Musical Freestyle Requirements upped--let's try to rescind them

[GramV]

I disagree, Silverbridge, that it’s all about improving the freestyles. If the freestyles are crappy, the tests are, too, so the judges can score them as they are supposed to. That’s an easy fix.

Of course they are not saying it’s all about the big money is dressage and where all the big movers are coming from. Just as of course the R’s didn’t say we’re giving a massive tax cut to benefit ourselves even though it adds $2 trillion to the debt. When you’re doing something to benefit yourself and make more money and get more prestige, you can’t tell the truth to the masses. It makes 100% no sense that this is about technical proficiency.

I agree with netg, I would love to know more about what the lawyer did and how that’s working.

Also, someone noted the changes are not on the USDF site. I cab’t find it. If this is true, are we upheld to the standard of what’s being spread around the internet, or what’s on the official site?

[ladyj79]

I do take issue with what Janet Foy and crew are saying as representative of USDF leadership and governance. If they want to say that and enact these “rules” or rubrics in the USEF governed FEI levels designed to find team members, fine, whatever, that doesn’t impact most of the membership, but that is not the express purpose of USDF.

[pluvinel]

@Silverbridge

Exactly. It totally negates that idea. And also, nothing else we qualify for is based on that standard. Not All Breeds or HOY or rider medals.

So why did they say it should now be 63 at the highest test of a level to Q, and THEN also raise the Regionals Q score for the Freestyles themselves by two more points?

Because this is a window to the future. There is probably a plan for jacking up the MFS qualifying score to 65%…and adding a “Qualify to Ride” score rule that will be set at 65%…so of course you need to harmonize the MFS score and that will come up too.

I think it only underscores their complaint that they are seeing too many crappy freestyles.

If “they” are seeing too many crappy freestyles, then who gave these riders the 60% score that allowed them to qualify to ride?

Everything about this rule change, from its bizzarely urgent enacting, has pointed to that perception. 1) They believe that there are too many crappy freestyles out there, particularly at the lower levels. 2) They feel that Freestyles “should” be a showcase for the discipline. The implication is that instead of being better than regular tests, these tests that pull more spectators to ringside are, too often, worse than regular tests.

That’s what they attempted to “fix.” That’s what they saw as broken.

And where are their credentials as “Quality Improvement Experts?”

There’s nothing in the action, or implied in the explanations of it, about poor movers versus good movers, the future of showing, pros versus ammies, billionaires versus poor people, saddlebreds, riding that’s so generally bad that it borders on abuse, or eventually needing to qualify to move up levels.

Those are all tangents that may or may not be related.

They are all related. There is a “perceived problem” out there. The problem is that perception is not reality. From a prominent “Process Consultant” handbook…The advice to someone being asked to improve a process is: “Pay attention to the client’s presented problem. It is important. It is almost never the problem.”

If people want to read all that into it and argue against rumors and feelings and what it “seems like” USDF/USEF will intend to do to make everything harder eventually-- IMO that won’t be anywhere near as effective as arguing directly against what they did do, and what they did state are the reasons.

[Belowthesalt]

I guess all this - freestyle qualifying scores, qualifying scores in general to move up or not move up, distress over “bad” freestyles, buying gaits, “six movers are not okay” and supposed “abuse” - puts paid to the idea that the harmony, correctness and success of Valegro would end the rewarding of extravagant gaits and incorrect training over correct training. Sigh.

[Belowthesalt]

@Natalie A

I’m aiming for some novice classes at my first big show this summer, and this thread is kind of scaring me. Hopefully judges are kinder to your face than they are behind their keyboards!

Interestingly enough, some of the better scores I’ve received (on a variety Appaloosas) have been from Lilo Fore, who years ago said to me (back when gaits officially (supposedly) were part of the General Impressions and not every movement), and I paraphrase here - “You can’t compete with the WB in terms of movement, but you can be correct and accurate, and if you do that, you will get good scores.” Y’know, I think Lilo is probably more knowledgeable than JF, just sayin.’ But it would seem that judges like JF do not agree with her.

[Manni01]

@Natalie A

I ride a 6 mover. He is keen, bright-eyed, ears pricked and will try his darnedest to do what is asked of him. He doesn’t know he’s a slightly confirmationally-challenged Morgan. I know I’m working from a disadvantage horse-wise in the world of DRESSAGE, and am okay with that - I ride for fun, without great aspirations.

I’m aiming for some novice classes at my first big show this summer, and this thread is kind of scaring me. Hopefully judges are kinder to your face than they are behind their keyboards!

My advice… ignore some of the posts here, try to train as good as possible and you will be fine!!

[GramV]

Wow. I’m copying this from someone who found it.

The following was quoted directly from USDF’s website until just recently:
“But freestyle is not just for the elite of the sport, nor is it just to be competitive. There is room for fun at all levels. The addition of music can be an inspiration to the rider and audience alike, not to mention that it gives us a creative outlet and another way to explore the sport we love.”

HOWEVER - that same page has recently been completely reworded and now says:
“Because of the skill required to ride to and stay with the music, a higher degree of proficiency is required in musical freestyles than for the highest test of the level. Riders who are proficient at the chosen level of competition can choose to show off their skills by entering a Musical Freestyle. The addition of music can be an inspiration to the rider and audience alike, not to mention that it gives us a creative outlet and another way to explore the sport we love.”

There is a website that takes screen captures of millions of website pages all across the Internet called “The WayBack Machine”. Here is a link to the page as it was on October 29, 2018 (the last time they took a shot of it):
https://web.archive.org/…/musical-freestyle/index.asp

And here is the actual page (2nd quote from above) now:
https://www.usdf.org/…/othe…/musical-freestyle/index.asp

So when/why did USDF (the organization that used to encourage the fact that the “freestyle is not just for the elite of the sport, nor is it just to be competitive. There is room for fun at all levels.”) take such a drastic change of direction

[atlatl]

@Natalie A

I ride a 6 mover. He is keen, bright-eyed, ears pricked and will try his darnedest to do what is asked of him. He doesn’t know he’s a slightly confirmationally-challenged Morgan. I know I’m working from a disadvantage horse-wise in the world of DRESSAGE, and am okay with that - I ride for fun, without great aspirations.

I’m aiming for some novice classes at my first big show this summer, and this thread is kind of scaring me. Hopefully judges are kinder to your face than they are behind their keyboards!

Don’t let this thread scare you. Go to your show, ride your best, and form your own opinion.

Best of luck to you!

[pluvinel]

@GramV

Wow. I’m copying this from someone who found it.

The following was quoted directly from USDF’s website until just recently:
“But freestyle is not just for the elite of the sport, nor is it just to be competitive. There is room for fun at all levels. The addition of music can be an inspiration to the rider and audience alike, not to mention that it gives us a creative outlet and another way to explore the sport we love.”

HOWEVER - that same page has recently been completely reworded and now says:
“Because of the skill required to ride to and stay with the music, a higher degree of proficiency is required in musical freestyles than for the highest test of the level. Riders who are proficient at the chosen level of competition can choose to show off their skills by entering a Musical Freestyle. The addition of music can be an inspiration to the rider and audience alike, not to mention that it gives us a creative outlet and another way to explore the sport we love.”

There is a website that takes screen captures of millions of website pages all across the Internet called “The WayBack Machine”. Here is a link to the page as it was on October 29, 2018 (the last time they took a shot of it):
https://web.archive.org/…/musical-freestyle/index.asp

And here is the actual page (2nd quote from above) now:
https://www.usdf.org/…/othe…/musical-freestyle/index.asp

So when/why did USDF (the organization that used to encourage the fact that the “freestyle is not just for the elite of the sport, nor is it just to be competitive. There is room for fun at all levels.”) take such a drastic change of direction

Busted! My bet is that someone(s) have an agenda and are driving this effort.

[Cowgirl]

GR152 of the USEq rulebook gives the process for an extraordinary rule change. It allows USEF to put through one an extraordinary rule change regarding something that, if not changed, would cause hardship to USEF or its membership, etc.: “or (ii) one that is certified by a Recognized Affiliate Association Board or
Executive Committee by a formal vote that without passage would disadvantage the membership of the Recognized
Affiliate Association. The rule change proposal form MUST contain a statement describing clearly how
the proposed change meets the above criteria.”

I’m a little confused by this because I didn’t see any of this in the rule change announcement. I don’t see how leaving the rule the way it was would disadvantage the members of USDF???

[Manni01]

@GramV

Wow. I’m copying this from someone who found it.

The following was quoted directly from USDF’s website until just recently:
“But freestyle is not just for the elite of the sport, nor is it just to be competitive. There is room for fun at all levels. The addition of music can be an inspiration to the rider and audience alike, not to mention that it gives us a creative outlet and another way to explore the sport we love.”

HOWEVER - that same page has recently been completely reworded and now says:
“Because of the skill required to ride to and stay with the music, a higher degree of proficiency is required in musical freestyles than for the highest test of the level. Riders who are proficient at the chosen level of competition can choose to show off their skills by entering a Musical Freestyle. The addition of music can be an inspiration to the rider and audience alike, not to mention that it gives us a creative outlet and another way to explore the sport we love.”

There is a website that takes screen captures of millions of website pages all across the Internet called “The WayBack Machine”. Here is a link to the page as it was on October 29, 2018 (the last time they took a shot of it):
https://web.archive.org/…/musical-freestyle/index.asp

And here is the actual page (2nd quote from above) now:
https://www.usdf.org/…/othe…/musical-freestyle/index.asp

So when/why did USDF (the organization that used to encourage the fact that the “freestyle is not just for the elite of the sport, nor is it just to be competitive. There is room for fun at all levels.”) take such a drastic change of direction

Wow… and now I start to think. Who is making the basic rules of USDF? This seems to be a big change of direction and I am amazed that somebody can simply change the Website…

[atlatl]

@Natalie A

I mean, I’ll have fun regardless - just hoping I get feedback other than “horse is not a Warmblood” (duh!)

I challenge anyone to produce a test with that comment. Judges really want each and every rider to succeed. Yes, some are pretty direct in their comments. My experience is that most are are extremely generous.

[ladyj79]

@atlatl

My experience is that most are are extremely generous.

isn’t this the very issue we have been discussing?

[GramV]

@Cowgirl

GR152 of the USEq rulebook gives the process for an extraordinary rule change. It allows USEF to put through one an extraordinary rule change regarding something that, if not changed, would cause hardship to USEF or its membership, etc.: “or (ii) one that is certified by a Recognized Affiliate Association Board or
Executive Committee by a formal vote that without passage would disadvantage the membership of the Recognized
Affiliate Association. The rule change proposal form MUST contain a statement describing clearly how
the proposed change meets the above criteria.”

I’m a little confused by this because I didn’t see any of this in the rule change announcement. I don’t see how leaving the rule the way it was would disadvantage the members of USDF???

This would seem to be a massive issue. Is this why you hear for the good of the horse from some people, so they can explain why it was a hardship?

It seems they have massively violated their own rules.

Is anyone a lawyer or know a lawyer who might like to take on USEF, or write a scary letter?

[Cowgirl]

@ladyj79

I do take issue with what Janet Foy and crew are saying as representative of USDF leadership and governance. If they want to say that and enact these “rules” or rubrics in the USEF governed FEI levels designed to find team members, fine, whatever, that doesn’t impact most of the membership, but that is not the express purpose of USDF.

And this would be a violation of their 990s and set them up to lose nonprofit status.

[crthunder]

@Belowthesalt

I guess all this - freestyle qualifying scores, qualifying scores in general to move up or not move up, distress over “bad” freestyles, buying gaits, “six movers are not okay” and supposed “abuse” - puts paid to the idea that the harmony, correctness and success of Valegro would end the rewarding of extravagant gaits and incorrect training over correct training. Sigh.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding your post but are saying valegro was a six mover? That was never true (he won a lot as a young horse) and there is a video of him af 5 with Carl talking about how naturally gifted he is. He was “cheap” for other reasons. I love him and how correct he was with the extra pizzazz gaits.

[MysticOakRanch]

@atlatl

I challenge anyone to produce a test with that comment. Judges really want each and every rider to succeed. Yes, some are pretty direct in their comments. My experience is that most are are extremely generous.

Sadly, I can show you tests where all our tro work comments are “needs more scope”, “needs more reach”, “show more” (length). One of my dressage mounts is a pony with a decidedly pony trot. Even when he bucks me off and goes for the show off, yes I did that trot, it is a pony trot. Luckily he has a good canter, which I’ve been able to develop more then the trot (go figure) so I can pick up a few points in canter work.

While no judge says says I need a WB trot, that is how those comments really read. And as a scribe, I’ve written those same comments quite a bit. Along with needs impulsion, needs air time, needs scope and elasticity.

The problem is, regular horses don’t have those qualities naturally, and yes, we can improve and develop them over time, but the fancy horse comes by those traits naturally and even if ridden poorly so those traits are being poorly developed, they still score better. It is a huge disconnect between the stated goal of dressage and the actual judging. The judges must judge what the see in the ride, they can’t think “oh, that horse might actually go better with a more skilled rider”, or “oh, that pony is probably doing the best he possibly can”. So by putting so much emphasis on the quality of the gait, the sport has de-emphasized the quality of the training. And because the FEI and the Dressage Committee are made up of wealthy people with a vested interest in expensive gaits, everything continues to tilt toward gaits.

I can’t even say I blame the judging, because they ARE judging to the standards of the current sport. But the sport has changed significantly. And yes, judges are essentially saying you would get a better score if you had a better mover.

[MysticOakRanch]

@crthunder

Maybe I’m misunderstanding your post but are saying valegro was a six mover? That was never true (he won a lot as a young horse) and there is a video of him af 5 with Carl talking about how naturally gifted he is. He was “cheap” for other reasons. I love him and how correct he was with the extra pizzazz gaits.

i agree 100%. What Charlotte and Valegro showed us is that you can ride and train classically, and that a horse can be hacked on the trail, and ridden without deep and round, and with amazing harmony

He also showed many conformation experts that the rules of best conformation don’t always apply.

[MysticOakRanch]

@Cowgirl

And this would be a violation of their 990s and set them up to lose nonprofit status.

Not really. Promoting the art and sport of dressage. Nothing in IRS regulation requires that a nonprofit has to pay attention to the peons:confused: Btw, the 990 is simply the nonprofit tax reporting form. They are a 501©(3) (I assume, since that is the most common nonprofit formation, although there are other subsections under 501©).

It is relatively difficult to lose nonprofit status.

[atlatl]

@MysticOakRanch

Sadly, I can show you tests where all our tro work comments are “needs more scope”, “needs more reach”, “show more” (length). One of my dressage mounts is a pony with a decidedly pony trot. Even when he bucks me off and goes for the show off, yes I did that trot, it is a pony trot. Luckily he has a good canter, which I’ve been able to develop more then the trot (go figure) so I can pick up a few points in canter work.

…

I can’t even say I blame the judging, because they ARE judging to the standards of the current sport. But the sport has changed significantly. And yes, judges are essentially saying you would get a better score if you had a better mover.

Of course you’d get a better score on a better mover. The same is true in a Western Pleasure class.

I’ve gotten similar comments to yours on 3 different warmbloods I’ve shown. I’ve also been beaten by horses with “lesser” gaits when they rode better tests overall or my horse decided to leap about like a maniac or my newest horse who is tricky in the contact went around an entire test both BTV and behind the contact yet got an 8 on gaits! The message was clear that I needed to work on my training to show those horses to their potential.

We are in agreement that the judges are using a standard based on ideal warmblood movement. At least they aren’t making it up as they go.

Will you be at the annual meeting?