In no article that I’ve read has any journalist written what “MER” stands for. Isn’t it standard practice to write out an acronym in a article, put the abbreviation in parentheses, and then use the acronym? So frustrated … what does it mean?
MER = Minimum Eligibility Requirement. The minimum scores one must achieve at one level in order to progress up to the next level. What precisely that minimum might be is what is being debated.
Sadly, while an increase in technical perfection should be a good thing, if it comes at the expense of a natural fluidity then people are going to have trouble when the situation isn’t perfect (due to terrain,footing, distraction, fatigue, …whatever). More & more riders are working within the confines of manicured rings and nicely set up courses/gymnastics that are certainly good & necessary learning but do not translate as well to XC as would the randomness of hunting, hunter paces, non-flatland trails etc.
MERs on a “plain” course are not necessarily going to be worth as much as a not-quite-MER on a tougher course. Dressage scores also vary quite a bit between judges—I would hate to see that be the limiting factor.
Edit to better? indicate quote & link to MER issue
5 Likes
It’s not just about that, it’s about ensuring riders are properly educated and training at home.
There seems to be a correlation between bad dressage AND stadium and horse falls from looking at results over the last month. I don’t know if it correlates with death but horse falls are bad enough IMO.
I do support data, but I also don’t understand the pushback of requiring better scores.
It’s a competition, it’s a sport about lifelong education. If you don’t want to better yourself you don’t belong in equestrian sport (you as in general not directed at you).
You and I both no there is no data. Why do you think I spent the last ten years on this board harping non stop about needing the data. The data we have just isn’t enough.
Also to add that a 45 is 55%. That’s below “Satisfactory”. It’s just above “sufficient” meaning you did the movement but it wasn’t even good.
Are we really defending people jumping Prelim sized fences with “sufficient” flat skills?
2 Likes
Jealoushe, I want to be clear that I think we are both working towards the same goal: more safety. So my discussions with you are not personal here, and I know that goes both ways 
I am so tired of these discussions which are prompted by someone like a PTB that decides what they feel is “unsafe”, proposes a rule change, and all of us fly down a rabbit hole debating how to refine the proposal… yet the proposal itself didn’t even start from a provable data-driven premise.
Well, I think there are two different discussions:
-
How to make the sport safer, or the participants in the sport safer, or to prevent horse falls which would make everyone safer.
-
Does changing certain criteria achieve the #1 goal or is there no correlation between our gut feelings and actual increases in safety?
The only dressage-related safety issue I have knowledge of is that in a review of data, it was found that the leader after dressage was more likely to have a fall on XC than others. I have tried to find this to reference it, but I am not having any luck. I would guess it was about 10 years ago that this finding was made.
When a bunch of ULR died in 1999, a study was commissioned which resulted in creating frangible pins. There may have been some tightening of qualifications too - but the problem when all these ULR died was that many of them were very good, competent, and previously safe riders. Point being - the sport decided to follow the data, which showed that deaths from horse falls were happening during rotational falls; and reducing horse falls in turn reduced rider deaths. So they worked towards reducing horse falls with the frangible pin idea.
But there were also issues with fence design (the Sue Benson fence with a lifelike human on it), rider responsibility (Polly Phillips and evidently, by his own admission, Danny Warrington’s wife Amanda Warrington), eventing culture (not knowing when to call it a day and carrying on no matter what, e.g. Mia Eriksson).
Since then we have discussed and developed theories about modern eventing and loss of the long format; increased number and complexity of jumping efforts per 100 metres causing higher speeds between fences; change in choice of horse type to favour better movers and cleaner show jumpers.
There will be multiple factors and it isn’t easy to isolate them. Really sadly, there were some deaths that people felt were preventable because the rider lacked skills or self-awareness or responsibility. There are probably some injuries that also fall into this category. Those are what we need to prevent, not the competent but uncompetitive amateur who enjoys the sport but can’t be bothered to spend a ton of time getting their dressage more than “sufficient” (which would be getting 5s across the board). Sufficient, if that is what it truly is, should be ok to move on. You did the movements sufficiently.
10 Likes
This. While certainly we all know there is no substitute for experience, we also know that there are myriad ways to get that experience. We need ways to ensure quality, and several of us have proposed a range of alternatives that assess that quality in COMPLETELY separate proposals that have nothing to do with MERs. That isn’t to say we shouldn’t also have MERs or shouldn’t discuss the nature of those MERs as part of one of many ideas.
I like your questions. I think we all want the sport to be safer. We all want to make sure we are making decisions based on data.
There is discussion above about “being a bit more German” without recognition that the Germans DO have a quality control (through assessed testing and judged riding. They also have a LOT more opportunities for quality training and for showing.
To give you an idea, my jump lessons–instructor (who, naturally, has to have assessed qualifications, so no, not a backyard trainer) comes to the farm–cost 20 Euros for a semi-private or private. If we hack down the road to the neighbour farm, we pay 15 Euros to the coach and 5 for the facility. For a 60/year membership, I can get a XC clinic for 25-35 Euros. A jumper class entry costs about 12 Euros, and recognised jumper shows are everywhere. Same for dressage. A horse trial costs about 60 Euros. We never haul more than about 30 miles for our jumper rounds, and events are all within an hour or two–and all run over a single day (my first HT here I was at the barn braiding at 7, on the road by 9, dressage at 11:30, and you have 20 minutes after dressage for a quick tack change and a few jumps before you showjump, my XC was at 3, and I was home with the horse put away and gear cleaned and put away by 6). In short, it’s worlds cheaper and easier to get the experience and the quality coaching.
We cannot compare to how the Germans (or Brits or anyone else) does things. Living in Area VII meant driving 4 hours to most events or XC clinics. In addition to fuel and stabling, there were accommodation costs, time costs, and the clinics and shows themselves were so much more expensive (please don’t think I am complaining; the costs are higher for a reason, and I don’t begrudge organisers or coaches for charging what they do–I know they are also only breaking even at best, and I appreciate the labor of love that is involved). But it means we cannot compare to or try to emulate those systems. We can only look at them for ideas of what they are doing right and wrong, then need to think creatively about how to best adapt to our own American needs through the creativity and innovation that are the core of American successes.
8 Likes
Yes for the record I really enjoy these conversations and disagreements because I know for myself personally I learn more and can change my opinions over time from seeing things from other points of views. Nothing said or read here is taking personally (speaking for myself).
As for the score of 5’s, I guess I just have a different opinion of what is acceptable for showing at a level like Prelim level.
I would love for data to drive some changes but it still feels like after all these years we don’t have the data we need to do this. I hope I’m wrong.
1 Like
I think this is so important. Over the years, whenever there has been a rise in accidents, or an increased concern about safety (data driven or not), the worry has been mostly focused on kids/ammies moving up to prelim. It’s a big move, and not one to downplay, but for some reason it has monopolized our conversations about safety, possibly to the detriment of other safety issues.
5 Likes
This reminds me of something by Podhajsky I read many years ago. He was talking about foxhunting, and I don’t remember it terribly clearly, but it was along the lines of not bringing an upper level dressage horse hunting, because the horse expected the rider to make all the decisions, and in a tight spot, that could be a disaster.
7 Likes
Your whole post was fabulous - thank you for sharing it.
On this note specifically, I feel very strongly about this. Want to know when my dressage scores are worst? In the years I’m upgrading. Why? It’s not because I suddenly can’t ride a circle or collect the canter. It’s because in those years, there is an added focus on my training on the cross-country. Because while it’s nice to score a 28 on the flat, it’s essential to be safe on cross-country.
As there are only so many hours in the day and so much work I can ask of my horse, in the year of an upgrade we always shift our focus even more towards xc, at the natural expense of our flatwork. Our flatwork is left at sufficient so that our cross-country can be excellent. This is done to ensure our safety, not at the expense of it. There is time to really smooth out our testwork once we are established at the level, and looking to be competitive. There will not be time to improve our cross-country if I go out and rotate on course.
20 Likes
You hit the nail on the head!
This! I remember a conversation several decades ago w a VBNR after some accidents about this very thing - horses trained so well in the dressage that you removed their decision making. While the best of the best riders are very good at making decisions on XC, in the old days horses were expected to think on their feet / on the fly to get out safely to the other side when jumping at high speeds w terrain issues etc. This person was questioning how the “wait for it” dressage training would affect XC thinking by the horse.
I think the point those in charge of the original rule was that if you don’t have the time to train properly then you shouldn’t be upgrading (don’t come at me I’m just repeating what was said lol)
Also the dressage horse thing still stands true, however Prelim is equivalent to First level so that doesn’t really apply here. It’s not until 3rd/4th the dressage horse becomes so on the aids that it may become an issue on XC and that’s why Eventing dressage never includes levels above that.
4 Likes
I wasn’t commenting on people who don’t train properly, I was commenting on areas of focus in training. People who do not train properly cannot sufficiently perform a dressage test, and that will be reflected in the score (both @Blugal and I are discussing sufficiency). (To be fair, I suppose I don’t know your definition of properly, but that’s how I define it.)
People who are not currently focusing on dressage will not have the world’s most polished test - what many of my coaches refer to as “ringwork”, the little attention to detail that takes you from a 33 to a 28. I regularly sacrifice some focus on ringwork for a few extra jump training sessions around the time of an upgrade, and it shows in my scores. It doesn’t mean I don’t have control of my horse, but it does mean that if you crank down the MER for dressage too low, I’ll fall on the wrong side. Maybe that doesn’t actually matter (after all, if I’ve just upgraded, I’m going to be running at the level for a while), but if what we’re really focusing on is safety, my polish in the first phase has absolutely nothing to do with it.
2 Likes
Which may be true, but the question is not about making decent scores better but whether or not a a bad score (45+ for this discussion) shows that you have indeed done the basic training required?
3 Likes
I must have misunderstood - I thought you were suggesting the threshold for a MER should be reduced on the flat below 45. My apologies, carry on!
Thank you for sharing this! My main focus has been the dressage work as that was our weakest (I’m only competing at 60cm/2’) but I want to move up to the next level here (80cm/2’7"). I know I need to switch my focus to the jumping. I love my dressage lessons but to move up you’ve just confirmed I will need to drop those in favour of jumping lessons (can’t afford both…) until we’re solid and then can get lessons 50/50.
3 Likes
Did anyone see this posted? Thoughts on the task force members? Do you feel that they will represent all concerns well?
1 Like
Nice to see Sean Murray and Sam Watson of Equiratings listed as advisors. Hopefully that will help to guide the task force from more of a “it feels like this is the right answer” to “the data supports that this is the right answer”.
1 Like
I actually thought it was a pretty reasonable mix. There were a few people that seemed to be over-represented on USEA committees, but then there were others that looked like fresh/new voices. There was a good mix of amateurs and professionals and at least one representative on the younger side. A minor concern is that I would have liked a little more detail on how they chose the members. Was there a call for volunteers? Did they reach out to people who responded to the survey?
3 Likes
