New National MERs

[beowulf]

@endlessclimb

I’m sorry guys, I’m just not buying it. Look at your region’s results - there are hardly ANY scores >45.

At BN-N sure, where the MERs are irrelevant.

I just went and looked at 2019-2021 results for Area 2 and 3 and within the first four hits I randomly clicked, found several 45+ scores at Training and above. One of the 2-star events I clicked had three competitors with a 40+ score after dressage, including a 46 after dressage that finished with no XC stops/refusals. These classes were not big, so having even one person score above a 40 is statistically significant.

Either Area 1’s riders aren’t as accurate or our judges are harder, but Area 1, while having fewer UL opportunities, had scores that skewed much higher. There were many 40+ scores, and several 45+ that finished with no XC refusals.

I don’t know if it is appropriate to post these rider names on COTH, but you can go to USEA and look up results pretty easily.

[endlessclimb]

That’s kind of what I’m saying. There’s a flatwork/training hole if the horse is consistently >45. It just shows in the dressage phase.

[endlessclimb]

Region IV, a smattering of events. Only looking at training or above. There is not many scores even up there, and the ones that are…

[beowulf]

Check Area 2 and 3. That is a hotbed for good riding and lots of UL opportunities. Not saying other Areas are not as good, but I think you will find more results in these areas because they are more populous.

It is concerning to me that we have multiple amateurs with real life UL experience chiming into this thread with reservations about this rule. I think that is pretty telling.

The decisions from the top up remind me of this meme:

[endlessclimb]

Here’s area VIII. I’m sure I missed a couple shows, I don’t even want to know how many entries I just skimmed over. I included some of the ones that were close to 45. Again, training or above.

[alyssaequestrian]

Agreed. It is totally fair to expect a horse and rider combo to be proficient in all three phases of the sport we do, and show they can consistently do so before moving up. As a sport we need to be better, there’s no excuse for doing dressage tests with scores above 45 regularly, no matter the level. Agree, bad days happen but also its not like they are taking away all your proficient days because of one bad day. We are talking about the most dangerous and difficult levels of our sport.

[endlessclimb]

Just because I was curious, I went to look at some of the rider profiles of the higher scores. I wasn’t looking for any particular one, just anything over a 45.

The results are all over the place, from a one-off bad day, to a horse who clearly is having trouble at a new level, to a pair who can’t do dressage to save their life (and have mixed results for finishing).

I still think the rule is fair. A one off day might cost you $$ to have to go out and get another MER - tough nuts. The ones that are struggling for years and years with little to no improvement need to think about whether this sport is for them as a pair - it’s not XC, it’s eventing, and dressage is important if you want to move up.

Also, if one is not competitive AT ALL at the level they’re at, what is motivating them to go higher/faster/longer? Because you can? That doesn’t make sense to me. I want proficiency before I move up, and since this is a 3 phase sport, you can’t half-ass one part of it.

[BWP]

BE have also reduced the dressage penalties to 45 from 50 this year. I haven’t seen any consternation about it (though I haven’t been searching for any).

Interestingly (to me anyway!) is that they are removing the need for MERs at BE events for riders to move from Novice to Training (90 to 100 level here) and can use equivalent results from Poly Club/Riding Club events. Here are our MER requirements if anyone wants a comparison https://www.britisheventing.com/join/become-a-member/minimum-eligibility-requirements

[beowulf]

@endlessclimb

Also, if one is not competitive AT ALL at the level they’re at, what is motivating them to go higher/faster/longer? Because you can? That doesn’t make sense to me. I want proficiency before I move up, and since this is a 3 phase sport, you can’t half-ass one part of it.

It reads like you are conflating “proficiency” with “competitiveness”. The two are very distinct to me as a rider. One measures your capability to perform the level. The other measures your capability to outperform your peers.

Just one amateur’s perspective. I am not entering evens to compete against my peers. I’m entering events to receive objective, professional feedback on how my horse’s training is progressing. That is what motivates me to improve. Not getting 1st place over 20-something Susie on her imported former 4* horse.

There are other more qualified amateurs that have already chimed in here about the above and their posts should be re-read because they highlight how easy it can be to not meet these MERs while still being proficient at the level.

[endlessclimb]

Your word is better than mine, though I’m on board with being competitive as well.

Getting a 45 is not proficient at dressage. It’s not “XC and those other two things” - they’re all together as an event. Being proficient in two of the three is not enough - show proficiency at all three and THEN move up.

I don’t understand why that’s such an offensive objective.

[EventerAJ]

" Competitive" is relative. You can be competitive in Area IV, VIII, V with a dressage score in the mid/upper 30s. In the prime Ocala season (right now) a score of 35 can have you 16th out of 16. You have to have a VERY nice horse, very well prepared and well-ridden in all phases to be competitive here.

[endlessclimb]

That’s fair, I’m thinking of my two local areas, where anything in the 30s can potentially place most days.

Beowulf’s word of “proficient” is better.

[beowulf]

I don’t find this objective offensive, but I do think this introduces the potential for dressage creep and also is at direct odds with dressage’s scoring metric.

0 = not performed
1 = very bad
2 = bad
3 = fairly bad
4 = insufficient
5 = sufficient
6 = satisfactory
7 = quite good
8 = good
9 = very good
10 = excellent

A horse that scores all 5s on Prelim-A 2022 will have 95 out of 190 possible points. That’s a 50. According to the dressage point scaling system, a 5 is sufficient, and a score of 50 is sufficient for the level (read: different than competitive). A score (45) lower than the posted mark for sufficiency (50) is now no longer eligible for MERs.

Competitors will now have to be “above sufficient” at one component - IMO the least subjective component of all 3 phases - to earn their MERs.

[Willesdon]

Don’t forget those additional “collective” marks, applied by the Judge at the end, which may take the “sufficient” score up to a “just scrape through” the MER.

ETA A great many points are"lost" when the rider is inaccurate. A horse who is less than perfect can still get reasonable scores if the “circle” isn’t egg shaped or canter depart happens at A, as required, rather than three strides later.

[endlessclimb]

I understand what you’re saying.

I guess I still don’t have a problem with it. Sufficient in a sport this dangerous is not enough. All three need to be darn good in order to have a reason to move up.

Why move up if you haven’t mastered it?

[fordtraktor]

There is so much dressage creep already, compared to USDF shows. Not sure why, but comparable rides seem to score 5-10 points higher at USEA events, IMO.

[endlessclimb]

I’m just thinking of my late mare. She was TENSE. We would do all the movements, nail the geometry - and get <35s. I think I got a 32 once.

I always always thought I was over scored, compared to how the ride felt. There was nothing in there that felt like harmony or submission. It was a struggle to get her to that point - she would jump anything, so we focused on our dressage a LOT. We certainly weren’t perfect, and I couldn’t let any easy points go to waste. I stayed quiet despite her tension, and we absolutely nailed our geometry and transitions.

[Marigold]

@endlessclimb

Sufficient in a sport this dangerous is not enough.

The definition of sufficient is literally “enough; adequate” per the Oxford Dictionary. If they are going to argue it is insufficient for a minimum eligibility requirement, they do need to update the language of the scoring system.

As subk pointed out above:

@subk

“USDA promotes and encourages a high standard of accomplishment in dressage throughout the United States. To recognize the high standard, USDF has developed a comprehensive awards program to reward execellence, by offering award programs for everyone.”

The Bronze Medal is awarded based on achieving six qualifying scores of 60% or above at First, Second and Third levels.

That qualifying score is a 60% which translates to a score of 40 in eventing. So a 40 in eventing is recognized as a high standard in straight dressage but a 45 identifies you a “dangerous” in eventing.

If a penalty score of 40 is sufficient to earn a medal, surely a score of 45 should not be so insufficient that a minimum eligibility requirement cannot be met.

[HeartsDesireEventing]

For clarity, the meaning of the 5 mark has changed - it’s now considered marginal rather than sufficient. Probably to differentiate it better from satisfactory (6):

(from the USEF rulebook)
The scale of marks is as follows:
10 Excellent
9 Very Good
8 Good
7 Fairly Good
6 Satisfactory
5 Marginal
4 Insufficient
3 Fairly Bad
2 Bad
1 Very Bad
0 Not executed

Maybe that matters to this discussion or maybe it doesn’t, but thought it was worth clarifying.

[Dr_Doolittle]

I was actually going to mention this – I think they changed it last year?

“Marginal” has sort of a pejorative, punitive feel to it IMO. Not a fan of the new term (especially since I have a horse who is a jumping machine, but who strongly dislikes being inside the boards - she’s earned a few 5’s in her career, though never a total score as high as 45. That would indicate a lot of “marginals” in the scoring boxes!)