I`ve heard all about the pros and cons of the open numerical scoring system from parents, riders, trainers and observers. So I thought I`d share with you some of the input I`ve received, as well as my own ideas with regards to numerical scoring.
First, it`s important that we deal with the misconception that judges aren`t doing their job properly or are “cheating.” We`ve all heard that one reason for open numerical scoring is to keep the judges honest. But this is much less of a problem than people perceive, and the open numerical system has just as much room for manipulation as any other system.
While there may be a few bad apples out there, themajority of judges try to do the best job possible when they pick up a card to judge. No judge wants to earn the reputation of being a poor judge. I believe those who earn this reputation simply won`t keep getting jobs.
Open numerical scoring was a hot topic at both of the USEF judges` clinics this year. To truly understand the system and what the numbers mean, you must break down the qualities horses possess and classify them into what grades they are capable of receiving, providing they have a good trip.
Much like grade school, I regard the numbers as equivalent to grades. An A is 90 to 100, a B is 80 to 89, a C is 70 to 79, and so on.
For a horse to achieve a score in these categories, he must possess a certain minimum level of quality with regards to jumping ability and movement, and present an overall attractive package. For a horse to be capable of scoring in the A category, he must be a beautiful jumper, an elegant mover, and must be an attractive horse with good manners. And he can be allowed to show some animation, but he should be well-mannered and conduct himself in good order.
To be capable of a score in the B category, a horse must be a good jumper, a good mover, and be fairly attractive with good manners.
To be capable of a score in the C category, a horse must be an average jumper, an average mover, and possess good manners.
A horse scoring in the D category would be a poor jumper and mover and so on.
People often cannot understand why one horse, who may have a couple of minor mistakes, beats a horse who doesn`t make any mistakes. The answer lies in the quality of the horse and the numerical range in which they`re capable of scoring.
ADVERTISEMENT
For example, if horse No. 1 is of the quality to produce a score in the 90s and has a couple of minor mistakes–such as a step or two late on a lead change and a little deep to one jump or a little long to another-his horse would likely produce a score around the 90-point mark.
Horse No. 2 is of the quality to produce a score in the 80s and has a technically great round, but lacks the attributes to score in the 90s. So this horse would most likely receive a score of 88 or 89-he top of his range of capability.
The other side of this equation was raised by a participant at the Wellington (Fla.) judges` clinic–no matter what level of quality the horse possesses, he must still have a technically good trip to score in his capability range. Therefore, if horse No. 1 made several minor errors and/or a major error, he would obviously score below horse No. 2.
Others wonder how in the first class they can receive an 84 and in the second class, with what they consider a better trip, they can receive an 82? The answer is that each class is a separate entity, and the numbers given are in relation to the first number assigned to the first horse that competes.
This means that in the first class, you may give the first horse a 75–for a C-quality horse who has a good trip. Every subsequent round is scored in relation to the judge`s evaluation of that initial round.
Invariably, we judges have all ended a class thinking that we were either too low or too high with our first score. That`s one reason why the numerical system is extremely confusing for exhibitors–unless they understand how the scores are related to the first score given. And, of course, the judges don`t all score the same.
If you study how judges evaluate horses and classes, it can make you a better exhibitor. Most importantly, it lets you see horse showing from a totally different perspective. Many would be amazed at how much a judge can hear when trainers are giving instructions from the gate or the rail.
ADVERTISEMENT
I often think–as do many other judges-hat everyone should walk in someone else`s shoes as a judge, steward, gate person, manager, or stabling supervisor for a day. Everyone would act a lot differently if they experienced what others deal with each day.
As a judge, you bring your own experiences as a horseman to the job. As a rider and trainer, I have my opinions of what mistakes are hard to correct and what mistakes are minor to correct, and I`ll invariably be harder on a horse for things I consider hard to correct.
These mistakes include a horse that repeatedly swings his hind end over the jumps, habitually lays on its side over the jumps, continually swaps off his lead, or has a severe drift in front of the fences.
Easier problems to correct would include a horse that is stiff in the bridle and doesn`t bend well, or a horse that has a tendency to prefer one lead over the other.
Also, I have found it helpful when two horses are very close or tied in their performances to consider which one I`d rather ride. I give the better score to the horse I`d prefer to ride.
Judging isn`t for the faint-hearted. Every time you sit down to judge, you`re being judged too. And you`re being judged most often by people who don`t hold a judge`s license, don`t watch the entire class, don`t watch the class from your viewpoint, and have a vested interest in and partiality to their own horse.
Through the judges` clinic program the U.S. Equestrian Federation offers, you have the opportunity to see things from the judges` perspective. The federation usually holds two of these clinics each year, and they`re open to anyone wishing to attend The clinic dates are published in Equestrian magazine and on the website. I encourage everyone to take advantage of these wonderful opportunities.