This top trainer weighs in with ideas for revamping the judging process.

Most of you weren’t around in “the good ol’ days”—when the women were wilder, the booze was stronger, the parties lasted longer and the judging, on occasion, wasn’t quite by the book. Now the sport is much different—more refined, more disciplined and fine tuned. The variety of classes is overwhelming, and the judging overall is better.

That said, we definitely have a problem of consistency in judging hunters.

Yes, every time you go out, you’re getting an individual’s opinion. Some people like a horse that’s high with his knees; some prefer one that really comes up through his back. Some pick one that really kicks up behind or has a lot of follow-through behind. Some like one that’s a really nice mover, or one that’s really pretty. God knows I’ve heard people say, “Oh, he’s so pretty between the fences.” (And I want to say, “Wait till the under saddle to really reward that.”)

As horsemen, we know that to a certain extent, different opinions are OK. That’s why we have so many different judges. But it would be helpful if we could make the judging a little bit more conventional or easy to follow, especially to help those who are newer to the sport.

For parents, too, it’s tough that it’s so incredibly subjective. These days, parents can see the swap or the cross-canter, but they can’t easily evaluate the jumping style, which we understand. The more we get everyone to understand what mistakes are worth, the better.

We need to get rid of this gray, secret side of the sport; it should be a little more transparent.

Crunching The Numbers

There’s some standardized scoring in our sport for major mistakes. If there’s a refusal, it’s a 40. If he knocks down a jump, it’s 45. If he does three in a two-stride, it’s a 50, and if he trots in the turn, it’s 55.

But what you’re seeing more commonly are smaller quantifiable mistakes, like a swap or a cross-canter or one that steps off his lead for a step. Some judges see a swap before a jump and automatically put it in the 70s, even if it’s a great round by a fantastic jumper. Others will see that same mistake and knock it down from, say, an 87 to an 84. It’s inconsistent.

We need to figure out how to give some guidelines for these errors, especially for younger judges. Maybe it’s a question of marking off a certain range of points for every stride the horse cross-canters or the severity of the mistake.

If we could be a little more certain about what constitutes a 5-point deduction versus a 2-point deduction it would be healthier for everyone. Perhaps it’s 2 to 3 points off for every cross-cantered stride in the hunters. Or maybe there’s a little leeway, like a range of between 1-5 points off per swap, to differentiate between the one that swapped and still jumped the jump straight, and the one who swapped and almost tore down the standard.

You can still win a lot of classes with a step or two of cross-cantering. It gives you a nice guideline to follow and takes some of the guesswork out of it. That’s especially important as we’re educating these younger judges.

Recently I saw a junior hunter class where the horse landed cross-cantering after the last jump and continued on the cross-canter all the way through the turn in a class of 16 horses. The judge watched it cross-canter around the turn, and it never did get its lead. That horse ended up second in the class.

How much did that cross-canter count off? What’s the highest score you think you could give one like that? Having a guideline for something like this would help other professionals understand. It’s hard to explain that to the parents.

This is something that we more-experienced judges need to commit to abide by as a group. We need a general formula as to what we’re going to do in certain circumstances. Maybe that horse with the mistake still wins the class if its quality is greater than the less-fancy horses with smaller mistakes. There are certain times when that’s OK.

This is something that’s frustrating at the U.S. Hunter Jumper Association Judges’ Clinics: They won’t give you concrete information. As it stands now, they won’t even tell you if two chips is worse than one chip, or what to do with either one when you see it. While there will always be some subjectivity in the sport, we need to get all our judges on the same page about certain errors.

I’m also concerned that now we have a small pool of judges teaching these clinics for the next few years, so we’re not getting input from other great horsemen, and we’re missing out on that breadth of experience. You cannot teach judges’ clinics from a book.

I’m also very much against live clinics, as no one wants to insult or embarrass the demonstrators, and you can’t go back and review what happened and show the clinicians where the horse’s mistakes were.

Scores Make It Work

Nowadays we use the number system a lot, and there are a lot of positives to it. I remember when I used to show and it wasn’t as common, I would walk out of the ring and think, “Well I was a little deep there, he jumped a little funny there, we had to speed up there and slow down there.” Then I’d get to the stands and everyone would say, “That was great!” and I wasn’t sure who was right.

Now they call the score right after you go. You can analyze quickly and know where you stand, instead of waiting and then it’s a big surprise. I like the idea of that. I think it’s a great thing in the hunters and equitation.

But with the numbers system, you also get those negative naysayer judges, the low scorers. I like to be on the positive side and score high. A lot of them are negative people, and you get to see their personalities come through in the scores! The key here is to get your class in the right order—it really doesn’t make that much difference what number you give them.

That person who finished in eighth is going to be in eighth no matter what; if you score on the higher side, you have more satisfied people all around. I try to be a positive person, and I like to give people encouragement.

People also need to educate themselves as much as possible so they understand that not every horse that walks in that ring can get a 100. Some can’t score in the 90s, and some can’t score in the 80s. But that’s not to say they can’t win the class. At a top show, your winner will be in the mid-to-upper 80s or 90s, but that’s not usually what we judges are seeing. We’re usually separating ribbon winners who score in the low 80s and upper 70s, and that’s the tough part.

Make It Harder

As hunter judges, we need more to judge, too, and I feel like we used to have more of that.

In the ’60s and ’70s, the lines were a lot longer and there was a lot more riding involved. Nowadays, you can backpedal into a line and still get down it. In the ’70s you couldn’t do that. Then the courses helped you show off rider skills, too, which also has to have an impact on the score.

Back then, there were forward distances, with vertical-to-vertical in-and-outs, or oxer-to-oxer in-and-outs. There were Riviera gate combinations and split rails without greenery. They’d use an in-and-out just out of the turn at indoors to really get you; you had to nail that, to get down the line, and they’d give you a skinny in the handy to really separate the horses. Also, you had the appointments class, where there was emphasis on brilliance.

Now if the course designer makes the strides long or asks something tough, the exhibitors complain and the course designer doesn’t get invited back. Part of the problem is that the horse shows are bigger and we’re trying to run back-to-back trips, so we’re running them over essentially the same course with one different fence.

I asked the committees to take the pressure off the course designers, and at courses set at 3’6″ and higher, to ask harder questions. The 3′ divisions tend to separate themselves because the riders aren’t as accurate, and rider mistakes separate rounds. When you get to 3’6″, we’re mostly looking at good riders, with fewer rider errors. We should have tougher courses so we, as judges, can reward good riding, too.

Getting It Done

The derbies have done some of this and so have the handies, and you need to judge them differently. They emphasize brilliance and good riding to go along with top hunter style.

We don’t want people saying, “Oh, my horse jumps a 10, I’m going to play it safe and just go the long way around.” I’ve seen judges who reward that more than a really handy trip from a nice horse that doesn’t jump quite as well.

If the derby horses do the inside turn and don’t make the fence perfectly, I’ll still give them credit and not take off quite as much. It’s supposed to be about promptness and handiness and getting it done.

And yes, sometimes in these longer or tougher derby classes it’s absolutely about who makes the fewest mistakes when there are, say, 14 places to make a mistake instead of eight. And when the courses get tougher, they’re probably all going to make a couple of mistakes. That’s why it’s even more important to not just automatically give them a 75 because they cross-cantered a couple of steps.

You’re definitely getting different horses winning. A lot of your fanciest show hunters aren’t derby horses. Horses that are electrically careful or finicky about how they’re going to do everything aren’t going to do well. The thinking goes, why have another venue where your million-dollar hunter can make a mistake?

At the same time, that program has eased off what it originally intended to be and I think that’s a big mistake. It should be big and tough and hard and without all the multiple groundlines.

Who’s In Your Judges’ Booth?

One problem we have is that at some high-end shows like Devon (Pa.) and the fall indoor circuit, it feels like we stick with the same candidates all the time. I sympathize with the management. You have to be careful who you choose, but at some point you have to stick your neck out and try to get some new blood in the judges’ box. There’s a small group of people who judge those top shows regularly, and we need to mix it up.

I really want to respect the opinion of the person who’s judging, because even if we can come to an agreement on a range for deducting, you’re still relying on this person’s ability and experience.

Knowing a judge can ride and produce top horses is important for me—I don’t want to look over there and have to rely entirely on the opinion of some ex-employee of mine who used to drive the truck. I’ve been producing champions for 35 years. I want someone sitting there who’s shown he knows how to feel his way around a course, or someone who’s produced animals or riders who’ve excelled.

So many of my contemporaries who’re training the winners aren’t judging, as well. It’s a shame that some of the other top professionals don’t feel the necessity to find the time to do it. It’s one way some of these top trainers could be giving back to the sport, and everyone would really benefit. The exhibitors may not agree with the decisions, but they would respect the opinions.

You also need to make sure your judges are able to do their best. There ought to be some kind of regulation about how many rounds they should judge back-to-back.

Recently, I judged 108 horses back-to-back, was required to give different scores to every horse, and there was another class going along simultaneously. I was judging from 8 a.m. to 7:20 p.m., watching horses compete for a very large purse. That’s not right. When you’re competing for that kind of money, it’s unrealistic to expect that a judge can do his or her best job. How do I compare the horse that went at 8:52 in the morning to the one that went at 7:05 at night?

On the other hand, in general the judges today are trying to do a really good job. I truly believe it’s not politics, but people giving their opinions as best they can. Let’s continue to improve hunter judging by getting the top people in the sport to do it, giving them the tools they need to do their best, making the scoring more transparent, and encouraging course designers to keep raising the bar.

Don Stewart operates Don Stewart Stables out of Ocala, Fla., where he coaches students in the hunters, equitation and jumpers. He’s trained multiple winners of the ASPCA Maclay Finals and Pessoa/USEF Medal Finals, numerous USEF Horse of the Year champions and champions at all the fall indoor shows. He sits on several USHJA committees, including the Open Hunter Task Force and the Junior Hunter Task Force. An R-rated judge since 1980, he first judged Devon (Pa.) at the age of 30, the youngest person to officiate there, and he’s officiated over every major outdoor show in the country. He was inducted into the Show Hunter Hall of Fame in 2012.