New tests, symposium, curious as to your thoughts.

[netg]

@alibi_18

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.

Scoring lower has/would upset way more average folks than any others.

No one should ever score over 60% for a crappy test. For an average mover, 60% doesn’t always happen even with a good test. So, the problem is eith how fancy horses are scored.

Riders can use whatever criteria they want to decide on a level, but hopefully it’s reflective of their horse’s training. I didn’t belong at first level when I started at first level on my thoroughbred. Even when he wasn’t a lunatic at shows, I got scored appropriately reflecting that. Had he been a cadenced and fancy warmblood, I still would have scored over 65 on him. I shouldn’t have, and my low scores were appropriate.

But the complaint is that crappy and unqualified rides are scoring too high and giving a false impression of quality. Fine. Don’t score them so high. Anyone who watched the videos of the del Mar ride knows that is a rider who has been repeatedly scored too high if you look at her scores. To me, that signals something wrong with the scoring system. If a ride is terrible, score it appropriately, instead of punishing riders on average horses for daring to be seen in public. Making riders have to get 5 or 8 scores is a punishment to anyone who doesn’t have the budget or availability of shows to show frequently, no matter what scores are required in that rule. Setting a limit above the definitions defined in the rules of what is satisfactory is a slap in the face of each rider on a normal horse.

[BigMama1]

@Denali6298

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.

I also don’t understand how the qualification to move up would work if you acquired a more advanced horse and were capable of riding it well at a higher level. Would you still have to start at Training just to get the q scores? That seems silly.

Qualifying scores wouldn’t have prevented the DelMar fiasco. Ringing the rider out and / or scoring the ride appropriately would at least have provided some meaningful consequences (more meaningful than the well-justified public shaming). The rules question was addressed and she was eliminated after the test but I have still seen no explanation for how a panel of experienced judges found a single
movement in that test to be satisfactory.

[Denali6298]

@BigMama1

I also don’t understand how the qualification to move up would work if you acquired a more advanced horse and were capable of riding it well at a higher level. Would you still have to start at Training just to get the q scores? That seems silly.

Qualifying scores wouldn’t have prevented the DelMar fiasco. Ringing the rider out and / or scoring the ride appropriately would at least have provided some meaningful consequences (more meaningful than the well-justified public shaming). The rules question was addressed and she was eliminated after the test but I have still seen no explanation for how a panel of experienced judges found a single
movement in that test to be satisfactory.

Exactly. The hypothetical I was thinking is what if AA is riding 1st level. Get’s two of the 3 over 65% scores to move up. Horse gets injured out for the season. Horse comes back but AA and spouse decide to have a kid in the mean time. No money for shows. AA and horse continue with trainer, horse and rider become solid at 3rd level schooling 4th and has money for a few shows. AA has to basically spend the money and a show season or two at 1st and 2nd instead of 3rd despite no longer being at that level?

Never mind the out cry of a 3rd level horse and rider showing 1st level.

Sorry that’s dumb.

[Manni01]

My opinion about the moving up rule… has nothing to do with qualifying for a higher level but it’s more an encouragement to more participation. I assume USDF is worried about the smaller numbers of participants and want to engage the remaining ones to have more starts… not sure whether this is a great idea…
IMO one or two qualifying scores are enough for riding a higher level…

[MysticOakRanch]

My opinion, fwiw, on qualifying to move up a level… What’s the point? Who CARES if someone shows above their level and does poorly? As long as the scores reflect it, then the rider gets the feedback they needed. There is no way to tell people you need 65% to move up - if a horse is a limited mover, then 65% at 3rd or 4th level is going to be a tough standard to meet. If a horse is consistently scoring at 63 to 64%, and the comments are really more focused on “needs to cover more ground”, “needs more air time”, “needs more reach and scope”, “needs more impulsion”, then the horse and rider may well have the training needed to move up.

Meanwhile, with a fancy horse, you might see comments like “not straight”, “against aids”, “short neck”, “lacks bend” (and at the lower levels especially, such a horse may still pull off a 65%) - and that indicates the pair is not ready to move up. So scoring criteria really doesn’t work.

Welfare of the horse is not addressed in scores - it is addressed in the RULE BOOK. Maybe those rules need to be beefed up - instead of passing rules that have nothing to do with helping horse or rider, but have everything to do with hurting the people who are the grass roots of this sport.

[Denali6298]

@MysticOakRanch

My opinion, fwiw, on qualifying to move up a level… What’s the point? Who CARES if someone shows above their level and does poorly? As long as the scores reflect it, then the rider gets the feedback they needed. There is no way to tell people you need 65% to move up - if a horse is a limited mover, then 65% at 3rd or 4th level is going to be a tough standard to meet. If a horse is consistently scoring at 63 to 64%, and the comments are really more focused on “needs to cover more ground”, “needs more air time”, “needs more reach and scope”, “needs more impulsion”, then the horse and rider may well have the training needed to move up.

Meanwhile, with a fancy horse, you might see comments like “not straight”, “against aids”, “short neck”, “lacks bend” (and at the lower levels especially, such a horse may still pull off a 65%) - and that indicates the pair is not ready to move up. So scoring criteria really doesn’t work.

Welfare of the horse is not addressed in scores - it is addressed in the RULE BOOK. Maybe those rules need to be beefed up - instead of passing rules that have nothing to do with helping horse or rider, but have everything to do with hurting the people who are the grass roots of this sport.

But what about the railbirds who can’t stand to watch AA Untalented Sally putter around a test? Think of them!

The above is said with tongue firmly in cheek

Some comments here make me nervous to show this year. I hope the people who randomly pay attention to my tests are as gracious as you and others here like you.

[MysticOakRanch]

@Denali6298

But what about the railbirds who can’t stand to watch AA Untalented Sally putter around a test? Think of them!

The above is said with tongue firmly in cheek

Some comments here make me nervous to show this year. I hope the people who randomly pay attention to my tests are as gracious as you and others here like you.

Just don’t post it on-line:lol:

[Denali6298]

@MysticOakRanch

Just don’t post it on-line:lol:

Oh heck no! Not here! Have a bunch of people telling me I look like a monkey canoeing a football.

[BigMama1]

@MysticOakRanch

My opinion, fwiw, on qualifying to move up a level… What’s the point? Who CARES if someone shows above their level and does poorly? As long as the scores reflect it, then the rider gets the feedback they needed. There is no way to tell people you need 65% to move up - if a horse is a limited mover, then 65% at 3rd or 4th level is going to be a tough standard to meet. If a horse is consistently scoring at 63 to 64%, and the comments are really more focused on “needs to cover more ground”, “needs more air time”, “needs more reach and scope”, “needs more impulsion”, then the horse and rider may well have the training needed to move up.

Meanwhile, with a fancy horse, you might see comments like “not straight”, “against aids”, “short neck”, “lacks bend” (and at the lower levels especially, such a horse may still pull off a 65%) - and that indicates the pair is not ready to move up. So scoring criteria really doesn’t work.

Welfare of the horse is not addressed in scores - it is addressed in the RULE BOOK. Maybe those rules need to be beefed up - instead of passing rules that have nothing to do with helping horse or rider, but have everything to do with hurting the people who are the grass roots of this sport.

This

[KayGee]

@Denali6298

But what about the railbirds who can’t stand to watch AA Untalented Sally putter around a test? Think of them!

The above is said with tongue firmly in cheek

Some comments here make me nervous to show this year. I hope the people who randomly pay attention to my tests are as gracious as you and others here like you.

Me too!!!

[rjr]

@alibi_18

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?

…

I decide to move up when we are reasonably proficient at all the movements in the level – So that being asked to do them in quick succession without the chance to re-try will be pleasurable, not stressful, and not harmful to my horse’s training. The score that corresponds to that is different for each horse - it depends on the quality of the horse’s gaits, and also on the horse’s temperament (and mine) – i.e. how stressful it will be to be doing challenging movements in the ring??? It depends on where the horse is NOW. Not on what score we got the last time the horse was at a show. There may have been extenuating circumstances at the last show that affected our score. I live in an area with bad winter weather, and no indoor venues – so at times, our last show was 8 or 9 months ago. I might even not show all year (or do only schooling shows one year) due to my financial or scheduling issues. So the SCORES that I got the last time I was at a show might not reflect what my horse is ready for NOW.

[right_horse_at_the_right_time]

@MysticOakRanch

My opinion, fwiw, on qualifying to move up a level… What’s the point? Who CARES if someone shows above their level and does poorly? As long as the scores reflect it, then the rider gets the feedback they needed. There is no way to tell people you need 65% to move up - if a horse is a limited mover, then 65% at 3rd or 4th level is going to be a tough standard to meet. If a horse is consistently scoring at 63 to 64%, and the comments are really more focused on “needs to cover more ground”, “needs more air time”, “needs more reach and scope”, “needs more impulsion”, then the horse and rider may well have the training needed to move up.

Meanwhile, with a fancy horse, you might see comments like “not straight”, “against aids”, “short neck”, “lacks bend” (and at the lower levels especially, such a horse may still pull off a 65%) - and that indicates the pair is not ready to move up. So scoring criteria really doesn’t work.

Welfare of the horse is not addressed in scores - it is addressed in the RULE BOOK. Maybe those rules need to be beefed up - instead of passing rules that have nothing to do with helping horse or rider, but have everything to do with hurting the people who are the grass roots of this sport.

This.

[Dune]

I realize this thread has morphed into something else, so along those lines…what if you didn’t have to qualify to show a certain level BUT when you did show, your scores had to meet a certain level or you were no longer eligible for that level? Would something like that work? Also, I have not watched all the tests, I’m off to do that now that I’ve trudged through this thread but I wanted to give a bit of background that might give those more critical folks something to think about. The week/days before this clinic, we had a cold front blow in which meant rain. We don’t have a lot of covered arenas because it doesn’t usually well, rain, lol! I’d venture to say that a lot of these horses were not able to be worked right before the clinic and, as such, the riders may have been a bit tight/tense in response to horses being high/fresh. That arena you see is also by an extremely busy road with fast moving traffic and there are quite often cars that go OFF the road on a turn that is within view. Add speed (traffic easily goes 50-60mph and then a stoplight, you get a lot of activity! Also, there are always big trucks(air brakes!) and motorcycles (joy riding, it’s a curving 2 lane road) making it ahem, interesting to ride. And yes, there were last minute substitutions that were having to deal with this situation. The more mileage I have, the more slack I’m willing to give, especially if I don’t have to do it. I’d be willing to bet there aren’t to many keyboard jockeys here that would’ve gladly volunteered and done any better.

[netg]

@Dune

I realize this thread has morphed into something else, so along those lines…what if you didn’t have to qualify to show a certain level BUT when you did show, your scores had to meet a certain level or you were no longer eligible for that level? Would something like that work? Also, I have not watched all the tests, I’m off to do that now that I’ve trudged through this thread but I wanted to give a bit of background that might give those more critical folks something to think about. The week/days before this clinic, we had a cold front blow in which meant rain. We don’t have a lot of covered arenas because it doesn’t usually well, rain, lol! I’d venture to say that a lot of these horses were not able to be worked right before the clinic and, as such, the riders may have been a bit tight/tense in response to horses being high/fresh. That arena you see is also by an extremely busy road with fast moving traffic and there are quite often cars that go OFF the road on a turn that is within view. Add speed (traffic easily goes 50-60mph and then a stoplight, you get a lot of activity! Also, there are always big trucks(air brakes!) and motorcycles (joy riding, it’s a curving 2 lane road) making it ahem, interesting to ride. And yes, there were last minute substitutions that were having to deal with this situation. The more mileage I have, the more slack I’m willing to give, especially if I don’t have to do it. I’d be willing to bet there aren’t to many keyboard jockeys here that would’ve gladly volunteered and done any better.

I don’t think any of us are slamming the horses and riders - but rather the scores which were given. At a show, judges do NOT (or should not) give you slack just because of weather, situation, etc. They are to score what is happening in front of them in the ring. Every pair I saw were clearly fantastic - even if they had some moments which weren’t.

[right_horse_at_the_right_time]

Exactly what netg writes. And As the OP of this thread, I want to be absolutely clear about that.

it was about the scoring.