• Welcome to the Chronicle Forums.
    Please complete your profile. The forums and the rest of www.chronofhorse.com has single sign-in, so your log in information for one will automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.



Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

1. You’re responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it—details of personal disputes are likely better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts that violate these rules. Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting, but administrators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts upon request.

Outright inflammatory, vulgar, harassing, malicious or otherwise inappropriate statements and criminal charges unsubstantiated by a reputable news source or legal documentation will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it’s understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users’ profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Horses – Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it’s related to a horse for sale, regardless of who’s selling it, it doesn’t belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions – Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Services – Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

Products – While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

Event Announcements – Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be “bumped” excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues – Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators’ discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the “alert” button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your “Ignore” list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you’d rather avoid reading.

7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user’s membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 1/26/16)
See more
See less

My dressage coefficient spreadsheets on Google Docs

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • My dressage coefficient spreadsheets on Google Docs

    I've posted them so anyone can take a look at the effect of the FEI dressage coefficient on 4* competitions in 2010 and 2011. The links are here:


    They really do show that the FEI's added penalties change the results from those that would exist if only the dressage judges' ride evaluations and current SJ and XC results were decisive.

    If you have trouble accessing them, please let me know.
    "I'm a lumberjack, and I'm okay."
    Thread killer Extraordinaire

  • #2
    I can see your spreadsheets, but would like a fuller explanation of what they are about? What coefficient are you taking out?
    I tolerate all kinds of animal idiosyncrasies.
    I've found that I don't tolerate people idiosyncrasies as well. - Casey09


    • Original Poster

      The spreadsheets address how the dressage score is converted to penalty points. The USEA and BE (not sure about other countries) take the average percent score that the dressage judge (or judges) give and subtract that from 100. The difference is the penalty point score for the dressage phase.

      The FEI has a different way of getting to the penalty points for dressage. They take the average percent score for the ride, subtract it from 100 and then multiply the difference by 1.5. What that means is that you get half again as many penalty points in an FEI event as you would in a USEA event. Those penalty points can make a big difference at the four star in level in where a rider places. The ranking of riders in the dressage phase is the same with or without the 1.5 multiplier; the dressage score is the same. Only the number of penalty points for the dressage ride is affected.

      What my spreadsheets show is the effect of the extra FEI imposed penalty points on the final placings. In my opinion, it's very, very significant and affects many placings. I also believe that it devalues XC and SJ performance. Just as an example, Mary King went double clear in both XC and SJ at Pau this year, and if her dressage penalty points had been calculated from her dressage score without the coefficient/multiplier, she'd have finished second instead of 4th. Mark Todd would not have won Badminton this year without the extra help he got from the coefficient applied to his competitors.

      You have to remember that the coefficient seems to work geometrically. If I score 75 in dressage, my penalty points with the coefficient would be 37.5 (25+12.5). If I score 70, my penalty points are 45 (30+15) The second ride is 2.5 penalty points (or time faults in XC or SJ) worse than the dressage judges said it was. If I score 60%, my penalty points are 60 (40 + 20) or 5% more than the 10% dressage score difference.
      Last edited by vineyridge; Nov. 8, 2011, 08:02 PM.
      "I'm a lumberjack, and I'm okay."
      Thread killer Extraordinaire


      • #4
        Thank you, great explanation.

        So after reading that, a person has to ask, what the heck is the multiplier FOR?
        I tolerate all kinds of animal idiosyncrasies.
        I've found that I don't tolerate people idiosyncrasies as well. - Casey09


        • #5
          Because FEI is nutballs.
          Life doesn't have perfect footing.

          Bloggily entertain yourself with our adventures (and disasters):
          We Are Flying Solo


          • #6
            Asking out of complete ignorance: has this been brought up to the PTB in the NFs as well as the FEI? Also, wonder if there is knowledge or a consensus amongst FEI riders?

            Just wondering if all your data was provided, whether the riders would prefer the co-efficient removed, and what it would take to do so.

            (I am in favour of removing it, thereby removing some of the weight of dressage).

            You never know what kind of obsessive compulsive crazy person you are until another person imitates your behaviour at a three-day. --Gry2Yng


            • Original Poster

              The Canadian NF mentioned it as an issue in their formal response to the FEI Eventing Committee's questionnaire about possible changes in the Rules for 2013.

              I've sent all my spreadsheets to Robert Kellerhouse, who is on the FEI Eventing Committee. And I've sent some of them to Brian Sabo and some of the USEA officials. Francis Whittington in Britain, who is the leader of their Event Riders Association has seen them.

              I just hope all of these PTBs are at least thinking about the issue.

              There might have been a reason for the coefficient in long format to increase the importance of dressage. But it hardly seems necessary in short format.
              "I'm a lumberjack, and I'm okay."
              Thread killer Extraordinaire


              • #8
                It certainly weighs in favor of countries that have very strong dressage. I suspect this is part of the reason that we are seeing such a large amount of warmbloods in the sport now. While a TB can be very nice moving, and have suspension, it's less likely then the warmbloods. I would really like to see this changed, but think it is pretty unlikely. the FEI prolly has a vestedinterest in keeping things as they are. Frustrating as it is.
                May the sun shine on you daily, and your worries be gone with the wind.


                • Original Poster

                  Actually the history is that the coefficient came into being in about 2000, long before short format. My understanding is that dressage used to be scored completely differently. Instead of using a percent score from the judges, they used the actual point scores from the test. That's when the FEI used a (I believe) .6 coefficient to determine the dressage score. Example: if a test has 250 points total available and the rider scores 200, (Janet, is this right?) 200 was multiplied by 1.6 (or .6).

                  1.6 might be a Canadian peculiarity.
                  "I'm a lumberjack, and I'm okay."
                  Thread killer Extraordinaire


                  • #10
                    I am REALLY confused now. If they use to multiply by 1.6 and now it's 1.5..... Or is it what they multiplied? Am very confused. Sorry.
                    May the sun shine on you daily, and your worries be gone with the wind.


                    • Original Poster

                      In the old days they used to multiply the raw points; now they multiply the percent. If you got a seven on one movement and a six on another, that was 13 points and they'd use the old coefficient. Now they would average 7 and 6 and you'd get a 6.5 x 1.5 (Just an example, since the whole test is used.)
                      "I'm a lumberjack, and I'm okay."
                      Thread killer Extraordinaire


                      • #12
                        Viney: Thank you so much for explaining the scoring and coefficient effects. And you have certainly done a Yoeman's job of compiling the statistics! And I'm glad to hear that you sent them to Kellerhouse....

                        But I have a remaining question: why the switch to the 1.5 coefficient? Is this just another mysterious FEI decision? I just wish I knew the explanation for it. The only thing I can think of is that they want dressage to be more influential. Am I missing something?
                        "We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals" Immanuel Kant


                        • Original Poster

                          From what I have gathered from Mr. Della Chiesa and others, they THOUGHT the 1.5 coefficient would give the same results when applied to the percent score that the .6 coefficient did when applied to the raw points. Another reason that's been given is that they wanted to "spread the competitors out" more, so the scores wouldn't be so tightly bunched. My impression from the spreadsheet data is that the latter hasn't happened. You have groups of horses that are tightly bunched, then a gap, then another group.

                          Personally, I think that they DID want to make dressage more influential in long format. I went to Rolex in 1999 and the dressage stank. Went again in 2002, and the dressage was incredibly better. Increasing dressage influence did make sense, since in long format there were really six phases to score. Now there are only three and the scoring hasn't been modified to reflect that. To me, the dressage coefficient effects make dressage performance worth almost 49%+ (33 1/3 plus half of 33 1/3) of the total performance.

                          That's why Mary King's double clears at Pau were "devalued."
                          "I'm a lumberjack, and I'm okay."
                          Thread killer Extraordinaire


                          • #14
                            Per Wikipedia in 1998 the max dressage points were 250 and the coefficient was .6

                            That would mean a 70% would be a 45 and a 60% would be a 60.

                            Currently with 100 good points and a coefficient of 1.5 a 70% would also be a 45 and a 60% a 60.

                            So I'm guessing it was the change in tests that motivated the coefficient.

                            The short format would be a good reason to get rid of the coefficient, but I'm not sure if that was considered?

                            The weighting of dressage tests in US HT has varied a great deal even since I started eventing. Back when we used USDF tests (like training, 1st level) scores were much higher--it was not unheard of to break 100 on 1st 3 @ prelim . . . ). I believe that those used .6 as the coefficient. Then the BHSA tests were much lower, closer to our current scoring system. And our current tests are the lowest yet--we see scores that are not much more than a single xc stop, or 4-5 rails, or a minute slow xc.

                            Personally I hate dressage and would love to see it less influential, but I'd be curious what other national HT do? The obvious answer would be to weight our dressage more in line with the FEI, but nobody wants that!


                            • #15
                              THE LADY IS RIGHT

                              I have no doubt that Vineyridge raises a hugely important issue here with great clarity and hours of solid homework!

                              It is a fact that the current multiplying factor does increase the influence of the dressage, therefore it has to decrease the influence of the jumping phases. I do not believe this was the original intention of introducing the current multiplying factor...it just wasn't sufficiently thought through and understood.

                              However taking away this multiplying factor would bring the scores closer together which would then give a show jumping knock even greater influence...probably too great an influence. In which case the faults for hitting a fence would have to be reduced to 3 rather than the current 4 faults.



                              • #16
                                Originally posted by William Ireland View Post
                                I have no doubt that Vineyridge raises a hugely important issue here with great clarity and hours of solid homework!

                                It is a fact that the current multiplying factor does increase the influence of the dressage, therefore it has to decrease the influence of the jumping phases. I do not believe this was the original intention of introducing the current multiplying factor...it just wasn't sufficiently thought through and understood.

                                However taking away this multiplying factor would bring the scores closer together which would then give a show jumping knock even greater influence...probably too great an influence. In which case the faults for hitting a fence would have to be reduced to 3 rather than the current 4 faults.



                                • Original Poster

                                  I don't know how the Canadians apply their 1.6 coefficient or what they apply it to. I know BE uses the same system that the USEA uses--the dressage judges' average percent subtracted from 100.

                                  You have to pay 10 euros to access the Irish Eventing Rules. I don't read German, so have no idea what their dressage scoring looks like. Here is how the French do it:

                                  Art 9.1 - Calcul des résultats

                                  A - Dressage
                                  Le total moyen des notes est soustrait du maximum possible afin de convertir les points de bonification en points de pénalités. A ces points de pénalités est appliqué un coefficient de 0,5. C’est à ce dernier total que seront ajoutées les pénalités dues aux éventuelles erreurs. Les notes attribuées par chaque Juge sont additionnées. Le nombre de points de chaque Juge est additionné et le total est divisé par le nombre de Juges. Le résultat obtenu est retranché du maximum possible de points afin de convertir les points de bonifications en points de pénalités affectés du coefficient 0,5. Le résultat est tronqué à 2 chiffres après la virgule. C’est le résultat du test de dressage. Par ailleurs, pour des raisons pédagogiques, le résultat du dressage sera également affiché en pourcentage en suivant le mode de calcul défini ci-dessous pour les épreuves Pro 1 et plus.

                                  Dressage des épreuves Pro 1 et plus
                                  On calcule le pourcentage du concurrent en divisant le total des notes positives de chaque juge, moins les erreurs de parcours, par le maximum possible de notes et en multipliant par 100. Ce résultat est arrondi à deux décimales. La valeur obtenue est considérée comme note individuelle pour chaque juge. Le pourcentage moyen pour chaque concurrent est obtenu en additionnant le pourcentage de chaque juge et en le divisant par le nombre de juges, en arrondissant le résultat à deux décimales. Pour convertir ce pourcentage moyen en points de pénalité, ce total est soustrait de 100 et multiplié par 1,5 en arrondissant à une décimale. Le total final est le résultat en points de pénalité de la reprise.
                                  The second paragraph is the FEI procedure, which seems to apply to their UL National Competitions. But my French is VERY shaky, so perhaps someone could verify? And they obviously added the FEI scoring to something that they have done nationally at the lower levels. I'd be interested to know what that was, since my French can't deal with it.

                                  The Australians use the FEI procedure:
                                  EA National Eventing Rules 2011 Page 38
                                  The good marks from 0-10 awarded by each judge to an athlete for each numbered movement of the Dressage Test together with the collective marks are added together
                                  deducting any error of course or test.

                                  For each judge, the mark as a percentage of maximum possible good marks obtainable is then calculated.

                                  This percentage is obtained by dividing total good marks of the judge (minus any error of course or test) by maximum possible good marks obtainable and then multiplying by 100 and rounding the result to two decimal digits. This value is then shown as the individual mark for this judge.

                                  Average percentage for the athlete is obtained by adding together the percentage for each judge and dividing by the number of judges always rounding the result to two decimal digits.

                                  In order to convert average percentage into penalty points, this must be subtracted from 100 and multiplied by 1.5. The result, always rounded to one decimal digit, is the score in penalty points for the test Calculation of Scores
                                  New Zealand--this one I'm having trouble accessing.
                                  "I'm a lumberjack, and I'm okay."
                                  Thread killer Extraordinaire


                                  • #18
                                    The FEI eventing committee proposed getting rid of the coefficient throughout 2005-2007; it was shelved based on NF feedback (which NFs for/against is not public info but shouldn't be that hard to find out since most of them don't even respond to the FEI anyway and there's at least one very obvious suspect in the anti camp!). The proposal was widely discussed and publicized via the normal public communications channels (Bulletin, press news, website) that existed before the information lockdown in 2008/9, after which point all this routine stuff between FEI and NFs got put in a restricted area of the site (recently opening up again via IEOC, they now have the minutes, NF feedback from last year's changes etc.)

                                    March 31 2005
                                    Re: Proposals of new Eventing Scoring system for 2007
                                    2. Dressage:
                                    The result achieved for the dressage should be counted in total without the inclusion of a Multiplication factor. An 80% result should result into 80 plus points.
                                    March 16 2006
                                    https://admin.fei.org/Disciplines/Ev...ing letter.pdf
                                    In the first half of the year 2005 the FEI Eventing Committee proposed to you some considerations to change the scoring system.
                                    The cornerstone, which forms the basis of the scoring considerations, is an easier "sell" of our sport in public by having a simpler scoring system.

                                    The thoughts are to change the multiplying factor for the dressage phase from 1.5 to 1. This means that the score after dressage will be a percentage mark i.e. A good percentage of seventy percent (70%) would be a score of thirty (30.00).
                                    Our sport passed through a lasting change. The endurance aspect is less weighted than it was in the case of the former traditional long events.

                                    We would also like to ensure that the international scoring system be used nationally in the same manner. Insofar we are very interested in having a worldwide system which is synchronized hundred per cent. We feel this is a better development for all participants

                                    The sport has developed due to higher requirements in the dressage (implementation of the flying changes) and the requirement to ride at a more difficult level in the Jumping phase. We feel that this change in the scoring system would follow this evolution.

                                    The discussion we held in the last weeks and months on different levels it seems that many NF's are not sure whether the scoring system needs to be changed. If this is the case with your federation could you please discuss your argument in writing?
                                    FEI Bulletin 4/2006 November 1 2006
                                    Scoring System
                                    In general, it was agreed that the current scoring was easier to understand for the public following the change of the Eventing format without steeplechase. The discussion is continuing on the coefficient for Dressage, considering that most national rules did not use a coefficient.

                                    The Committee would propose for the 2009 Rules revision the deletion of the Dressage coefficient and 0.5 time penalties / per second (instead of 0.4) for exceeding time on Cross Country and await /open the discussion with NFs.
                                    FEI Committee meeting report March 16 2007
                                    The Committee considered the following changes to the rules for the 2009 revision.
                                    Scoring: The Committee agreed to propose for the 2009 rules revision the deletion of the dressage coefficient and 0.5 time penalties / per second (instead of 0.4) for exceeding time on Cross Country and await / open the discussion with NFs. Jumping time penalty to remain at 1 per second.
                                    More old meeting reports are still viewable here:


                                    • Original Poster

                                      thanks very much for your post, Geneva. Sounds as if the FEI committee did try and reconsider the coefficient after short format came in. The history certainly helps with background.

                                      There is something very interesting in the press release about the 2007 meeting at Lausanne and the FEI Committee report of the same meeting. The Committee Report says that the elimination of the Dressage Coefficient would be proposed for the 2009 Rules, but the press release, which mentions all the other 2009 proposed changes in the FEI Committee Report, doesn't mention the coefficient. I have no idea if this is significant or not. Perhaps they thought it was too technical for the "public" to grasp.

                                      Since the FEI Committee was going to open discussion with the NFs after the 2007 Lausanne meeting, is there any way to access USEF documents on their response to this proposed change?
                                      Last edited by vineyridge; Nov. 8, 2011, 08:56 PM.
                                      "I'm a lumberjack, and I'm okay."
                                      Thread killer Extraordinaire


                                      • #20
                                        USEF is a closed shop and this whole issue of how the NFs go about managing their activities in the FEI just blew up in dressage in a big way and now the NFs are scrambling to cover their asses. But on something old like this I think if you asked the USEF chair you'd get at least a response and possibly an accurate picture of what happened. You also might get BS. But even BS can be useful.

                                        Normally there was just one FEI report sent out 3 ways, same text in the press news, website, then later the Bulletin (which was only published 5-6 times a year).
                                        The various versions of the 2007 mtg are here and it's the same in each as far as I can tell, so not sure what link you're looking at:
                                        https://admin.fei.org/Media/Publicat...007pdf_000.pdf p 50
                                        Last edited by Geneva; Nov. 8, 2011, 11:16 PM. Reason: blond moment