• 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

Official Results from 2012 NA Stallion Test are posted!

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

  • #21
    If you look at the averages this year, there was some talented horses so the averages were high. The horse in question had scores lower than the average by a bit. The bell is suppose to adjust for testing and scoring differences between test. So if the average is high then the curve assumes that the scores are scored high as opposed to having a group of overachievers. The further your scores are from the average, the bigger hit you take. That same horse might get significantly better final marks if the averages would have been lower. There would also be play between the disciplines. So if you are weak in dressage but above average in jumping but were in a class with outstanding jumpers and they are fairly good movers too, you are going to take a bit hit in final marks. The good thing is that it rewards overall athleticism more than a specialist. That is why you want a large class, the horses will be more typical of a range of abilities. This year many of the averages were 8's. On the other side, it would be hard for horses to get the big marks. A test with lower averages would result in a larger final score for some of these horses. In other tests some of these horses would have got at least 130 for jumping scores. Again, the raw scores are more informative.

    Comment


    • #22
      It makes no sense to me to score horses against a bell curve and not against a set standard. Why do you penalize SOME stallion owner every year? How does that make fair approvals? I'm not saying any stallion does or doesn't deserve approval, but to the outside observer, it doesn't make a lick of sense...
      Family Partners Welsh Ponies - Home of Section B Welsh stallion *Wedderlie Mardi Gras LOM/AOE http://www.welshponies.com
      Click here to buy: A Guide To In Hand Showing of Your Welsh Pony

      Comment


      • #23
        If you look at the raw scores of the horse at the bottom of the pack, he fell way below the other stallions in willingness to work, ability to work, walk, trot, stadium jumping, cross-country gallop, cross-country jumping, etc. And even his canter was below the average. Plus, it looks as though he was scored fairly consistently by the various "judges" - training judge, test judges (2), and test riders (4). So - without having been there and seeing the horse go - it would appear that the combination of very sub-par jumping ability and sub-par gait scores were what put him out of contention for a passing score. IOW, if the horse can't or won't jump nicely, and he doesn't have good gaits, then does he have the qualities needed to make a good sire of sport horses?

        Comment


        • #24
          Also - I haven't been able to find the names on the website of the test judges or the guest dressage riders. Does anyone know who they were?

          Comment


          • #25
            It makes no sense to me to score horses against a bell curve and not against a set standard. Why do you penalize SOME stallion owner every year? How does that make fair approvals? I'm not saying any stallion does or doesn't deserve approval, but to the outside observer, it doesn't make a lick of sense...
            This ^ exactly. Thats the part I am having trouble "getting" and accepting
            www.TrueColoursFarm.com
            www.truecoloursproducts.com

            True Colours Farm on Facebook

            Comment


            • #26
              Regarding the bell curve thing, the reason I would see is that, even if you try as hard as possible to compare all horses to a standard, you end up comparing each horse with the ones you judged just before.

              Having been involved in some testings, you will always note that, depending on the panel of judges and even sometimes their mood, the scores for a same horse would vary from one day to another. For exemple, on a good day, the first horse could gets 7 all across the board, and these marks would remain the benchmark for the rest of the day. If the judges have been to generous for that first horse, the rest of horses will be marked higher as they cannot score them lower then that first one. In testing process where their is no bell curve theory applied, I saw days where 11 out of 13 mares judged where scored as premiums where , in fact, the quality overall was average. By applying the bell curve marks, you would have the opportunity to put these high marks in perspective and make the corrections to more realistics results.

              Of course the impact of those higher scores are less important in 70 days tests as the judges may have several days to correct the scores but I think it can explain the whole question of judging by the bell curve.

              Comment

              • Original Poster

                #27
                Have no despair! The upcoming blog posts that we are preparing (and translating) go into detail explaining all of the scores giving during the Rideability/Gaits judging days by judge riders and the scores given by the judges on the ground. Here is a small excerpt explaining what is judged by the character score:

                "Character
                Amiability and interaction with humans, obedience, acclimation to testing facility, Posture (such as defensive reaction, ear positioning, and behavior while brushing, saddling, bridling, mounting, or dismounting)

                Unacceptable: Turning away and pinning the ears, resistance when touched, threatening to hurt you, lifting hind legs to threaten kicking, biting, kicking or rearing"

                The judges were Georg Van den Boom (Germany) and Dr. Antonius Bornemann (Germany). Guest judge was Paul Gummelt. Rideability/Gaits judge riders were Jessica Wisdom (USA) and Kim Pfieffer (Germany). We left the names off the website until after the final days to prevent allegations that riders/judges could be bribed in advance.
                Summer Stoffel
                Silver Creek International/Equicore
                www.silvercreeksporthorses.com
                www.equicore.com

                Comment


                • #28
                  It defeats the purpose of having a test, if all stallions "pass" the test. It IS a test. The sole purpose of the bell curve is to help standardize the testing from one test to the next. The bell curve does not change how the stallions place in the test and it does not make them fail. The lowest scoring stallion will always be the lowest scoring stallion. If there was no bell curve, instead of having just one or two stallions fail to meet the minimum licensing requirements, four or five could "fail". The standards set by the registries for acceptable scores are based on the test scores calculated with this formula. If they were accepting raw scores, I can assure you that their minimum accepted score would change to eliminate the bottom scoring stallion(s).

                  From the testing stand point, stallions do not "fail". The test gives the stallions an index score and it is up to the registries to determine their minimum accepted score for licensing.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    IMO the objective for the stallion testing is to approve only exceptional individuals for breeding. Stallions with a sub par performance should fail.
                    If mediocrity is what you want then you might as well do away with the testing all together.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by rideagoldenpony View Post
                      It makes no sense to me to score horses against a bell curve and not against a set standard. Why do you penalize SOME stallion owner every year? How does that make fair approvals? I'm not saying any stallion does or doesn't deserve approval, but to the outside observer, it doesn't make a lick of sense...
                      I agree! I think a "fixed" standard makes more sense. In all reality, most years some stallions won't pass, there are only a few extraordinary horses that should earn this honor. But what if you have a year with 10 extraordinary horses - shouldn't they all deserve to "pass"? ANd what if you have a bad year, and there are 10 not-so-extraordinary horses - the bell curve says some of those still have to pass, even if the "top score" is still less quality then the lowest scoring horse from the year before? Yes, I know this is an unlikely scenario, but there will be years when you have a really high quality group of horses - and bell curve can "damage" that kind of group.

                      Comment


                      • #31
                        Originally posted by showjumpers66 View Post
                        It defeats the purpose of having a test, if all stallions "pass" the test. It IS a test. The sole purpose of the bell curve is to help standardize the testing from one test to the next. The bell curve does not change how the stallions place in the test and it does not make them fail. The lowest scoring stallion will always be the lowest scoring stallion. If there was no bell curve, instead of having just one or two stallions fail to meet the minimum licensing requirements, four or five could "fail". The standards set by the registries for acceptable scores are based on the test scores calculated with this formula. If they were accepting raw scores, I can assure you that their minimum accepted score would change to eliminate the bottom scoring stallion(s).

                        From the testing stand point, stallions do not "fail". The test gives the stallions an index score and it is up to the registries to determine their minimum accepted score for licensing.
                        I don't see how it standardizes anything.
                        It depends more on the quality of horses in the test than it does on a judging on an individual horse against standard requirements.
                        And there is nothing wrong if more stallions failed the test. So what if all the horses in a particular test 'pass' or 'fail' based on the individual registry requirements.
                        Too much luck of the draw. An exceptional horse who had the bad luck to compete in a year that all the horses were exceptional could fail and the reverse is true. A poor quality horse in a below average group could pass.

                        Makes no sense.

                        Comment


                        • #32
                          Originally posted by showjumpers66 View Post
                          From the testing stand point, stallions do not "fail". The test gives the stallions an index score and it is up to the registries to determine their minimum accepted score for licensing.
                          This is the key. It is up to the registries to decide what score they will accept. In the past, certain registries have used their discretion to accept the lowest scoring stallion, so it can happen.
                          I know I keep saying it, but this is why you should go watch in person, if at all possible! This was my first year attending, and it was an eye opening experience. I think we would have less of these "it's not fair discussions" if more people could go and see how some of these stallions perform in person.

                          The testing should let "the cream rise to the top" and I would think all breeders here would want a very stringent testing, so that we can breed with the best, vs. "just good enough".
                          Already excited about our 2016 foals! Expecting babies by Indoctro, Diamant de Semilly, Zirocco Blue and Calido!
                          https://www.facebook.com/pages/Hills...h/112931293227

                          Comment


                          • #33
                            I believe in the bell curve. We are supposed to be improving with each generation, not to maintain the status quo. Grading on a bell curve accommodates that generational improvement.
                            "No matter how cynical I get its just not enough to keep up." Lily Tomlin

                            Comment


                            • #34
                              Originally posted by showjumpers66 View Post
                              It defeats the purpose of having a test, if all stallions "pass" the test. It IS a test. The sole purpose of the bell curve is to help standardize the testing from one test to the next. The bell curve does not change how the stallions place in the test and it does not make them fail. The lowest scoring stallion will always be the lowest scoring stallion. If there was no bell curve, instead of having just one or two stallions fail to meet the minimum licensing requirements, four or five could "fail". The standards set by the registries for acceptable scores are based on the test scores calculated with this formula. If they were accepting raw scores, I can assure you that their minimum accepted score would change to eliminate the bottom scoring stallion(s).

                              From the testing stand point, stallions do not "fail". The test gives the stallions an index score and it is up to the registries to determine their minimum accepted score for licensing.
                              I agree that it is suppose to standardize the test BUT that is a function of variation and test size. It won't work on smaller populations. And I am not sure that when you have such a small population that the test has the purpose of having some not pass. A large group, yes. Not saying the lowest horse in this test should have passed but in other years where the test was smaller, a horse could have failed but if they would have taken the test in Germany, they would have passed with average marks and been given a chance in the breeding shed. Picking the best 3yr old doesn't have a high correlation to the best sire. It is one step along the way. I guess that is the heart of the issue, that you could possible take a horse out of the breeding population that may have been a valid contributor. History shows that many decent sires had average results in the test. The order may remain the same but it is the elimination that is the issue. And the order is not that important once the horse is breeding. Plus the idea that same stallion, in a larger test, would have been given that chance in Europe, where there are more sires than we have here.
                              I also agree with Cumano that judges are human and prone to bias. But with a 70 day test and smaller groups, that possible bias should not be weighted as heavily. A mare inspection is one day. The interesting thing is that most people can see the top horses and the bottom, it is the middle placing that becomes hard to judge.
                              This year, one horse got some 10's for jumping. Now either that score is too high or the horse genuinely earned that score. If he did, it should not be diminished by the bell curve. Which is why I think Silver Creek did a really good thing putting out the raw scores. And none of this is directed towards their efforts, which were excellent. And even them taking the brunt of the criticism of the math which they have no control over. It is a critic of the methodology. And I don't think the baby should be thrown out with the bathwater, as testing is a valuable tool and needs to be available in NA. Someone should rethink how the numbers are used, (well apparently they have but the changes are not out yet).

                              Comment


                              • #35
                                Testing does not, in and of itself, take any stallion out of the gene pool. You can still pursue approvals through performance, or you can forgo being "approved" at all. There are plenty of people breeding to stallions that aren't approved in any registry, and their offspring only get COPs.

                                I just don't know why we have to re-hash this every year, but I suppose it is human nature. We need this testing as it is recognized by European stud-books and for those of us who desire those papers for our horses this is the system that we have.
                                Already excited about our 2016 foals! Expecting babies by Indoctro, Diamant de Semilly, Zirocco Blue and Calido!
                                https://www.facebook.com/pages/Hills...h/112931293227

                                Comment


                                • #36
                                  Originally posted by S A McKee View Post
                                  I don't see how it standardizes anything.
                                  It depends more on the quality of horses in the test than it does on a judging on an individual horse against standard requirements.
                                  And there is nothing wrong if more stallions failed the test. So what if all the horses in a particular test 'pass' or 'fail' based on the individual registry requirements.
                                  Too much luck of the draw. An exceptional horse who had the bad luck to compete in a year that all the horses were exceptional could fail and the reverse is true. A poor quality horse in a below average group could pass.

                                  Makes no sense.
                                  Stats nerd interjecting here...In order for the standardization of the testing to be fair (not arguing whether or not it is, just stating facts), it has to be operating on the assumption that the sample (the stallions at this particular testing) is representative of the population (all warmblood sport-type stallions). If this is true, the standardized scoring should be applicable.

                                  Typically, there is a minimum sample size necessary in order for the distribution of the sample to be considered normal (and mirror that of the population, with the sample mean equaling the mean of the population). This principle is known as the central limit theorum. I'm not sure what this number is for this particular testing; I believe there was some debate about that last year (for psychological statistical testing, an n of 30 is the minimum to assume a normal distribution). Without the minimum number, the standardized scores cannot be applied, as the distribution will not necessarily be normal and the mean of the sample will not necessarily equal that of the population. This would mean that the comparison between the sample and population would not be valid (you would essentially be comparing apples to oranges).

                                  Therefore, if the minimum sample size criterion is met, the distribution of the sample can be considered normal and standardized scoring can be applied, AND an increase in sample size will not significantly affect the distribution. Obviously, the more the better, as the larger your sample, the more likely it will represent the population at large. However, the argument that the much greater numbers of stallions at stallion tests in Europe will produce highly discrepant results when the standardized scores are applied compared with tests with smaller numbers *should* be meaningless. According to this principle of statistics, if the minimum sample size criterion is met (let's pretend it's 30), it should make no difference whether there are 31 or 301 stallions in the testing: they are both being compared using the same normal distribution with the same mean (average) that equals that of the population with which the samples are being compared.

                                  Comment


                                  • #37
                                    Originally posted by HickoryHill View Post
                                    IMO the objective for the stallion testing is to approve only exceptional individuals for breeding. Stallions with a sub par performance should fail.
                                    If mediocrity is what you want then you might as well do away with the testing all together.
                                    That is assuming that the test is a definitive evaluation of the stallions potential for a sire. This has been shown to not be true, in fact most of the best stallions did not finish in the top places. If the test was only to determine the best 3 year old than yes.

                                    I believe in the bell curve.
                                    I also belive in using normal distribution....correctly. As Tradewind pointed out, you need to know the minimal sample size that represents the population of tested stallions.
                                    And it gets talked about every year because it is important to the test. It is not a law written in stone, the people that govern it can change the process. It is a simple calculation. But if no one speaks up, things do not get better. Or do you think we should not improve the system? Or do you just trust that people in authority aways have the right answer. To people that use stats, this is a glaring issue.

                                    Comment


                                    • #38
                                      According to the person in Germany who created this formula, 5 stallions is the minimum number to calculate results and 12 is the minimum number for the results to have value and be accurate.

                                      Comment


                                      • #39
                                        Originally posted by SilverCreek View Post
                                        The judges were Georg Van den Boom (Germany) and Dr. Antonius Bornemann (Germany). Guest judge was Paul Gummelt. Rideability/Gaits judge riders were Jessica Wisdom (USA) and Kim Pfieffer (Germany). We left the names off the website until after the final days to prevent allegations that riders/judges could be bribed in advance.
                                        Thanks, Summer! And totally understandable for them to not be on the website beforehand!

                                        Comment


                                        • #40
                                          Originally posted by stoicfish View Post
                                          That is assuming that the test is a definitive evaluation of the stallions potential for a sire. This has been shown to not be true, in fact most of the best stallions did not finish in the top places.
                                          No one is saying it is a definitive evaluation, but it is an indication whether a stallion possesses traits desired in a sire of sporthorses, or whether he does not possess those traits.

                                          I would argue that a stallion whose raw scores in most categories are WELL BELOW those of his peers, is probably NOT a good candidate for being a sporthorse sire. IOW, how can he reasonably be expected to pass on desireable sporthorse traits if he himself doesn't possess those traits?

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X