I am firmly against that proposal
Rest assured it is coming. It is not just my opinion…I saw an article and will try to find the COTH article that discusses this…
I know. There’s a whole thread devoted to it in detail. I think there should be no qualifying at all for freestyles up to Third Level (except in a championship, of course). They are a way to encourage fun and participation at the lower levels, which is exactly what the PTB should be doing.
3 Likes
There was always a qualification score. It was 60%.
You think they should remove it entirely?
It was 58. Then it increased to 60. Now it is 63. Next it could be 66. Then 70. Every few years, it increases - interestingly, I don’t see any increase (at least in my region) in actual musical freestyles.
Personally, I agree, at the lower levels, get rid of the qualifying score - let people have fun. Does USDF seriously think our shows will be over-run with freestyles?
8 Likes
I do, at the lower levels. The freestyle is arguably the most fun part of dressage to do and watch. If we don’t make people qualify to ride First level tests, why make them qualify to ride a First Level freestyle? We need more lower level riders and juniors giving dressage competition a try - why have a barrier to the most enjoyable part? We want them to try the sport and like it.
4 Likes
As has been hashed out earlier in the thread, the freestyle being the most enjoyable part is definitely a matter of opinion. Some people love them others are totally indifferent. However most lower level riders I know are more worried about getting around the tests of the level than in designing a freestyle around those movements.
1 Like
And there’s no requirement that those people must do a freestyle. But why make it harder for those who want to?
4 Likes
We get it, you hate LL freestyles. However, you and the people you know are a small slice of of the USDF. Your experiences in a horse rich and trainer rich area does not mean all these objections people have to raising qualifying scores and how it relates to the cost of showing are not valid. All the recent issues being discussed really do impact a lot of people. You don’t see it because of where you live. Not everyone has the access to great trainers that you do because they require more than just hauling horsy to the barn down the street. It requires hours of driving and staying overnight. Or it means waiting for the clinic. Same goes for how far away the shows are for some people. The cost of one local recognized show for many people is the same as it is for me to go to DaD.
For the record there are many LL and ML AA riders in Region 8 that love doing the freestyles. It’s fun for them. I truly don’t understand why you feel as though these things are going to affect you?
4 Likes
I don’t think it will affect me. It also won’t affect most of the people whining about it, who were never going to do a freestyle until suddenly they might not get to and now it has been their life goal since birth to do a first level freestyle.
I was objecting to the blanket statement that freestyles are the “best part” and that of course everyone wants to do one.
I also don’t understand why people think that Region 8 is overflowing with dressage trainers on every corner. Try telling that to someone who lives in Maine. The region doesn’t just cover the dense areas in the NYC and Boston suburbs. I’m pretty sure people living in, say, Fairfax, VT are not spoiled for choice in GP trainers they can ride 2 minutes down the road to. The hyperbole dilutes your point and is ineffective.
3 Likes
My comments were made from living, riding, showing and working in Region 8 for years. I moved out west and yes, the random pockets of horse areas are farther away for the majority of people. Your town is probably isolated compared to my home town. Still better than out west.
My point in the post is every argument you make is about what you and your barn friends do. That is not reality across the country. Never mind your assumption in your first paragraph. Believe it or not, some people support or don’t support rule changes based on the sport as a whole.
I get you like to post as an expert for all things related to New England. But realize you are not the only person who’s ever lived there. Realize also it’s a bubble for all things in life. Horses included. “Bubble” is not meant to be negative. I want to move back into the bubble. However, that bubble is your only reference point and it cannot be extended to other areas of the country. Sorry, Maine and Fairfax, VT do not compare to Montana, Idaho or heck many parts of Washington State.
And yes the freestyles for many are the best best parts of the LL classes. Watching the regular LL tests is like watching paint dry.
8 Likes
Here is the thing - it doesn’t matter whether it affects me - if it affects people who participate in dressage, I SHOULD care. This sport is in decline - membership is dropping, show attendance is dropping, the lower cost horse market (aka under $10k) is weak. And it is that kind of statement that explains WHY it is dropping. That is the attitude of TPTB too - it doesn’t affect the important people - those with money for fancier horses, those with access to better training.
It doesn’t affect me either, at least not today But it affects a LOT of people, and it turns away many of our grass roots riders. If we continue to lose those people - the sport continues to get more and more exclusive because EVERYTHING gets more expensive. Shows get smaller, membership gets smaller, volunteer base gets smaller - but costs keep going up, so show costs go up, membership costs go up. It WILL affect you eventually. It will hit your pocketbook. Maybe you don’t care - you can afford those increases - but there are a lot of us who can’t, and we start dropping out too - which means - yep, everything gets even MORE expensive…
I can get a 63%, even on my not-so-fancy horses, at least through the lower levels. But if they bump it again (and this is the 2nd bump, it use to be 58), then I’m worried - 66% at 2nd or 3rd level is tough with a plain ol’ horse. And it affects some of my constituents - in fact, many of them have already left to western versions of dressage, where they can be competitive.
People need to adopt a broader outlook on what is happening in the sport. Several disciplines/show circuits have imploded because of this attitude - it doesn’t affect me. The question that should be asked is - how will this affect ANY of our members?
14 Likes
Excellent post!! I also want to add @soloudinhere compared to other Regions, Region 8 is flush with quality Dressage trainers. A lot of that is attributed to the fact that Region 8 is small in size with regards to area.
1 Like
I find the comments interesting…back when the 2008 proposal to implement a qualifying rule to ride above 3rd Level, a group of us presented an analysis at the Region 1 meeting.
Col. Clarence Edmonds was there and as usual, offered his unfiltered opinion. He said this (movement to qualify) is “ladies telling ladies what to do.” I don’t recall if he had another adjective for “ladies.”
Col. Ed was one of the founders of USDF, PVDA, and the L-program.
https://www.usdf.org/halloffame/lifetimeachievement/winners/edmonds.asp
1 Like
Oh…and I did find where I saw the tidbit about the coming movement for implementing the qualifying rule…again!.
It was in a proposed rule change submitted to the USEF 2019 Rule Change.
https://prc.usef.org/documents/ruleChanges/2018/Proposals/355-18.pdf
DR119 Tracking #355-18 Draft #1
Proposed Change
I propose that in order to progress to a higher level a competitor must either achieve 5 scores of 60% - 65%, or 3 scores above 65% at current level.
Rule Change Intent
Given the recent viral video that has attracted bullying from armchair jockeys globally, I think this is the perfect time to try and change the structure of how competitors go up the levels in this country. I am proposing the implementation of a system that would require people to demonstrate their competency at one level before progressing to the next. This kind of road block would hopefully lead to the prevention of riders getting in over their head when competing at a level beyond their abilities and drawing international scrutiny. I think ensuring that everyone develops competency at the lower levels will elevate the sport as a whole, and also create a safer environment for both horse and rider.
Committee Actions:
Draft 1: We thank you for your proposal, but a topic like this needs more collaborative discussion with membership. Additionally, the Dressage Sport Committee is already in process of considering this question with preparations in progress to discuss this topic further during the USDF Convention this Fall
So…forewarned is forearmed.
Ten years after the first coup attempt, 2019 will see a renewed push to implement a qualifying rule.
The Dec. 24-Jan. 7 COTH carried a great article on qualifying…either freestyle or otherwise. The article quoted Jane Marie Law, of the Cayuga Dressage & Combined Training GMO in New York. “We are a club of less than 75 people. Most are nobodies. These are people for whom a $1,000 horse is a big purchase, a $7,000 horse is an extravagance. The problem is this rule may only affect 10 percent of people, and it may not affect many at all, and maybe a raise in score is appropriate,. But that 10 percent disproportionally affects poor, rural clubs like mine.”
1 Like
Dismissing the valid viewpoints and concerns of a large group of riders as “whining” dilutes your point and is ineffective.
11 Likes
Thanks for sharing that again, pluvinel. I’m ticked about the freestyle rule because I know people it could affect, it was passed in violation of the organization’s bylaws for passing rules, and it is both punitive and won’t accomplish stated goal. It is essentially mean just for the sake of being mean, in a sake of sport where inclusiveness and welcoming new riders is the only way it will stay alive in the changing world.
The qualifying rule would most definitely affect me. I do not show frequently, because I prefer putting my money into education. Should I suddenly have to attend more shows to be allowed to show at a higher level, I will simply stop attending shows.
On the other hand, looking at judging and ensuring every ride which shows an inability to demonstrate the basics of the level scores under 60% would actually solve the supposed concerns. However, scoring lower would upset some subset of very rich individuals - and those riders with enough money to potentially sponsor international riders are the sole concern of our governing bodies.
4 Likes
It’s clear to me at least that a big part of the angst is attributable to differing interpretations of the mission of USDF. Here’s the mission statement verbatim from the web site:
[h=4]USDF Mission Statement:
Dedicated to education, recognition of achievement, and promotion of dressage.[/h] Depending on one’s interpretation of “education” you could argue “dedication to education” either way.
“Recognition of achievement”: I think the medals, rider awards, and all breeds programs check that box without becoming participation awards
“Promotion of dressage”: Again I think this one is open to interpretation
The BoD aka TPTB are those charged with putting the mission statement into action, I choose to believe, taking into consideration the views of the membership as represented by regional directors etc. That said, it’s not a democracy.
I too know many who have moved to the Western Dressage world frankly because it is more accessible and the judging standards are not those used at USDF/USEF shows (not saying one is better than the other, just that they are different). I think USDF missed a big growth opportunity by NOT embracing the Western Dressage concept, as do several judges I know. Oh well, that ship has sailed and the Western Dressage organization is off and running thanks to several individuals who made it happen. I greatly admire them.
As in any situation, if you aren’t happy you have 3 choices;
- Live with it
- Work to change it which in this case means engaging with TPTB or
- Extricate yourself from that situation
I know some like @MysticOakRanch are actively involved with their GMOs and some at the regional level. Thank you for all you do.
If anyone doesn’t already think just having a horse is a luxury, you’re fooling yourself, so I’m less inclined to be sympathetic to calls to make dressage more accessible and am reminded of an old post on this forum suggesting a forced relocation of dressage trainers to increase accessibility. We’re not talking about clean water and electricity for crying out loud.
1 Like
So 60% is the basic of each level.
When do people decide to change level?
What makes one decide it’s time to go up one or two levels?
Do you (all) believe getting 1 score of 60% is enough to go from one level to another?
If you (all) only get scores lower than 60%, do you go down a level?
I, personally, wait until my horse has consistent scores over 65% to think about going up.
If scores aren’t improving or staying below 65%, I either go down a level or stay there.
I see no point in going up when the basics of a level aren’t there because the horse is either not ready mentally or physically for more and it just wouldn’t be fair to it.
However, scoring lower would upset some subset of very rich individuals - and those riders with enough money to potentially sponsor international riders are the sole concern of our governing bodies.
Scoring lower has/would upset way more average folks than any others.
2 Likes
Maybe the rule change could be you get rung out if you are above your level a la “the Del Mar” incident instead of making qualifying score.
A lot of people would be showing the same level for years due to time and financial issues if they used the proposed rule change posted.
ETA: Would this qualification requirement be for that particular horse and rider pair, just the rider or just the horse? It seems be targeting, on face value, the less talented and/or less wealthy.
3 Likes
