Historical USDF Membership Numbers-Post Here

[MysticOakRanch]

@pluvinel

These numbers are great!!!..I might try to put this in a spreadsheet to see the actual slope of the decay.

I mean, these numbers are huge…if you want to build a pipeline of membership the numbers speak loudly…the 2017 Training Level rides (526) are 30% the number of the 1995 number (1730)

The OTHER part that is interesting is the INCREASING scores of the rides…which addresses the problem of the quality of the judging. Is Verdades really 13 points better than Udon?

I really think the PTB have good intentions, but they really have no clue about statistics and process quality improvement.

It is interesting, because the lower levels, the scores are not that different - there are one or two horses that are scoring “crazy high” - but they are also incredible quality horses with incredible riders. In general, looking at the “top 20”, there isn’t a huge increase in scores. It was only at the higher levels where the scores really jumped.

I have every Yearbook (I think) since 1995 - I just picked those 3 years (and I skipped a few less popular levels), oldest, newest, and just before the recession. If I have a lot of free time one day, I might try graphing some of the levels by year - but realistically, I have work to get done:lol:

It would be interesting to ask Stefan Peters if he thinks the quality of horses and riding have improved - I believe Udon was his first GP horse…

[atlatl]

@pluvinel

Is Verdades really 13 points better than Udon?

I think so, YMMV

Verdades: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CL39wZqtV7c

Udon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lToxsZNnUSk

[ladyj79]

Agreed that in average, yes, the horses are better both at the top and the middle.

[MissAriel]

@MysticOakRanch

Second Level
1995, 1,333 competitors, HOTY Wendelynne L, median score, 73.605
2005, 258 competitors, HOTY Ravenilli’s Wizard, median score 72.209
2017, 296 competitors, HOTY Au Revoir, median score 74.545

First Level
1995, 2097 competitors, HOTY Wendelynne L, median score 76.364
2005, 55 competitors, HOTY WBR Hannibal, median score 75.741
2017, 503 competitors, HOTY Habanero CWS, median score 80.704

Training Level
1995, 1730 competitors, HOTY Harpsichord, median score 74.215
2005, 687 competitors, HOTY Ruschkoi, median score 75.385
2017, 526 competitors, HOTY Harrold S, median score 82.841

Notice how the numbers have decreased in numbers that are showing!

particularly for 3rd level and below! :eek::no:

btw - is First level 2005 55 competitors a typo? or was it really only 55, then bounced back up to 503 by 2017?

[yaya]

Were there really only 55 competitors at First Level in 2005, or is a digit missing?

ETA - oops, didn’t see the post before me.

[Cowgirl]

Wow that is interesting. So they want to cut down the freestyle entries? Really?

[pluvinel]

Here is another look at MOR’s data that shows a large drop-off in the “feeder pipeline” of people at lower levels.

It is a simple calculation of the percent drop in competitors in 2017 versus the competitor number in 1995.

. [TABLE=“border: 1, cellpadding: 0, cellspacing: 0”]
[TR]
[TD]Grand Prix[/TD]
[TD].No. Competitors . [/TD]
[TD]. % Drop in Competitors
--------1995-2017-------. ------[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1995[/TD]
[TD]188[/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2005[/TD]
[TD]138[/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2017[/TD]
[TD]176[/TD]
[TD]6.4%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]PSG[/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1995[/TD]
[TD]731[/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2005[/TD]
[TD]363[/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2017[/TD]
[TD]502[/TD]
[TD]31.3%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Third Level[/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1995[/TD]
[TD]787[/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2005[/TD]
[TD]239[/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2017[/TD]
[TD]369[/TD]
[TD]53.1%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Second Level[/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1995[/TD]
[TD]1333[/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2005[/TD]
[TD]258[/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2017[/TD]
[TD]296[/TD]
[TD]77.8%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]First Level[/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1995[/TD]
[TD]2097[/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2005[/TD]
[TD]55[/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2017[/TD]
[TD]503[/TD]
[TD]76.0%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD=“colspan: 2”]Training Level[/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1995[/TD]
[TD]1730[/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2005[/TD]
[TD]687[/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2017[/TD]
[TD]526[/TD]
[TD]69.6%[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

[Cowgirl]

I’d be curious to see historical freestyle data–not just how many are riding them, but what the scores have been. I want to really see the proof that the riding has gotten crappier over time.

[pluvinel]

@Cowgirl

I’d be curious to see historical freestyle data–not just how many are riding them, but what the scores have been. I want to really see the proof that the riding has gotten crappier over time.

I don’t think you will see any data to support this…but I could be wrong.

Back in the 2008-2010 time frame, the basis for introducing the first Qualifying Rule was that there was a raft of “crappy riding”.

The original COTH Nerd Herd formed when a group of us asked “Where?”

We weren’t seeing the epidemic of bad riding that was being presented as the basis for needing the qualifying rule.

That was the start of the analysis of the 45,000 scores that became the paper published in a peer-reviewed statistical journal.

That analysis showed only 2.1% of the riders scored below 50%.

[Equibrit]

What year was it when scores shifted up ?

[pluvinel]

@Equibrit

What year was it when scores shifted up ?

In order to properly answer that question one would need to have access to the entire data set then perform various statistical tests like a control chart analysis on the scores

So the answer is “can’t tell” with the data we currently have…

[2tempe]

Everyone seems to talk about the decline in showing or the cost of competing in more recent years. I would be interested in what went on that caused the really significant drops from 1995 to 2005. Noted that training level is the only one that has declined a bit more since then… Could be just less people showing over all. could be less people doing recognized shows at that level, and getting their mileage at smaller venues/schooling shows.

[netg]

@atlatl

I think so, YMMV

Verdades: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CL39wZqtV7c

Udon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lToxsZNnUSk

I think it depends on if you’re looking at front legs or hind legs, and if you’re looking at correctness or flash.

I LOVE Verdades. He’s one of my absolute favorites out there right now, and I think they were robbed in Omaha. But I also think he’s incorrect in some movements, and should be scored down accordingly in those movements. I feel the same about all the beautiful, flashy, but not always correct horses at the international level these days. I think they have more raw talent than Udon, but I think other than a few mistakes in changes and those godawful small circle “pirouettes” that Udon was awfully correct in that video compared to what we see today. His extended trot was not big, and you can see where he didn’t have the same level of athleticism modern horses have. But imagine if we saw more modern horses being ridden that correctly.

[MysticOakRanch]

@MissAriel

particularly for 3rd level and below! :eek::no:

btw - is First level 2005 55 competitors a typo? or was it really only 55, then bounced back up to 503 by 2017?

That is what they have posted in the Yearbook - I looked at that too! I think USDF has a typo - I just checked the year before and after, and the numbers are 482 and 546. So I suspect the correct number might be 555? Gotta be a USDF typo!

[MysticOakRanch]

@pluvinel

Here is another look at MOR’s data that shows a large drop-off in the “feeder pipeline” of people at lower levels.

[/TABLE]

That is exactly what I read from the numbers - the greatest decline is at the lower levels - the grass roots of dressage. We use to see the lower levels just jam packed with competitors - now 3rd and PSG are often the biggest classes. It is exactly what I am seeing locally too! But then I go to a schooling show, and it is packed with the lower level riders - and many of those are no longer joining USDF (and our GMO).

[MissAriel]

@MysticOakRanch

That is exactly what I read from the numbers - the greatest decline is at the lower levels - the grass roots of dressage. We use to see the lower levels just jam packed with competitors - now 3rd and PSG are often the biggest classes. It is exactly what I am seeing locally too! But then I go to a schooling show, and it is packed with the lower level riders - and many of those are no longer joining USDF (and our GMO).

And as someone who dipped my toe into showing at a rated show for the first time this year, the costs and complexities of showing (see related thread) are probably the biggest factor in me waiting so long. It will probably limit the number of shows I do as well.

With the big discrepancy in cost/class there is no question the local schooling shows are a better value if your goal is getting a judge’s feedback and mileage for you and your horse. I am only showing rated shows to work towards my bronze medal and maybe to “verify” my scores with different judges as our local shows tend to use the same group of relatively local judges exclusively, but the rated shows bring in judges from other areas.

[lorilu]

@MysticOakRanch

That is exactly what I read from the numbers - the greatest decline is at the lower levels - the grass roots of dressage. We use to see the lower levels just jam packed with competitors - now 3rd and PSG are often the biggest classes. It is exactly what I am seeing locally too! But then I go to a schooling show, and it is packed with the lower level riders - and many of those are no longer joining USDF (and our GMO).

Our GMO makes non-members pay a premium at the shows - so if they plan to show more than one show, it is economic for them to join… this is only permissible at schooling shows.

[NJRider]

ok, I dug through my old “D & CT” magazines and found in a USDF news page they stated the membership to be 36,000. This was the November 1996 issue. Also ran across a real gem, a letter to the editor written in March of 1994 by out very own Maestro!

[connerrl]

DVCTA, Our membership base is over 290 strong, and largely local to the SE PA, N. DE, Central NJ, and NE MD region. DVCTA October 26, 2012

Current membership is at 220 compared to 237 (2016) at this time last year
DVCTA Minute 11/7/2017

[dotneko]

One additional factor - and I am not sure how it relates - is that there used to be 4 tests at lower levels