Re: Scores crossed out – the scribe could have screwed up/got lost. That doesn’t address the overall scoring disparities, but that frequently explains why scores in boxes get overwritten.
2 Likes
Even in straight dressage, there’s “that one judge”.
Sour grapes or not, even with a new horse that is more “his style” that he will like better, I refuse to show under him.
2 Likes
Question: I thought the MERs are basically the rider and horse “proving” you can consistently do all three phases well enough that you are ready to move up. So wouldn’t the dressage requirement mean more that you are riding at that level of dressage well enough to move up to the next level’s dressage? I didn’t get the impression it has anything to do with safety on XC, but more on the moving up the levels as a whole. And if you can’t get at least 55% on a dressage test you for sure aren’t ready to do a higher level test.
Or are people just not really considering dressage as part of the sport, only to be worried about if you want to be competitive? In that case I can see why it seems unfair. But (and don’t take this the wrong way, good XC horses are a treasure) if your horse can’t do dressage at all, doesn’t that make them not REALLY an eventer, just a good jumper or XC horse? Which is totally fine, but I can see why TPTB are struggling to find a good balance between what the sport technically should be (three solid phases) and what it really is for a lot of people (mostly just wanting to go XC).
8 Likes
I would like to pick on one argument of using upper-level horses’ high scores as a reason this rule is mute. And I don’t think that’s a useful comparison.
No one is saying a 45+ scores can’t compete at the level they are competing at. You aren’t being pushed down a level or eliminated from proceeding for a 45+ score.
I would assume these UL horses that have been mentioned as 45+ at the Advanced level did not have those scores in the level below, at least not at the point they moved up.
If I score a 49 regularly in a Prelim Test, I can only assume that my score in the level above will be higher as the level of difficulty is that much more difficult. (At least this is my own experience.)
A 4 for a late lead change at Advanced is different than a 4 at the Novice level on a 20M circle. Just as the same horse doing a lengthened trot at prelim may score a 7.5 , whereas if the horse did the same lengthening at intermediate would score a 6/6.5 because the movement also needs "suspension, elasticity’ and then be able to do collected, its judged at a harder level)
9 Likes
subk,
Wayne Quarles is one of the few judges in eventing that actually came up through the Dressage education ranks instead of just the eventing ranks.
This could account for some of the scores.
2 Likes
Does anyone remember what year the previous MER of 50 for dressage was established? I’ve been googling but am not having any luck. Just curious about how it relates to the timing of the coefficient removal.
1 Like
I’m not commenting on your general point, but to address the quoted all of the horses mentioned upthread (Daytona Beach, Bendigo, Mama’s Magic Way, Polaris, and others) have had intermittent scores 45+ at 4 star in fairly close proximity (within 6 months or so) to a move-up to 5 star.
It hasn’t predicted jumping issues for any of them, and I would say it’s a fairly even split as to whether they were over or under 45 at the 5 star level. Thinking of these specific horses, I would say that passes the sanity check as the high dressage marks tend to be the product of tension/hotness/nerves rather than a lack of training or education.
2 Likes
I can speak from personal experience that the judge I referenced several posts up (re high scoring) is at this venue almost every single time and when it was brought up a 5* rider chimed in and said “it’s because she’s inexpensive to bring”. For what it’s worth I do fill out event evaluations, as does the friend in the situation I brought up.
1 Like
I’d say we are looking back at least 15 years. I remember when it was, with the coefficient, 75 max for an MER at FEI level. That is equivalent to 50 without coefficient.
3 Likes
Yes, now that you mention that he came up through the dressage ranks I remember.
I do want to say that I’ve used Wayne Quarles as judging example by name because 1) his scoring tendencies are well known so it’s not like I’m “outing” anyone and I also suspect he’s pleased with his personal reputation. 2) I think the scoring at Ocala I was a primo example of the problem of using a subjective measure as an MER and I kind of hoped some people given enough information would go and look at the results for themselves. 3) I’ve ridden under him more than once, the last time at Intermediate and even on a difficult horse, and I didn’t mind the way he scored. One thing I admire is in my experience is he truly judged each movement by that movement and doesn’t seem to let a previous bad movement prevent him from giving good scores on the following–if it was indeed a good–movement. The problem with that is “quality of movement” probably becomes even more important to a score and fancy dressage movement is more likely to be detrimental to good/safe XC than it is helpful. 4) I think it’s a good thing to see a bit broader range of scores within a division instead of the top ten horses all less than 4 points apart. My horse in Ocala ended dressage the equivalent of a rail out of the lead, then finished out of the ribbons adding nothing to his dressage score. Might as well just drawn straws to pick the winner
The biggest problem (among several) I think I have with putting MERs on subjective dressage scores is that there is very little discussion (or even a thought) as to what the unintended consequences of increasing the the importance of dressage when so many of the qualities that make an excellent dressage performance are diametrically opposed to what makes a safe XC horse. This idea that most eventing people have bought into that better dressage makes a better jumper does not hold up to any scrutiny as we are the only jumping sport that insists some strong link exists between the two. In the name of safety we may be making the sport less safe.
Be careful for what you wish for–you might end up actually getting it.
8 Likes
Interesting article
Scores >70 must be a very low number to study
2 Likes
I saw that. I honestly cannot remember a dressage test scoring over 60 (meaning, sub 40%) in my 25-year eventing career. I’m not one who usually correlates dressage scores to jumping performance, but I think if you struggle to average a 4 (or 3?!) on every movement in your test…yeah you might be dangerous over fences.
FWIW, getting back to the original topic, I did a deep dive on the records of my personal horses. My former Advanced mare would not have moved up to Preliminary under today’s current rules. Ty did one novice in 2004, her first horse show ever, as a 6yo foxhunter. Her first dressage score was a 48.5. Then 3 training level horse trials, dressage scores ranging from 38 to 46. No jumping penalties, she was a xc beast. Then she did her first prelim (at Jump Start in October…after doing her first ever novice in April). She was brilliant. She had the minimum 4 MERs to qualify for her first CCI* (now 2*) in May 2005. An untimely abscess meant we didn’t actually make it to that CCI, and competed preliminary the rest of the summer. She achieved 8 total MERs at Prelim (plus 2 completed events with XC penalties) before she did her first two Intermediates in Oct 2005, both clear XC. She spent all of 2006 at Intermediate, ending with a finish of 28th out of 60 at the last Radnor CCI** with three stops-- but MANY great horses didn’t make it around that year (Mandiba withdrew, Arthur had a fall, etc). She jumped around clean with some time in the CCI** (now 3*) at Florida HP in 2007, and did her first Advanced that summer after 14 total Intermediate/CIC/CCI** XC finishes. Not all of them clean, but all of them important for gaining experience (for BOTH of us!). She was one of the most talented, safe XC horses for me to learn what the upper levels were all about, but under current rules her record would certainly be different.
Looking through my other horses, some had 5 training runs before prelim, some had 2 (officially, but >4 unofficially). As a rider, I had over 10 MERs at Training (on two horses) before my first prelim. With my first prelim horse (Mack), I had 15 prelim runs (11 MERs) before attempting our first Intermediate. Second horse (Ty) had 10 prelim events (8 MERs) before going Intermediate. Third horse (Ranger) had 8 prelim events (7 MERs, including P3D) before his first Intermediate. Looking at my record, it’s easy to see that as I gained experience, and stepped onto more talented horses, I didn’t need as many MERs to be well-prepared for a successful move up. Still, I let the horse tell me when they are ready…there is no set number of events to complete to make one prepared. Just because you scraped through the flags (even getting a ribbon) does not mean your horse came home confident and safe at the level. Alternatively…just because you had one silly runout, you could still bring home valuable experience completing the rest of the course well. A horse with 3 completions with a 20, followed by 3 MERs, (at 5 different venues), is possibly better seasoned than a horse with 4 “ugly” MERs at 2 different venues. But under the rules, the latter horse is ready to move up, while the former one is not. Maybe they both are, maybe neither. It’s up to the rider, and/or coach to make the call when it is safe to do so, not simply relying on “the rules.”
8 Likes
Courses and standards have changed a lot since 2005, something to consider too when looking back at old results. Our sport is changing all the time.
3 Likes
What ever boundary is put in place - an exam pass mark, a KPI, a minimum or maximum weight - there are always people who will be unhappy as they just fail to make the grade, decide the KPI is unfair, can’t shed or gain enough weight etc. MERs are seeking to keep riders and horses safe. Perfect? Of course not. Better than before? I think so. I want fewer falls.
2 Likes
Dragging this old thread up, because I never thought I would have any reason to push back about the MERs, but here’s how they work in a real world scenario.
I’m a professional with a large number of low-level clients in an underserved area.
Me & my horse have 10 MERs, and a few other prelim attempts with one W & a TE, at the prelim level, spanning two years, and have successfully finished a 2*. We have an average dressage score of 34 with one early score of 41 (all time highest score), and average 1 rail or less in SJ. Horse has only picked up XC jump penalties at one event at the level, over a year ago.
After a successful Florida season, we returned home and completed a prelim in May. I decided to spend the rest of the summer training and trailering to lessons (my coach, the closest advanced level eventer is 4 hrs one-way), vs hauling 12+ hrs to do more prelims, in an effort to save his body and focus on trying to go intermediate.
In preparation for the intermediate, I decided to enter the I/P division at a horse trials a couple weeks ago. We scored an uncharacteristic 45.7 in dressage due to tension & the increased difficulty and complexity of the shoulder in/half pass/counter canter serpentine. This test is a BIG jump up from what is asked at Prelim. 1 Rail in SJ & some planned time XC - no jump penalties.
I enter intermediate at my next horse trials & the week before, get the email from USEF that we don’t have the necessary qualifications.
If this horse trials had been one week earlier, I would have been qualified (12 weeks from the prelim in May). If my INTERMEDIATE dressage test had been 0.7 points lower, it would have counted as an MER. If I had run prelim instead of IP at the last horse trials, I surely would have had a sub-45 dressage & would have an MER in 12 weeks. Tell me how this makes sense?
9 Likes
I know someone with a similar story. Saving the horse’s legs and travel time to upper level events here in the West meant she also needed another run at the same level due to the gap between events. It doesn’t make sense and is adding to the pounding on the horses and the riders’ pocketbooks.
We’d love it if there were multiple events within less than a day’s drive each way, happening 2-3 times a month, which seems to be what the MER system thinks everyone has, but that isn’t the reality.
5 Likes
It’s really hard – and crucial to the future of the sport – to design a system that is effective and fair for riders in very different circumstances, including locations. The situation that PaperPony describes hardly sounds like what MERs were intended to accomplish.
Yet there are other situations, including in areas with lots of competitions, where the lack of requirements at training and below permit some competitors to make very questionable decisions. There’s a professional in my general area who illustrates this situation. This person competed at 9 HTs at the training level in 2023, all on the same horse. In the last 5, their results were E;E;R;RF;E. There was no loss of qualification because there are no qualifications (except that the horse must be at least 4 years old) for training level. This rider began the 2024 season riding a different horse, competing 3 times at BN (once with 20 XC, twice clear XC but with 12 and 8 SJ). This rider then moved the new horse up to training, retiring after two stops XC.
I was skeptical of proposals to introduce MERs at training level and below, but situations like the one above make me wonder whether they are needed. And yet – any effective system should prevent situations like that without keeping someone in PaperPony’s situation from moving up.
One easy fix would be to relax the requirement around obtaining an MER within 12 weeks in order to move up. Perhaps there should be some arbitrage between the number of MERs previously obtained and the need to have a recent one – an established pair need not have as recent an MER, though a pair with less history might need a more recent MER to move up.
Another partial solution might be to focus on loss of qualification, including at the lower levels. At the lower levels, perhaps it is not necessary to have MERs to enter, but it is possible to lose one’s qualification and be required to move down a level following X (3, perhaps?) E, RF, MF, or CR results, either consecutively or within a given time period. Maybe this rule should only apply at the highest level a rider has competed successfully (so, someone who has competed successfully at training, say by having 3 clear rounds at training in the last 3 years or something, can lose their qualification to compete at training through multiple E/RF/MF/CR results, but could not lose their qualification to compete at novice over some time horizon – the goal would be to avoid discouraging experienced riders from bringing along green horses if a series of eliminations at lower levels on green or tricky horses could result in loss of qualification).
Perhaps the loss of qualification or the path to regaining qualification at the lower levels should allow a rider to enter the level at which she had been unsuccessful on a horse that had been successful at that level – to get experience on a schoolmaster after having trouble on a green horse, for example.
4 Likes
“MF”? What is that?
Do you mean “MR”= Mandatory Retitement = Fall of Horse?
Sorry, yes — MR:
This article mentions the difficulties involved for riders who are not living on the coasts, but doesn’t speak about any solution to the problem.
https://www.chronofhorse.com/article/moving-up-to-preliminary-youll-now-need-an-mer-at-modified/
2 Likes
