Raising the Qualifying Score to Ride a Freestyle to 63...what say you?

[soloudinhere]

@joiedevie99

There is obviously a fundamental disagreement between those of us that think you should show a freestyle if you want to because its fun, and USDF who thinks it’s a reward for those who have demonstrated mastery of the level.

There are a lot of sports where this type of thing is absolutely required. In gymnastics, for example, you do not advance to the optionals until you have placed in a certain position in the compulsories at the lower levels; the idea is that you must demonstrate a mastery of key skills before being allowed to compete and display only the skills you so choose. This is true of all sorts of random sports, from sports with time trials to something like Irish dancing. I’m sure gymnasts would tell you their optional routines are way more fun than their compulsories, but that’s not the way it works.

Why is dressage different? You have to qualify into the freestyle at a CDI, too.

[pluvinel]

@soloudinhere

…

Why is dressage different? You have to qualify into the freestyle at a CDI, too.

Yes but…the CDI’s come under the purview.of the USEF High Performance Division that already has strict qualifying criteria. The USDF is like the farm league for hobbyists…NOT riders with international aspirations.

The USDF will reap what it sows…and my bet is that Working Equitation, Western Dressage, and regular “schooling shows” sanctioned by local groups will grow and take away competitors and volunteers from “licensed” shows.

Time will tell…but my bet is that raise the bar and people will make cost vs value/return and will probably walk away from the USDF to spend money’s on training & local shows vs traditional USEF shows.

I personally think the GMO’s should secede from USDF…what is the benefit? What do GMO’s get from being associated with USDF?

I belong to a GMO to support a local group, NOT USDF.

[lorilu]

For those of you who play on facebook - Musical Freestyles by Leslie shared some interesting data taken from the regional championships. https://www.facebook.com/MusicalFreestyles/?tn=%2Cdk%2CP-R&eid=ARADjH6KlfRvO_eF3knwjGp9RmbT79o5domX2NtsG5GaxNgIxLFluT2wBAwxuj7FZHbA-eMkgR6h0mCW

[pluvinel]

@lorilu

For those of you who play on facebook - Musical Freestyles by Leslie shared some interesting data taken from the regional championships. https://www.facebook.com/MusicalFree…bA-eMkgR6h0mCW

I looked at the data. It is very interesting…you should ask the author to add information on now many scores contributed to the Max/Min/Average listed. It is important and would allow one to compute whether the scores from 2010 are statistically different than those of 2017. I can do the statistical tests using industry standard statistical software.

Here is a paper on Olympic sports that are subjectively evaluated.

The paper is by Joel Smith, a statistician from Minitab, a statistical software company…this person has no skin in the game, and is looking at the quality of the scoring alone.
https://blog.minitab.com/blog/fun-wi…cks-up-part-ii

The bottom line is that in Olympic equestrian competition, you cannot statistically differentiate between the rides that scored 1st, 2nd or 3rd place.

There is a large amount of information to provide in a single graph, so I’ll explain how to read it using the last event listed, Equestrian Individual Dressage GP Special, as an example. The gold bar extends from the 1st place finisher through the 3rd place finisher, meaning that while in real life the 1st place finisher was awarded a gold medal, statistically you cannot differentiate that person’s score from the individuals who finished 2nd and 3rd. The same would go for silver: you cannot differentiate the 1st and 3rd place riders from the 2nd

The USDF leadership may know about dressage, but they know little and seem unwilling to learn how to apply statistical tests to reach a conclusion.

[SnicklefritzG]

They aren’t interested in statistical discussions or any output from Minitab or other software because they feel threatened. That’s the reason why some of the judges have poo-poo’d the articles that have been written on dressage judging.

@pluvinel

I looked at the data. It is very interesting…you should ask the author to add information on now many scores contributed to the Max/Min/Average listed. It is important and would allow one to compute whether the scores from 2010 are statistically different than those of 2017. I can do the statistical tests using industry standard statistical software.

Here is a paper on Olympic sports that are subjectively evaluated.

The paper is by Joel Smith, a statistician from Minitab, a statistical software company…this person has no skin in the game, and is looking at the quality of the scoring alone.
https://blog.minitab.com/blog/fun-wi…cks-up-part-ii

The bottom line is that in Olympic equestrian competition, you cannot statistically differentiate between the rides that scored 1st, 2nd or 3rd place.

The USDF leadership may know about dressage, but they know little and seem unwilling to learn how to apply statistical tests to reach a conclusion.

[lorilu]

Pluvinel, I believe all those scores are from Regional competitions…

[Cowgirl]

There is only a week until the convention. If you oppose this rule change and want your voice heard, you can write your regional representatives (mine have a Facebook page) and you can write USDF and the freestyle committee. If you go the Musical Freestyle Riders Facebook page, there is a group letter being signed.

[Cowgirl]

One other thing I want to add: they have already changed the Freestyle page on the USDF site to reflect the need for “proficiancy”. If you don’t speak now, especially because you don’t ride Freestyle and think this doesn’t affect you, don’t be surprised when next year there is another extraordinary rule change put through to align “proficiency” in all programs: rider awards (medals), qualifying for regionals, etc.

I have had people on the other side of this argument state that a 63 proficiency is needed to avoid the horse abuse they are seeing–as if a ride that scores 60-62.9 is going to bring out the ASPCA. If there IS abuse and the judges are not calling it as it happens (cough Shelley Browning cough), then shame on them!

[pluvinel]

@Cowgirl

One other thing I want to add: they have already changed the Freestyle page on the USDF site to reflect the need for “proficiancy”. If you don’t speak now, especially because you don’t ride Freestyle and think this doesn’t affect you, don’t be surprised when next year there is another extraordinary rule change put through to align “proficiency” in all programs: rider awards (medals), qualifying for regionals, etc.

I have had people on the other side of this argument state that a 63 proficiency is needed to avoid the horse abuse they are seeing–as if a ride that scores 60-62.9 is going to bring out the ASPCA. If there IS abuse and the judges are not calling it as it happens (cough Shelley Browning cough), then shame on them!

I would add, “…and don’t be surprised if a requirement to qualify to ride above a certain level is passed thru another Extraordinary Rule Change.”

Back 10 years ago…time flies…when the rule was proposed to required qualifying above 3rd level was defeated, a number of dressage powers were …umm…“not happy.”

I was told that they haven’t forgotten…

I think people should vote with their wallets. What would happen if 50% of USDF membership quit paying their dues?

Per the Musical Freestyle Riders FB Group, anywhere between 24% and 65% of Regional Riders did not meet the 63% score. What is the point of paying the USDF membership fees if they are not listening to the membership?
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10217774183006855&set=a.1236229226419&type=3&eid=ARAwUIxEilRzmYhbJMOkandeF39NJ5q5SW7AS-aQrzOL7cJk0gWJ_IQL1JcpRyZwHV3m95Uf02u1YZqn&ifg=1

[lorilu]

@pluvinel

I would add, “…and don’t be surprised if a requirement to qualify to ride above a certain level is passed thru another Extraordinary Rule Change.”

Back 10 years ago…time flies…when the rule was proposed to required qualifying above 3rd level was defeated, a number of dressage powers were …umm…“not happy.”

I was told that they haven’t forgotten…

I think people should vote with their wallets. What would happen if 50% of USDF membership quit paying their dues?

Per the Musical Freestyle Riders FB Group, anywhere between 24% and 65% of Regional Riders did not meet the 63% score. What is the point of paying the USDF membership fees if they are not listening to the membership?
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10217774183006855&set=a.1236229226419&type=3&eid=ARAwUIxEilRzmYhbJMOkandeF39NJ5q5SW7AS-aQrzOL7cJk0gWJ_IQL1JcpRyZwHV3m95Uf02u1YZqn&ifg=1

Just a point about the scores in the photo you posted - those were scores earned at Regionals, which are typically below those earned in qual rides at other shows. I would be interested in the stats that show scores in mfs at regular yearly shows and how many would not qualify for regionals. And of course this needs to be compared to how many riders in traditional classes do not qualify for Regional when they try - but no one complains about those qyual scores.

[MysticOakRanch]

@Cowgirl

I have had people on the other side of this argument state that a 63 proficiency is needed to avoid the horse abuse they are seeing–as if a ride that scores 60-62.9 is going to bring out the ASPCA. If there IS abuse and the judges are not calling it as it happens (cough Shelley Browning cough), then shame on them!

High and low scores have NO correlation to horse abuse, as most of us well know -this is a shell argument. I am not naming any names, but I’m sure we ALL can think of people with “good” scores that are abusive, and people with low scores who are kind and loving, and whose horses have an envious good life. That argument is pure hogwash. If the judges are so concerned about “abuse”, then they need to score riders accordingly, and eliminate riders who ARE abusive - the rules allow that to happen. Maybe a more reasonable “extraordinary rule change” would be to further clarify that part of the rules…

Cowgirl, I am not disagreeing with you at all!

[onceuponatime]

Thanks for the thoughts shared on this thread. You are correct in saying that much more could have been done to investigate why this rule change got made without comment from the membership and why the data shared in the USDF statement didn’t break out Adult Amateurs and Juniors from the Open riders. We now have less than one week until convention. Your GMO delegates will be attending, along with your Participating Member delegates and your Regional Representatives. PLEASE let these people know how you personally will be impacted by this change and what actions you will be taking as a result of it. USDF doesn’t think this is a big deal. They need to know how their members feel about it. SPEAK UP. Please.

[Cowgirl]

Judge Natalie Lamping is already talking about raising the rider medal score requirements: https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=musical%20freestyle%20riders I hope this links. If they get away with this, I promise you that creating other qualifying scores to align is next. If you are ok with that, great. I can foresee about half of our shows here closing.

[pluvinel]

Considering the variation in judging, I find this rule appalling and insulting to the dressage community.

The only way the USDF leadership will get the point is if you guys attending the convention raise a REALLY BIG RUCKUS…

I think the PM’s should stop paying their fees and the GMO’s should not send their portion of fees to USDF…perhaps even seceded from the USDF affiliation…I mean what does USDF affiliation get the GMO?

The GMO’s have to pay part of their membership fee to the USDF “mother ship”…and what does that mother ship do for them other than not listen to membership and pass rules that will eventually throttle show participation???

It might be interesting to see what percentage of USDF membership is PM vs GM…and what percent of their membership fees come from PM vs GM members.

As a GM member, I am appalled at this rule change and would support my GMO ( a large one) leaving its affiliation. The large GMO’s (like CDS, etc) do enough locally why do they need the USDF?

[hoopoe]

Cowgirl that link did not work. I assume they now want to raise the medal score to 63?

[MysticOakRanch]

@Cowgirl

Judge Natalie Lamping is already talking about raising the rider medal score requirements: https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=musical%20freestyle%20riders I hope this links. If they get away with this, I promise you that creating other qualifying scores to align is next. If you are ok with that, great. I can foresee about half of our shows here closing.

I tried the link too, and it doesn’t work. But that would not be a good thing - WHY? It just makes the sport even more about having the fancy horse. Getting 60% at PSG on a plain moving horse that a person trained on their own is a MAJOR accomplishment… USDF is losing sight of their membership…

[onceuponatime]

I just noticed this. Read the wording carefully and tell me what the tone says to you.
USDF banner for Musical Freestyle before the rule change: Freestyles are an increasingly important part of competitive dressage. They are mandatory for any Intermediate or Grand Prix rider who has his eye on championship competitions or for any Junior or Young Rider who wants to earn that valued spot on the Regional NAYC Team. But freestyle is not just for the elite of the sport, nor is it just to be competitive. There is room for fun at all levels. The addition of music can be an inspiration to the rider and audience alike, not to mention that it gives us a creative outlet and another way to explore the sport we love.

USDF banner for Musical Freestyle after the rule change: Freestyles are an increasingly important part of competitive dressage. They are mandatory for any FEI rider and with the growth and addition of the US Dressage finals, freestyles are not just for the elite riders, but also for riders at all levels.

Because of the skill required to ride to and stay with the music, a higher degree of proficiency is required in musical freestyles than for the highest test of the level. Riders who are proficient at the chosen level of competition can choose to show off their skills by entering a Musical Freestyle. The addition of music can be an inspiration to the rider and audience alike, not to mention that it gives us a creative outlet and another way to explore the sport we love.

Hmmmmm, I think I liked it better the first time.

[MysticOakRanch]

@onceuponatime

I just noticed this. Read the wording carefully and tell me what the tone says to you.
USDF banner for Musical Freestyle before the rule change: Freestyles are an increasingly important part of competitive dressage. They are mandatory for any Intermediate or Grand Prix rider who has his eye on championship competitions or for any Junior or Young Rider who wants to earn that valued spot on the Regional NAYC Team. But freestyle is not just for the elite of the sport, nor is it just to be competitive. There is room for fun at all levels. The addition of music can be an inspiration to the rider and audience alike, not to mention that it gives us a creative outlet and another way to explore the sport we love.

USDF banner for Musical Freestyle after the rule change: Freestyles are an increasingly important part of competitive dressage. They are mandatory for any FEI rider and with the growth and addition of the US Dressage finals, freestyles are not just for the elite riders, but also for riders at all levels.

Because of the skill required to ride to and stay with the music, a higher degree of proficiency is required in musical freestyles than for the highest test of the level. Riders who are proficient at the chosen level of competition can choose to show off their skills by entering a Musical Freestyle. The addition of music can be an inspiration to the rider and audience alike, not to mention that it gives us a creative outlet and another way to explore the sport we love.

Hmmmmm, I think I liked it better the first time.

So essentially, they are taking the fun out of dressage!!!

[lorilu]

@hoopoe

Cowgirl that link did not work. I assume they now want to raise the medal score to 63?

worked for me. It’s a series of posts; Natalie’s is in the middle of the page. Click on it to go to the entire thread. And she is not the only judge commenting there.

[RTF]

I have not read all of this thread, but I have read enough that I would like to write a letter to USDF. They also upped the score requirement for getting into the L program. I would have my scores under the old requirements, but now need to continue to try for the new scores.

I love the sport of dressage. I have worked so hard to be able to play on a bigger field at the Rated shows. I show on a tight budget, on a very inexpensive horse, that I trained myself. I ride off breeds, and honestly they don’t have the gaits to score well. Essentially taking out the 60 percent standard is saying the lower quality horses are no longer good enough or they should not move up to a level where the talents not there to help boost the score. It’s also saying the nice ammies that are doing the best they can should try a little harder. It is wrong.

Not only is it wrong, it’s sad.