tall skinny kid on gray). Other descriptions can be way less flattering if not accurate.

Is this the place where we bring up "VPL" ?

[teddygirl]

Is this the place where we bring up "VPL" ?

[poltroon]

Judging by numerous threads asking why they didn't place over a horse that did x,y and z and how many people want more feedback on their trips (aside from placings), there might be a surprise or two.

...or howls of outrage when they found out the judge made a mistake... because they totally do. or even more howls of outrage if they ever figured out the decipher code to identify the sea of bays, chestnuts or grays in the hack... hint, if you have 4 similar horses in the hack, there might be a notation "TSK" next to one (tall skinny kid on gray). Other descriptions can be way less flattering if not accurate.

I wouldn't post flat cards. They're much more like random notes, as you say.

[poltroon]

(Frankly, I think most of us would love it if the comments were public with the scores, especially the ones that say, "Well ridden, too bad about that spooky corner." )

Except that I would bet the comment would just be "Spooked" and I would assume as the rider you already knew that

Sure the rider already knew, but it's nice when the judge says that she thought you were a good pair and that she doesn't think the end score matches your true capability.

My point is that as far as potential for embarrassment, the whole test would almost always be less embarrassing than the raw score.

In hunters, comments are much more terse because of the nature of the round and the scoring, and that's fine.

[RugBug]

I wouldn't post flat cards. They're much more like random notes, as you say.

They still have to differentiate the sea of bays in the over fences classes...plenty of opportunity for unflattering notes (BBH -Bay Big Head,) etc. The common WBWR was an old notation that we wouldn't see today, but things like it would not fly in today's PC, "every one is a rising star" world

[RockinHorse]

(Frankly, I think most of us would love it if the comments were public with the scores, especially the ones that say, "Well ridden, too bad about that spooky corner." )

Except that I would bet the comment would just be "Spooked" and I would assume as the rider you already knew that

Sure the rider already knew, but it's nice when the judge says that she thought you were a good pair and that she doesn't think the end score matches your true capability.

My point is that as far as potential for embarrassment, the whole test would almost always be less embarrassing than the raw score.

In hunters, comments are much more terse because of the nature of the round and the scoring, and that's fine.

In a hunter class I don't think a judge would be worrying about whether the round was well ridden if the horse spooked. As a matter of fact, many judges would probably not be very complimentarly of a round where a horse spooked in the ring, especially in a 3ft or under division.

[RugBug]

Sure the rider already knew, but it's nice when the judge says that she thought you were a good pair and that she doesn't think the end score matches your true capability.

But isn't this just ego-stroking? People should be confident enough and knowledgeable enough in their skills and abilities that a bad ride on one day doesn't make them doubt that....and that a good ride on one day doesn't over-inflate their ego.

For example: I was having on the best shows ever on my horse. It was small show and I was in 5-class division, 3 o/f and 2 flats. Our o/f rounds were really nice for us. I had a bobble in one class but the other two were quite good. The first flat was excellent. I know my horse was a decent mover...and compared to the others in the ring at that show...the best. He was flatting well. The second class, I was coming around a corner at the canter and was close to a jump at the end of the ring. I knew I shouldn't get that close because it was a windy day and there was a large tree at each standard. I did it anyway, a gust of wind came up, tree blew violently just as we went by, horse spooked, broke to the trot for one step and then went right back to work. I looked over at the judge and I'll be darned if he wasn't looking right at us. Dang. They announced the class placings all at once: 2 firsts and a 4th in the o/f, a 1st in one flat and then a 6th in the other. Sigh and HAH! (there must've been 6 in the class).

I ran into the judge later who told me "it was too bad, you SOOOO had it."

Now, his comment did not one single thing to my ride that day or any other day. I did not need him to say it. I knew my horse was going well. I KNEW I had that class won until the break.

I also knew that it was a good day for us and we were capable of MUCH worse. Even if the judge HAD made a comment that we were capable of more, I would have had to laugh and say we were capable of a lot less on many occasions.

[Janet]

Sure the rider already knew, but it's nice when the judge says that she thought you were a good pair and that she doesn't think the end score matches your true capability.

My point is that as far as potential for embarrassment, the whole test would almost always be less embarrassing than the raw score.

I don't know. I have had some pretty scathing comments in my time, that I really would NOT want publicly posted
"NOT what we are looking for":
"Horse does NOT belong at this level"
"Horse will go better when you learn to ride"

[hntrjmprpro45]

Sure the rider already knew, but it's nice when the judge says that she thought you were a good pair and that she doesn't think the end score matches your true capability.

Actually that example you threw out is exactly what a judge SHOULD NOT do. You must judge what you see not "what the potential might be". By commenting that you think a horse and rider is capable of doing better you are showing that you have preconceived notions of said horse/rider. USEF is very clear that you cannot judge with any sort of expectations (perceived or real) of the exhibitor. A judge would have to be VERY careful about how they worded things and even then, I think some exhibitors would get pretty upset in thinking that there was some unfair bias.

But as a side note, I think that a clinic format would be a great opportunity to say "Your ride was lovely up until that point and you are capable of scoring in the 80s if you just blah, blah, blah". The dressage people have clinics called 'ride-a-test' where you ride a test then get immediate feedback from the judge on how to improve, etc. These are the comments that they otherwise are not allowed to say (dressage judges aren't allowed to instruct on how to fix a problem but simply state observations). It would be cool to have a hunter clinic set up in a similar manner. You ride a course, then the judge gives immediate feedback on what needs improving, how and why. That would also be a great time for them to say "this horse/rider has sooo much potential, blah, blah, blah".

Judging is simply about making critical observations about what is happening at that EXACT moment. Teaching is a combination of making observations AND instructing how/why/when to correct problems. Teaching could include speculations on what the future potential of said horse/rider is but judging cannot.

[Go Fish]

Sure the rider already knew, but it's nice when the judge says that she thought you were a good pair and that she doesn't think the end score matches your true capability.

Kinda sounds like kindergarten. I guess it's better than "you suck," though.

[DMK]

exactly, hj45 - it's about evaluating what showed up in that ring on that day, not offering an opinion about what you could be. Typically it's your trainer/friend/ground person/you (pick your poison) that tells you that if you found your forward gear through the turns instead of picking your horse to nothing you might reach your potential (or conversely, you could find 8 all day long and you are still riding a splinter bellied jumper who lays on his side worse than a cat in a sunny spot... but that's a tougher conversation).

[chunky munky]

Sound like a few cry babies to me. ;-)

[RaeHughes]

Wandering over from the "dark side" (aka Dressage), I have also ridden Show Hunter in NZ. Every ride, I have received a score-card - it took a little to work out as it was more sketches rather than comments but was understandable once translated. As someone else from NZ said, that is common practice here - and we can have big classes with short spacing.

Coming from a background as a dressage judge, working at the Level 3/4 range, I am used to scoring upwards of 30 movements per test and all within a short time-frame. If you also remember that there are usually 8-12 jumps in a hunter round, each dressage test is between 2-3 hunter rounds. (Which would be correct based on the time allowed for each "round".) If you are getting 200 horses in a hunter class at an A show, that is around 60-100 horses in a dressage class at an equivalent show. Probably a little high (my backside would be totally numb from the sitting down) but not unknown.

A poster raised the issue of the # of people required to "add up the scores" - dont you use a computer programme? They are readily available on the net - even our very large shows would have no more than 2/3 and most have 1. It would be relatively easy to standardise the scoring sheet to be computerised and then it is just tapping #s in.

As a corollary, I am also competing my older dog in obedience - there can be, at the big shows, upwards of 60-70 dogs in each grade. Usual rule, each dog starts off with the maximum points and then lose marks for wide turns, crooked sits etc. Every handler receives a score sheet written by the judge - is it informative, yes (again interpretation). Does it slow the class down? No.

[RugBug]

I am used to scoring upwards of 30 movements per test and all within a short time-frame. If you also remember that there are usually 8-12 jumps in a hunter round, each dressage test is between 2-3 hunter rounds. (Which would be correct based on the time allowed for each "round".) If you are getting 200 horses in a hunter class at an A show, that is around 60-100 horses in a dressage class at an equivalent show. Probably a little high (my backside would be totally numb from the sitting down) but not unknown.

that would be correct if all you were scoring were the fences. You don't just score the fences, however. You score:

Entrance (did the horse trot into the ring...DQ)
Opening circle: movement, transitions, expression
Each jump: distance, form off ground, form in air, any rails/touches, etc (I suppose at a certain point you get to stop making marks if the horse has a littany of errors like cutting down, twisting, split legs, etc).
Lines: straightness, striding
Corners: lead change (includes correctness and timing)

I raise your 8-12 and see you with a lot more than that.

A poster raised the issue of the # of people required to "add up the scores" - dont you use a computer programme? They are readily available on the net - even our very large shows would have no more than 2/3 and most have 1. It would be relatively easy to standardise the scoring sheet to be computerised and then it is just tapping #s in.

Every dressage test I've done (only a handful) and the ones I observed...again, only a handful, the test is returned with a 10-key "receipt" of the scores being added up. That means someone (multiple people) are typing them into the 10-key. Even so, it still doesn't change the fact that you have to have someone to do that. Offices are already crazy, so the secretary is not the person. You have to pay at least one additional person PER RING, along with the additional scribe. Which means, everyone say it with me: "Increase to fees."

[Blinky]

Alrighty-what does this mean?
WBRG

[Janet]

Scorers are generally volunteers, not paid, at least in my experience.

[Janet]

that would be correct if all you were scoring were the fences. You don't just score the fences, however. You score:

Entrance (did the horse trot into the ring...DQ)
Opening circle: movement, transitions, expression
Each jump: distance, form off ground, form in air, any rails/touches, etc (I suppose at a certain point you get to stop making marks if the horse has a littany of errors like cutting down, twisting, split legs, etc).
Lines: straightness, striding
Corners: lead change (includes correctness and timing)

I raise your 8-12 and see you with a lot more than that.

Yes, but each "box"or movement on a dressage tests includes multiple directives.

For instance, there is ONE score for

C Track right MXK Medium trot K-F Collected trot
Bend and balance in turn; consistent tempo; moderate lengthening of frame with elasticity, suspension, straightness and uphill balance in medium trot; quality and balance in collected trot..

So the judge has to judge four pieces- the turn, the transition from collected trot to medium trot,the medium trot, and thetrasnition from medium trot to collected trot.

That score has to include the bend, the balance on the turn, the tempo, the lengthening,the elasticity, the suspension, the balance in the medium trot and the quality of the collected trot.

I assure you that the dressage judge is judging just as many factors as the hunter judge, just as quickly. I suggest you try scribing for a dressage judge sometime. It is a LOT more hurried than you might think.

I agree with you that dressage judging doesn't work for hunters. But NOT for the reasons you cite.

[RugBug]

I assure you that the dressage judge is judging just as many factors as the hunter judge, just as quickly. I suggest you try scribing for a dressage judge sometime. It is a LOT more hurried than you might think.

I agree with you that dressage judging doesn't work for hunters. But NOT for the reasons you cite.

Actually, I was pointing out the opposite of what you took my post to mean. I quoted someone who was indicating that hunter judges are only judging 8-12 things in 2 minutes. I was just pointing out that hunter judging is A LOT more than just 8-12 "things" to judge. I didn't actually say anything about dressage judging.

[RugBug]

Alrighty-what does this mean?
WBRG

It's my crazy misspelling of WBWR. OMG..that was terrible. Sigh. I knew it wasn't typing it correctly, but my brain kept reading it correctly (warmblood, wrong ring). Didn't even realize it until I went to type it here.