When you ride hunters, I find it rare that you don’t have at least some idea of why you placed roughly where you did – if you don’t know that you were a little deep to the single oxer, or you jumped into a line shallow and then ended up a little gappy coming out, you need to be asking your trainer what you did, or watching your videos with someone who can explain it to you. While I think there is room for more transparency/insights and welcome the discussion of how it could be accomplished, I don’t buy the idea that this is a complete mystery absent an explanation from the judge for each round. Most of the time people don’t understand the placings because they either aren’t self-aware about their rounds, or they didn’t watch the whole class (and really, most of us really never get to do that) so they aren’t really in a good position to say how their round compared to all of the other rounds in the class. You could have a personal-best round, but not have seen three other rounds that were even better. These details are why hunter people really like eyes on the ground - in the jumper ring you have time faults or rails and you know it, but in the hunter ring in the moment, you might or might not realize your horse swapped off right in front of the judge, or how far left you shifted, etc . . . And, given what we know about human nature, I think if you gave scores for every round every time, you’d just have people complaining about why their round got a 68 or 72 instead of a 78 so I’m not sure you’d please people even then because it would still be subjective.
The collective scores are the determining factor for the win when stick scores are tied. We also use scores like 6.5 or 8.5. If all of a test is numerically tied to another, the collective comments are used. In my scribing experience, ties are a rarity.
Nailed it dags. Couldn’t agree more!
Not hunters but I have observed unbelievable Medal Final bias.
The ‘host’ of the show had a rider take out two jumps and scored high enough for the final round. By take out, I mean plowed right through the 3’6” jumps. Scary stuff.
The judge was buddies with the show ‘host’…
Although this rider wasn’t the winner, they did place in the top ten. So disappointing.
So is there likely judging bias in hunters? IMO, Heck yes! How do you remedy this? Public scores announced? Or?
Sometimes I think it helps to focus on the root of the issue before coming up with a solution. So, what are some of the root causes?
- Process is largely manual and time consuming
- Current judging process is subject to human error or bias - there is a standard but the human eye and mind isn’t able to consistently apply the standard
- Open card means multiple classes are tracked simultaneously which make providing immediate feedback difficult; judges struggle to track riders on multiple cards
- There is no mechanism in place to provide competitor’s with feedback
- Current judging system is confusing and many competitors believe there is a lack of transparency
The answer to every one of these concerns is automation. Like it or not, an automated process could deliver just-in-time scores to every competitor while also allowing for judging against a true standard. How?
-
Create a completely digital process - from entering the class, to alerting you to class times, to scanning a QR code on your back number when you enter the ring - this could all be automated.
-
Automation means you get your results delivered right to your phone within minutes of the class.
-
Tired of human error in judging or have judges that want to shuffle through papers all day instead of using software? An algorithm could correct this. Merely calibrate the ring and the jumps, and the algorithm will tell you EXACTLY how much you chipped (or supermanned) your jump, average stride length, variation of cadence, etc… all from the viewpoint of the recording device (which would stay in place all day). No bio breaks or lunchbreaks, no shifting paperwork, no surprise scoring, and no inconsistencies from judge to judge. An 80 is the same score at WEF, your local show, WEC or a B show. There is no score inflating for besties and contacts - the algorithm uses the exact science of the sport using the 12’ stride, ideal takeoff and landing positions, etc… to determine the winner against a constant and consistent standard. Judges would hate this but riders might actually like to know how the perform to the standard. A radical idea, I know, but it would truly solve the actual problem. The feedback would be factual and helpful, and it would transform the hunter classes from what many call an exhibition into a class with actual technical execution.
Anything is possible. You just have to rethink the process and perhaps even completely disrupt it to fix it.
These are great questions and even some of those might vary. A stop is a 40, pretty standard. I see missed lead scored only slightly higher than trotting on corse, a 55-60, but judges preference. Adding and leaving out are both considered faults and score around 65.
But, the “slightly off” distance and some of the more “slight” faults are where it gets confusing. A beautiful course with no faults besides a chip might be a 73 to one judge and a 68 to another. Celebrating may be completely overlooked, or could dock some points and take a mid-80s trip down to the high 70s. That’s the problem with hunter scoring that everyone’s discussing here. It’s hard to understand, and even when you DO grasp it, judges have their own ways of scoring subtle faults outside of the agreed-upon faults and related scores.
I personally would love if scores were announced for every round, I think we’d all learn a bit more. But, I don’t have a good answer for the logistics!
I’m okay with there being no absolute numerical standard wherein every judge’s 80 is every other judge’s 80 as long as each judge’s top 6-12 (in the money/ribbons) would be the same or within a narrow variance over many many classes.
What I have problems with are the obvious “mistakes” made where a rider with obvious flaws places higher than another whose trip was factually and obviously better.
I like the idea of having multiple judge panels at higher level competitions. I think this evens out the variance between judges and makes it less likely that a particular judge’s prejudices matter.
Every professional sport has a published standard and a review process for its officials, both immediate (e.g., instant replay, coaches’ contesting calls, etc.) and long-term (e.g., supervisor reviews, league performance reviews post-game, etc.) Why not ours? The judges are only human and are going to miss things. We are paying for their opinions, but considering the money invested in this sport, it seems all would want to ensure as accurate judging as possible at all levels.
Unless of course, that is precisely the point: to NOT have accurate judging but “proper” judging (cough cough).
But I am occasionally heartened when I see relatively unheralded pros taking big wins with beautiful trips on relatively unknown horses. I do love me some Tori Colvin though…
While it would be nice to have some feedback it would also be a make work project for the judges.
With the current system, in classes with a lot of entries the judge doesn’t have to score a non-pinning trip once they have an order. Even in the stakes and derbies they’ll often just announce “score below the cutoff”.
I see issues with announcing the scores in large classes. The first 10-15 trips will get accurate scores, then the nice trips that will get placed in the order will get accurate scores, maybe separated by 0.5 or 0.25 of a point. But if you’ve got a large class, a lot of those average out of the ribbon trips are going to get a generic score. Can you really expect the judge to remember all 40 trips enough to correctly differentiate between 31st place and 32nd place? Now instead of people wondering about the order for the top 7-10 trips, you’ve got people questioning the entire class.
So to fix that do we move to a system closer to other judged sports? But the difference from other judged sports is that our “test” doesn’t get more difficult as you go up the levels. It’s the same eight jumps, the expectation is that as one gets better they will get closer to that elusive perfect score. But we’re still judged against the others in our class, on that day. If we standardize the deductions with the assumption that the pros will be close to perfect and everyone else isn’t than we run into the problem of people being upset with really low scores. I don’t think the pony moms will be very happy when little Susie only scores a 40, even though she had a nice trip for her skill level.
I don’t know what the answer is. But I haven’t seen a suggestion that seems any better than the current system.
I kind of disagree here. The course may essentially be the same but what you look for in the performance definitely changes. In my discussions, I’ve argued for a “Manners” score in the Ch/AA type classes, and “Brilliance” in the Performance & Jr/AO classes, and further theorize that a “Brilliance” score allows some play/spirit back into the 3’6" classes. Sure, bucking through the corner is still a No-No, but you don’t want to lunge so much that you take the Brilliance out of the jump and lose points in that score, even if it comes with a little exuberance on landing.
And - have I mentioned this yet? I’ve been 'round the block many times in this discussion the past couple weeks, but dressage people get scores in the 50s & 60s all the time and they are okay. This idea that being realistic about the scores on the local circuits is “too much truth” for the people writing the checks is, I feel, fundamentally flawed. It’s the equivalent to a Participation Trophy and sets expectations that do not exist in reality. The kid can get a 64 and win the class, so it’s not like we’re just calling everyone losers. But in this system, when they do step-up to bigger shows their 64 will still be a 64, and they can look around and see what an 80+ horse actually looks like (and so can their check-writing parents).
Another fundamental flaw: The first horse is not judged against anyone in the class, precisely because it’s the first horse. So the concept of judging against an ideal is not as foreign as people are making it out to be. To wit, and to circle back to Jay’s original discussion, what if Scott & Snoopy had been the first trip in that class? Would it have gotten the 100? Would the judges have been that confident that no one was going to jump the course better? That’s a huge ask of a judge. Is it even possible to award a 100 to the first trip when you have absolutely zero idea what’s to come? And, if you argue; Well, we know who’s in this class and basically what is to come… isn’t that admitting bias?
Finally, and almost in jest but not really, I truly believe you could single-handedly improve the riding in this country AND open a path for an overall 76-horse to ribbon in the Big Leagues by docking 1-2 points for every lead change & 4 points for every skip-change 
Fair enough, I don’t disagree with you.
And don’t get me wrong, I’d love to have my courses picked apart and analyzed, but I can also do that by getting a video and reviewing it with someone.
I used to event, and have ridden my fair share of dressage tests. And while the feedback from the judge was helpful, it’s still subjective. I can go back and watch videos and look at the corresponding scores, and there’s still variability, which is of course why they have multiple judges sitting in different places at the bigger shows/events. The score in and of itself gives an idea of where one is, but a difference from one week to another doesn’t necessarily reflect improvement.
I still have a hard time wrapping my brain around the idea of standardizing scores and deductions in the hunter ring. Do you give a range for each mistake? Do we have different bonuses and scores for every division? Do we do a tiered system? One set of scores for beginners and green horses? One set for Ch/AA, one set for the performance classes, etc. Does jump height affect this? Does an A show get scored differently than an AA show? Or schooling show? And judges and competitors have to learn all of these differences.
How much time do we give the judge between each trip to add/subtract to come up with the score?
And at the end of the day you’re still going to get sore losers who blame their results on everything and everyone but themselves.
At this point I think clinics where trainers and competitors can sit and listen and learn while a judge goes through videos of a variety of trips and describes how and why they came up with the placings would be very helpful.
And finally, even if we revamp the whole o/f side of the sport, what do we do with the u/s? IMO flat classes typically have the most variability between judges. Everyone has their own preference and idea of what the best moving hunter looks like.
You’re absolutely right, there is loads to consider and many more questions to ask. But first, we must get to the point where the discussion is acceptable & allowed. Jay’s made some great progress, but he sure took a boatload of flack for it.
They almost have to be judges discretion because they do not happen in a vacuum. Horse A chips, drops his front end, and drags himself across the jump, landing in a heap. Horse B chips, rocks back, fires into the air with his knees around his ears and lands balanced for the next stride.
Granted, you don’t see horse B as often as you see horse A, but I’d be tempted to give horse B a 10 point bonus.
Along with that, and the problem with the robot judging, are the distances slightly out of range. Does the horse need its perfect distance to jump well? Or does he produce a quality jump from a range of distances? A perfect example of that is Brunello I think the last year he won the Derby Finals. He was very long to the last jump of the course. Shockingly long. If you listen to Tom as he’s commentating, you can tell he thinks that jump is going to be a mistake at the last stride. It wasn’t. That horse left the ground in a perfect arc, didn’t have to work to get across it, jumped in incredible style and basically nailed the class with the quality of that last jump. I think a horse demonstrating a great jump from a range of distances is a higher quality horse.
Same thing with celebrating. If he dolphins a few strides after a great jump, I think that shows a horse mentally with the rider and knowing his job. If he kicks out and squeals? Not so much.
