• 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.

Announcement

Collapse

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

Spinoff - medal qualifiers- local shows - poss. solution

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Spinoff - medal qualifiers- local shows - poss. solution

    Hi all,

    I read through the whole thread about the proposed USHJA rule change for the eq. qualifiers and wanted to start a discussion about medal points in general. Some of these scenarios are not necessarily for national medals but for local medals. I will start with a series of been there done that's and then offer a possible solution.

    Has this ever happened to you?
    1. You are a kid wanting to get points - NEEDING to get points. You and your mom schlep to east overshoe to ride in the medal class you need. You've already called show management and they assure you that "YES" the medal will run. It will fill for certain. You get there. You wait and wait and wait (medal classes are often held at the very end of the day wouldn't you agree?). Then, you warm-up, get to the ingate and "oh, sorry, Susie's horse went lame and the Jones's decided to go home because it is getting late. Medal is cancelled today."

    2. You are a trainer with a wonderful kid. You kill yourself to schelp kid to east overshoe to get those last few points. You wait, wait, wait. Only three in the class. The class specifies their must be four. Medal cancelled.

    3. You are local show management. Trainers x,y, and z prompt you to hold medal classes. They will come! They promise! You go ahead and pay to get the necessary affiliations, hire the steward, hire the big rated judge, hire the vet practice, hire the farrier. No one shows up for the medal classes. If you didn't offer those classes in the first place, you wouldn't have barely broke even - you may have made enough to spring for pizza for your clean up crew.

    4. You are show management. You expect a good turnout for your offered medal classes. Jane Shmane called you yesterday to find out if the medal will fill. You assure her it will. She comes from 2 hours away and waits, waits, waits. Well, Suzie's horse goes lame, the Jones's have left and now you feel like crap having to tell Jane that her medal class is cancelled!!!

    How about this??? Instead of riders having to beat other riders (minimum of 4 in a class most times). Why isn't there a system in place where riders must achieve a certain score? Or a "gold"? For example...

    System in place now at the local level...Rider A - two chips and a scary long and weak. Rider B - refusal at first fence. Rider C lost a stirrup - rough at the in and out, messy overall. Rider D - added in the in and out and two major chips. Rider A is the winner by default really. She gets points and may be EXACTLY the rider who ends up squeaking by at the local level earning points by default and then getting in over her head at the finals.

    System I propose...Rider A receives score of 64. Rider B receives score of 40. Rider C receives score of 40. Rider D receives score of 55. NO ONE GETS POINTS because they are all below the cut off. Rider must receive say 2 scores of 95 and/or above OR 4 scores of 89 and/or above OR 8 scores of 85 and/or above for the show season.

    OR- some system like this...
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Now say you are at a big HITS show and there are 68 in the medal class. 10 riders have a brilliant round. They receive a "gold" designation or certificate or what have you. 15 riders have decent rounds (think mid-high 80's). They receive a "silver" recognition. The rest are mediocre and receive "bronze". To qualify for the finals, riders must have earned say three "gold" distinctions or 8 "silver" distinctions within the show season.

    Now, say you are Jane Shmane and you are at the local show and you are the only entrant. Show management can RUN your class - NO MATTER WHAT!!! Because you are riding for a standard designation not because you have to beat others. If the entrant comes to the show to ride a medal round, it can be done and will be done - NO MATTER WHAT. If they get the high score or "gold" that they need - terrific. If they fail, management still gets class entry $$, the kid at least got to try, and the kid will now go to another show to try. Not a bad thing all around. Heck, to say that you earned a "gold" would be quite an achievement in itself and that may be enough for some riders.
  • Original Poster

    #2
    oh, forgot to add

    Just think of the revenue generation a gold,silver,bronze system would have. The Chronicle would be full of congratulatory ads for Suzie earning a "gold". And trainer A says to Trainer B, I have a nice horse for your kid. He won two "gold's" for my kid last month. Everyone would know exactly what kind of round a competitor had instead of the best of the worst winning a blue ribbon.

    Comment


    • #3
      I'm an (oldish) adult, but for some odd reason, it is my dream to qualify for the state medal finals. Most of the time, the classes fill, but toward the end of the year, the classes can "point out". (If you have won more than x-points -i.e. two blue ribbons- than you can no longer compete.) I have competed late in the year before and have been disapppointed that there were not enough entries. Thats just the way it goes. Maybe next year. I feel your pain.

      The only solution I can think of is to bring some "friends" along who can "get around" but possibly not do that great. This means they should get a refusal or two, or, they must "chip" in at least two lines.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by dainty do View Post
        I'm an (oldish) adult, but for some odd reason, it is my dream to qualify for the state medal finals. Most of the time, the classes fill, but toward the end of the year, the classes can "point out". (If you have won more than x-points -i.e. two blue ribbons- than you can no longer compete.) I have competed late in the year before and have been disapppointed that there were not enough entries. Thats just the way it goes. Maybe next year. I feel your pain.

        The only solution I can think of is to bring some "friends" along who can "get around" but possibly not do that great. This means they should get a refusal or two, or, they must "chip" in at least two lines.
        Hahaha I actually qualified for Halter Championships this year (which ended up being a huge disappointment but that is a different bucket of snakes) and to qualify I had to actually pay for my friends to enter their horses in the classes because I was the only one interested. Lucky me my horse is quite handsome and beat them out for the points.
        If only horses would use their athletic powers for good instead of evil. ~ MHM

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Void View Post
          Hahaha I actually qualified for Halter Championships this year (which ended up being a huge disappointment but that is a different bucket of snakes) and to qualify I had to actually pay for my friends to enter their horses in the classes because I was the only one interested. Lucky me my horse is quite handsome and beat them out for the points.
          Totally off topic but "bucket of snakes" made me actually snort out loud when I read it. I have never heard that expression and I am going to find a way to work it into a conversation tomorrow if it kills me!

          Back to the subject...it's an interesting idea. I think the challenge would be standardizing the judging. Think of it as college where you took a giant lecture but then everyone had different graduate students teaching and grading homework. At the end of the semester the main professor had to recalibrate the scores to take into account which grad students graded easier than others.

          Comment


          • #6
            very interesting idea. I recently made a comment to our local association board members about having points calculated based off of numbers of entries. So the number of points is multiplied by the number of entrants. So....
            3 entries would be
            1st (10 points) x 3 = 30 points
            2nd (6 points) x 3 = 18 points
            3rd (4 points) x 3 = 12 points

            but would reward someone who won out of more entries

            10 entries would be
            1st (10 points) x 10 = 100 points
            2nd (6) x 10 = 60 points
            3rd (4) x 10 = 40 points
            4th (2) x 10 = 20
            5th (1) x 10 = 10
            6th (1/2) x 10 = 5

            Would qualify those for finals who really deserve to be there and not the ones that have been 3rd out of 3 at 10 shows.
            "ronnie was the gifted one, victor was the brilliant intellect, and i [GM], well, i am the plodder."

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by alteringwego View Post
              very interesting idea. I recently made a comment to our local association board members about having points calculated based off of numbers of entries. So the number of points is multiplied by the number of entrants. So....
              3 entries would be
              1st (10 points) x 3 = 30 points
              2nd (6 points) x 3 = 18 points
              3rd (4 points) x 3 = 12 points

              but would reward someone who won out of more entries

              10 entries would be
              1st (10 points) x 10 = 100 points
              2nd (6) x 10 = 60 points
              3rd (4) x 10 = 40 points
              4th (2) x 10 = 20
              5th (1) x 10 = 10
              6th (1/2) x 10 = 5

              Would qualify those for finals who really deserve to be there and not the ones that have been 3rd out of 3 at 10 shows.
              some associations do that, like the VHSA but then STILL require a certain amount to fill the class (as in completes the course, not just sign up).
              There's coffee in that nebula.

              Comment


              • #8
                I think it would be interesting to have a handicapping formula like in golf, where riders get scores and so do the courses/classes. If your course contains x,y,z types of obstacles/questions and x number of riders with such and such handicap compete, the class gets this rating...which is then factored into your handicap moving on. Take the riders with the "best" handicap score for finals.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by alteringwego View Post
                  very interesting idea. I recently made a comment to our local association board members about having points calculated based off of numbers of entries. So the number of points is multiplied by the number of entrants. So....
                  3 entries would be
                  1st (10 points) x 3 = 30 points
                  2nd (6 points) x 3 = 18 points
                  3rd (4 points) x 3 = 12 points

                  but would reward someone who won out of more entries

                  10 entries would be
                  1st (10 points) x 10 = 100 points
                  2nd (6) x 10 = 60 points
                  3rd (4) x 10 = 40 points
                  4th (2) x 10 = 20
                  5th (1) x 10 = 10
                  6th (1/2) x 10 = 5

                  Would qualify those for finals who really deserve to be there and not the ones that have been 3rd out of 3 at 10 shows.
                  FWIW, the Saddlebred industry already does this.

                  But also FWIW, I like the OP's proposal a lot better - no offense! I like it b/c it addresses one of the real issues out here on Planet Ordinary Horse Show, which is schlepping to East B.F. only to have the class not fill. Nice thinking!!
                  "The standard you walk by is the standard you accept."--Lt. Gen. David Morrison, Austalian Army Chief

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I love the Gold Silver Bronze idea, I read the other thread and was irritated at the thought of smaller shows loosing the Eq classes, but agreed that there are kids who make it and should not be there, it makes the finals HUGE and they take forever to run.
                    The suggested Gold Silver Bronze system would solve a ton of issues!! Way to think outside the BOX!!!
                    Kim
                    If you are lucky enough to ride, you are lucky enough.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Really like the gold silver bronze idea. It would solve sooo many issues at local shows where even the local medals don't fill sometimes because the classes are so small. Let alone the regional medals, because usually only about 1 person at the entire show comes (just because they need the points) and they lose their shot at finals. It's so disappointing.
                      Different flavors of crazy, but totally NUTS. You know its true. - GreyHunterHorse

                      http://showertimecontemplations.blogspot.com/

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        THis is a remarkably great idea, it appears to be somewhat patterned after (altough the OP may not know about) the qualifying in dressage. THere a percentage score is used and I believe you ahve to earn a certain number of scores above that percentage to qualify. Makes MUCHO sense to me! Then, as long as the judge is qualified to judge such rides, it shouldn't make a bit of difference where suzy shows!
                        www.shawneeacres.net

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Somebody needs to Email this to USHJA ASAP. I've been mulling it over all afternoon and I can't see any holes in it.
                          "The standard you walk by is the standard you accept."--Lt. Gen. David Morrison, Austalian Army Chief

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I am a trainer who can answer yes to one and two.

                            I hate going all the way to a show and having to shell out for a stall and hotel and all the rest and then go home without ever having shown... plus still writing a big check to the show for the stall, grounds fee, office fee, shavings, drugs fees, etc.... I think the OP's idea is fabulous.
                            Fullcirclefarmsc.com

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              To play devils advocate here a bit - in principle I like the idea - in fact I like it a lot because I hate when people qualify by being the best of the worst. . . .

                              BUT the hole is that it would require more parity in scoring across judges - more agreement about what constitutes what scores and have it written into the rules. Right now there are guidelines but what is emphasized when you are learning to judge is to get the order right. So if you say start out giving and 80 and realize maybe that was too high, you just stay high. So Suzie ends up on top if she is the winner whether or not she has a 90 or an 82.
                              Dina
                              www.threewishesfarm.com
                              www.fairharbourfarm.com
                              http://www.facebook.com/ThreeWishesFarm Like us on Facebook!!

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                or do something like they do at dog shows. To finish a dog (or in this case to qualify) you have to have a specific number of points. Part of those have to be "majors" meanign you got 3 points by beating a larger number of riders.

                                For example:
                                If you beat 1-3 riders, you get 1 point
                                If you beat 4-6 riders, you get 2 points
                                If you beat 7-11 riders, you get 3 points
                                If you beat 12-15 riders, you get 4 points
                                If you beat 16+ riders, you get 5 points

                                Wins of 3-5 points count as majors. You must get a total of 15 points to qualify, and at least one of those wins must be a major. Then, at least once, you have to beat out a fairly good sized class, but you should always have a chance to get at least a point.
                                A proud friend of bar.ka.

                                Comment

                                • Original Poster

                                  #17
                                  Hunter Mom -I think Quarter horses have a similar system

                                  Not sure but I think Qh or maybe saddlebreds have some sort of "beating others = more points" which for show managers + show sec'ys seems complicated. Also, you are still in the system of having to beat others and that becomes a problem when the quality of "the others" is very poor and so the winner ends up being the best of the worst which can happen at the local level. Wow, that was a long run-on sentence! The beauty of the Gold, Silver, Bronze system is that only the cream of the crop will be rewarded and that is who should be going to the finals. Also, NOT having to beat others means that medal classes can run at the small shows with only one or two or three entries.

                                  Comment


                                  • #18
                                    Well, you would need to propose overhauling the EQ judging and establishing specific set standards for numerical scores with no deviations permitted. That would entail alot of research, some focus groups and a whole lot of work developing many, many pages listing -10 pts, for lost stirrup, -5 pts for foot placement in iron, -8 pts for open fingers on reins, -8 for this that and the other and then a whole bunch of specific plusses.

                                    The Dover Medal tried this at better level regional and local shows and it is notoriously difficult and time consuming to score. Even with 3 in the class, they needed a scribe. All to come up with the same 3 kids in the same order...and take 25 minutes instead of 5.

                                    I do not buy comparing it to Dressage as a reason for it either...the most complained about topic over there is biased and ouright weird JUDGING...and they HAVE a set standard. Theoretically.

                                    Not in favor of massive systemic overhauls affecting everybody just so so Suzy can get qualified and the East BF show count even though she was the only one in it.

                                    Nationally anyway. You want to do it locally, fine. But be prepared to educate your judges...and give them the lists of specific deductions, a scribe and a calculator.
                                    When opportunity knocks it's wearing overalls and looks like work.

                                    The horse world. Two people. Three opinions.

                                    Comment


                                    • #19
                                      Ok.. so being the usual voice of gloom and doom, does no one see the potential for ABUSE of this "gold standard" system? Betty Backyard goes to Area Extravaganza Horse Show, her trainer supports the horse show, SHE supports the horse show, horse show hires the judge so what judge in their right mind is going to give Betty Backyard a "tin foil" score? If that judge wants to work again next month (at Area Extravaganza Horse Show), judge will look favorably on Betty, her trainer and the rest of the support system that shores up the local economy, as well as judges OWN pocketbook.
                                      What is it about the eq system in this country (and ONLY this country) that makes it the Holy Grail of any junior riders' horse show career??
                                      The thing about smart people, is they look like crazy people, to dumb people.

                                      Comment


                                      • #20
                                        Dogs are judged against the standard for their breed, not against the others in the ring with them so in some respects it would be similiar, but would require a huge overhaul of the system.

                                        Could see this possibly working but could take years so come up with the "standard" and then getting every judge on the same page. Time might be better spent in show promotions and planning to try to attract more than the minimun needed to fill the class.

                                        Comment

                                        Working...
                                        X