I think it’s a fair question when you used the words “cranked in.” Which test were you referring to?
2 Likes
So should we have differing criteria for the downhill horse? For the not-so-talented horse? FOr the forehand-heavy old style Andi with flinging front legs? No, the standards are the standards. Improve the horse you have. Show against your earlier scores. LIke every sport, not every competitor is a winner, not every competitor has ability to improve enough to earn to a winning score - or to compete at a higher level as something other than “riding the pattern”.
4 Likes
A horse that is built uphill is just more uphill than a horse built downhill. Yes, the latter can learn to sit and elevate the forehand, but until that happens he’s still downhill. I see being consistently on the forehand as a more serious fault than being occasionally BTV. Judges are trained to comment on the most important thing.
I get that this horse is also not satisfying the “big picture”, but the way things are scored now (the gaits-first perspective), “big picture” is skewed very heavily towards natural talent and riding/training that at worst does not interfere with that talent.
Yes, it is skewed towards natural talent. By the same token, basketball rules regarding the height of the basket are also skewed towards natural talent, in this case height.
The people with 6 movers are told on the other hand, well, if you just were a better rider/trainer, you’d be able to develop better gaits - that’s what good dressage does, after all. While that’s true, there’s a limit to which it is true - and especially as Silverbridge points out: a horse that moves an 8 on its best day will not get an 8 every day!
I started out riding AQHA horses, did TL tests with my all around horse and was never told this. What I was told is that dressage is good for all horses; not all horses are good for dressage.
3 Likes
I agree that one shouldn’t compete to learn how to improve, but it’s a great place to get feedback on what needs to be improved.
As was stated earlier, judges are told NOT to teach in their comments, but rather comment on what they see at that point in time.
3 Likes
I think the point is - the talented horse is not penalized as heavily for “incorrect” training issues as is the less talented horse. The standards have changed, and they can change again. Right now, there is a higher emphasis on “talent” then there is on “training” - of course, both talent and training are the best result. But right now, the standards seem heavily influenced by the Warmblood marketing machine of Germany and Holland - you can buy better results if you can buy talent.
And that is an amazing thing when you see a well ridden and talented horse - but not-so-amazing when you see people buying horses that are inappropriate for their skill level. MOST riders (AA and many trainers) would actually be better off with less talent and more training, but that isn’t what wins or scores well. And the horse ends up the loser in this formula.
6 Likes
And this is where we disagree.
“Riding the pattern” is a test of a horse’s training…eg., how well the horse submits to the rider’s requests and guidance.
Dressage is not (or should not be) a measure of the horse’s god-given way of moving…eg a conformation or materiale class.
It used to be that quality of the gaits was defined as “purity of the gaits”…eg., a 4-beat walk (vs a lateral walk), a trot with diagonal pairs (vs dissociated pairs) and a canter with 3 distinct beats…(vs 4 beat or lateral canter).
Somewhere “quality of the gaits” got perverted to mean ga-boing gaits.
3 Likes
For me, I don’t know if I would say that a lack of preparation is implied, based on one performance at a clinic or show in which a horse is repeatedly not demonstrating the correct balance for its level over the course of those six minutes. For me, and for a lot of people, the goal of every show is to ride as we do at home. But it’s in a strange environment, in front of a judge, at a specified time. So all those factors come into play and (almost) always mean that we do NOT achieve the quality we do at home.
That may well be the case with the young horse with the super hind leg who repeatedly drops behind the vertical in one of these off-property settings. The rider/trainer may very well be thinking, “Well we had that short-in-the-neck issue really worked out for awhile but, crap. There he is all tense and getting dropped back again.” Part of getting younger horses, especially, used to getting out and about is getting them out and about. And taking your criticism as it comes. And getting the feedback of an experienced eye. Maybe the clinician says, “I love your horse’s hind leg but if you can’t get him to reach out for the bit, he’ll never do a CDI.”
There’s evaluation every step of the process up the levels, and in my experience people are seeking that evaluation even when they know or think the horse has some issues to work out.
On the other hand we all all probably know competitors who do move up the levels when they are not ready. And if there’s a pattern, then, maybe that is part of it. So yeah it happens for sure.
Expecting to score higher as you go up the levels, based on expecting dressage to improve the gaits of a horse to whom it comes harder, sounds like a wonderful challenge for a really experienced pro, but a painful exercise in frustration for most of us Adult Ammies. That’s not the message I got with a less-quality mover, and I hope it’s not the message most people are getting. I don’t think that is the prevailing message in the community of people who are out there showing. And I’m including the judges and trainers and the organizations hosting the competitions.
From my experience what you need to do with a poorer mover is go for an 8 or even a 9 on your halts. School the heck out of your walk TOHs, they are 2X coeffients and most pairs demonstrate poor ones. Ride deep into your corners. Show your transitions clearly and exactly where they’re supposed to be placed. To me, THAT kind of info is the prevailing message to people competing with less extravagant movers. And if you do those things you can pull off the high 60s and even the occasional 70 with your less impressive horse. Been there, done it, multiple times over.
I think the message about good dressage improving the gaits and expecting the horse to really improve its gaits the longer you ride it better, is more of an academic or virtual kind of rider/trainer’s quest. I mean YES that is part of everything we do but to make a 6 mover competitive with a really naturally extravagant horse by improving its uphill balance THAT much, over time? You are not going to train extravagance into a downhill-built horse.
That directive typically comes from books and from people who’re active online, but are not really competing. Yikes. I say, lower your expectations and don’t set yourself up for that kind of disappointment. Work on your halts and your corners and focus on riding at shows the way you do at home on your best days.
10 Likes
SPOT ON.
3 Likes
and that I can agree with.
There is more to higher levels than “riding the pattern”… there is an expectation of more throughness, more carrying, more sitting, more bend, more cadence… , more everything that distinguishes a dressage horse. Are gaits a part of it? Of course. But those are ALSO a product of training - perhaps not to the degree that produces 70s, but there is a higher expectation. SO you think a flat half pass should score the same as one with good cadence produced by a high quality trot?
And yes, horses purpose-bred for dressage ARE getting more “ga-boing” gaits. In the same way race horses are getting faster and jumpers are jumping higher. Are we not to consider them?
Should the NBA be filled with short guards who shoot well, or is height an advantage that should be considered?
3 Likes
I was talking about full sentences here. :lol: with fully spelled words.
Also, for those who aren’t that familiar with the scribing lingo; Judges try to make useful and positive comments.
« Unharmoniously » wouldn’t be written much on your test now. (yay for the scribes too.)
Like others said : « more bend, more flexion, more uphill needed » means what is missing to get higher marks.
When the scores are lower (> 5.5), you should also get comments about what happened.
I understand he’s the son of one of the old SRS directors but is he a judge? I can’t find any information on him on the FEI list or USEF/USDF.
Not that it disqualifies him to judge, I’m sure he’s a great trainer, but if he hasn’t followed any of the formal judging training, he might not be consistent with what goes on presently. So it might be a question of terms and how he judges.
I’ve scribed for many FEI judges from different countries and they kind of all follow the same guidelines.
That doesn’t mean they all agree on everything, just that there is some consistency in the comments/wordings/expectations
But in my OPINION (operative word)… I also don’t think that a competition is the place to get feedback on how to improve your riding. A competition is a test…not a lesson.
If a rider wants a lesson on how to improve their test riding craft, then that is a lesson and should be done outside of a competition. That is what “Fix a Test” rides are for. Or schedule to take a lesson from a judge or arrange a test riding clinic.
Saying « more this or that » is not telling you how to achieve something. So it’s far from being a lesson.
Also, judges are sympathetics and like to help riders. Most, if not all, are trainers themselves.
The way a rider should read and understand his test:
Medium trot …
- Looking the score : ex. 5.5 = Marginal / almost there
- Looking at the comment : ex. + Uphill could cover +
Regularity circled in the directives.
Meaning that the medium wasn’t all there but that you have the idea of it. The judge saw a difference between the trots.
Now to get a higher score, you need show a horse that has more uphill balance in order to cover more ground.
There might have been some imbalances along the way.
How the rider will achieve it is up to him.
4 Likes
I absolutely agree with this. I have an Arab x WB cross who has made it to FEI and has a lot of great things going for him - he’s 16.3, has a huge amount of presence and topline - but he’s a pretty average mover on the open circuit. Based on some test comments, I get the sense that judges expect him to be a better mover than he is and our scores are depressed because of it. Last year I showed a 15.2 mare who looks like a whole bunch of nothing, but she is actually super talented and a fantastic mover. Her scores were higher because she surprised the judges with all that movement. Is that correct from a judging standpoint? Probably not, but I think it’s pretty unavoidable. It’s not like I can stop before the test starts and ask them to please observe my horse’s straight hind legs and open hip angle.
This probably won’t be popular, but I often get the sense there’s this false masochism and moral superiority around bringing an “average” horse up through the levels, as if having a talented horse is somehow cheating. Have a become a better rider with my average mover? Absolutely. If he’s not ridden super correctly it goes downhill pretty damn quick. That being said, I’ve started casually looking for my next young horse and it will absolutely be as talented and fancy as I can afford.
It is literally harder for my boy to do the movements than his more talented stable mates. Why would I want to handicap myself with my next horse if I can avoid it?
6 Likes
Third hand offended? 
. Please read for clarity and should you wish to pursue this nonsense any longer show me exactly where I referred to any of these tests being ridden cranked in.
ME: Good point. So with this, an 8 for gaits horse ridden BTV through an entire test would STILL score higher than a 6.5 horse or even a 7 horse ridden properly, right? I’m exhausted so might not be thinking this through mathematically.
That is disheartening, I guess, for multiple reasons. Especially if the FS committee is concerned about proper riding.
Atlatl:
I think of it this way; an 8 for gaits horse ridden properly but slightly BTV for most of a test would still score higher than a 6.5 gait horse ridden “properly.” (whatever “properly” means)
Me: Yes. But why then use raw score as a marker for the freestyle or as is headed our way, moving up.
[I]That is my beef. It’s not about the qualifying score being about training if the horse is fancy enough to still score above that magic mark.
To me, properly means to the directives, not cranked in, and none of what has become what the sport internationally seems to be rallying against. In some cases.
I have ridden before many judges, including this one, And I feel like in 99% of the cases I was fairly judged. I have no beef about that.[/I]
[B]Atr: No, I’m sorry, I can’t let this go. At no point did I see a horse “cranked in.” That’s a very unfair characterization.
Like it or not, some young horses, especially those that offer a lot of hock action and movement from behind, will drop a little behind the vertical from time to time. You can chase them forward out of it, get them over tempo and hollow and unhappy in the process, or you can let them develop a more uphill balance and strength in their own time. It’s not worth getting worked up about in the overall scheme of things.
Look at the bigger picture. This is not the “BTV” as a welfare issue.[/B]
[I]Me: Lol. There is no requirement for you to agree with me, nor did I say that it is a welfare issue here. That is your characterization of my words.
i was responding to someone else’s question about what I mean by properly in a 6.5 gaits horse. Go back and read it and stop looking for reasons to be second hand offended.[/I]
You: I think it’s a fair question when you used the words “cranked in.” Which test were you referring to?
Tracking back to my original post, if anyone else actually watched all of the tests and would like to comment, I would love opinions. This thread has become a rehashing of so much of the recent qualifying score discussion without specifics from the tests posted, which is fine, but I’m stepping out of that conversation as there isn’t any resolution in that regard. I was curious as to what people thought about the scores in those tests especially as related to the test level objectives, as I stated in my original post. I watched all of them and was surprised.
I fantasize about having the time and health to train well built quarter horses into school masters for their temperament. For many people, temperament or type or size is the #1 reqiirement.
My TB is the most physically talented and athletic of my horses - and a total lunatic I have up on showing because I was concerned someone else would get hurt by his misbehavior. My older mare is more general Olympic sport bred, not dressage specific. But she was born to piaffe and do one tempis and lateral work. Different judges have different opinions - and I have had some seem to hit me hard on gaits because her trot isn’t massive but she goes into the ring looking like it should be. Other just love her. Some judges score her canter and walk lower because the trot gave them a set opinion of her gaits. The ones who don’t prejudge all gaits consistently give her canter and medium walk 8s when it goes well. Our gait scores have ranged from 5 to 7.5, depending on judge. It’s interesting to see, though frustrating. My youngster will likely consistently have higher gait scores because she also has a good hind end, but more front end flash. She’s way more flashy than I needed, but has such a great temperament… .
But I don’t think flashy gaits make her more talented for moving up the levels. My 8 year old will make GP unless one of the huge number of possible things goes wrong (like her current puncture wound with no visible possible cause), but the youngster isn’t as sure a thing. My youngster doesn’t randomly throw in clean one tempis or piaffe like the older one. She isn’t as buzzing with energy she begs to have put into work (well, before today anyway… maybe this is a change for her), so while she sits well and is wonderful to work with, it will be a while before I’m sure she will make it there. And I think there are plenty of wonderful horses out there who can make it to GP without the flashy gaits.
That’s where rewarding flash even if incorrect above correct work, adding qualifying scores, etc., is harmful. I will enjoy getting higher scores with my fancier horse - but I won’t suddenly train her less correctly because she’s dressage bred. I think good tests on great movers should beat good tests on mediocre movers. Circling back to the start of this thread, though… what these videos strike home with is that even incorrect flash in individual movements is getting scored above correctly ridden movements much of the time. We don’t hear stress on how 8 movers also need to fix their halts and get the right amount of bend harped on like we do for average movers. Everyone should be doing those things, but because gaits for trot into and out of the halt and around the corner are also supposed to count, it’s the rare judge who truly gives that 8 or 9 for the halt because of what else is encompassed in the movement. Where a lack of bend in shoulder in doesn’t hurt a fancy mover too much, a perfectly square and balanced halt for a mediocre mover doesn’t usually help the flat movement on centerline and corner to a much higher score.
I’m perfectly ok with getting scores relative to my horse’s perceived gait quality. I am NOT ok with the false perception that I will somehow be a more worthy rider when on a horse with more scopey gaits.
2 Likes
Having realistic expectations is so important. If you own a 6 mover, it’s an exercise in disappointment to compare your test to a 9 mover. The only solution is not to compare your tests to anything except your previous tests.
My trainer is encouraging me to make the leap to Third with my horse by the end of this summer, but is very up front about the fact we will neeed to be clean, on the aids and 100% accurate in every movement to score in the low 60s, and that realistically we can expect some scores in the 50s as we work to get more comfortable being off property and showing period, let alone at Third.
My horse will never be an expressive, extravagant mover, and will always struggle to be uphill - just a fact of breeding and conformation. My trainer’s job is to teach me how to squeeze every point possible out of the things we can control, such as consistency and accuracy, not to set me up for disappointment by telling me that gaits don’t matter, or that the judges should factor in the limitations of my horse’a abilities and judge is on the effort made, rather than the final result.
1 Like
I’ve watched test 1 of First, Second and Third so far and thought the comments and scores seemed an accurate reflection of what was shown. In a couple of cases (halts on the centre line viewed from C, half passes viewed from the side as they come towards you) I like that the judge took the time to note how much of a role angles play, and how she may or may not see something at C that the audience could see from the long side.
Do you have links? I only found the 4-2 test.
They were all uploaded and maybe videoed by the same person. If you found one test you can just click on the publisher to find the rest. Or go here and sort through the videos.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHHYI4PYtRT8iFrT3nGa3IA
To answer the original poster, I’ve watched most of the rides posted and think they are in general fairly scored. The purpose of this symposium was to showcase the new tests and the changes made to them. I think that was executed well. This wasn’t a demonstration of scoring or judging and shouldn’t be taken as such. It was nice to see the new test and hear about why changes were made and how that effected the overall level. I’m excited to see how this year shakes out with the first new test cycle.
I think that may be a bit out of touch with the financial reality of most riders. It isn’t a moral superiority, it is a financial reality, most riders can’t AFFORD the fancy Warmblood. We own an “average horse”, because that is what our budget allows. I know a lot of people who agonize about finding a nice horse for $30k or $40k - and honestly, that is 5 to 10 times what I can spend on a horse, and what many of my friends can spend. So, while I feel the pain, I also realize the disconnect in finances for so many riders in this sport…
Many of us “masochists” were around back in the days when most dressage riders were on “average” horses - when Warmbloods were a bit of a rarity, and they were a very different horse - a general purpose horse who came from carriage and work horse lines (please note, work horse does not mean draft horse, I’m not opening that line of discussion, I’m quite aware of Warmblood breeding). Many US riders were on Tbreds, Morgans, Anglo Arabians, Appendix QHs, and other “average” horses.
A much larger issue, discussed often here and throughout dressage-land - is how much USDF has lost touch with its grass roots membership, hence the falling numbers in both membership and shows. And your comment further illustrates why that is happening - because of the disdain toward the “average” dressage rider and their “average” horse.
So I respectfully disagree - I don’t see it as a superiority issue or a masochist issue, I see it as a major swing in the direction of the discipline that is leaving the vast majority of the membership behind.
5 Likes
