Are you referring to the change that was effective April 2016?
If it makes you feel any better, I just finished the L program in the summer and would have passed with distinction under the old standard that changed this year. I’m ok with it because I know I didn’t study as hard as the ladies who did pass with distinction.
If you do a search on FB for Natalie P. Lamping, you will find her comment, which is posted to judge (and Freestyle Committee lead) Dolly Hannon’s FB page. But if you can’t find it:
“She makes some good points regards Rider Medals that are supposed to denote accomplishments are at 60%. Those are the ones that needed to be raised.”
She is referring to the letter written by Cynthia Collins on behalf of musical freestyle riders (and signed by a ton of people–you can sign it too–do a search on FB for Cynthia and message her that you want to be added). In the letter, Cynthia writes that it makes no sense to require a 63 for MFS, when the scores needed for your medal are 60. Her point was that 60 denotes proficiency. Natalie Lamping twisted it to make a case for raising those scores too. I mean, if they are requiring 63 for MFS, why not 65 for medals? This will just put huge underserved areas of the US out of medal contention. 60 IS SATISFACTORY. Why not require better proficiency from the judges so that they score correctly???
If it worked for you, can you post the link to the thread? I clicked on the link posted by Cowgirl and it takes you to a FB search for Musical Dressage Riders
https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=musical%20freestyle%20riders
Though I did scroll thru the posts and read their comments and found it interesting that everyone believes the instigator of the rule is Janet Foy.
Since USDF seems unable to handle open discussion by their members, be prepared if the USDF will try to subvert the meeting process to keep the rule change from being openly discussed at the convention.
Perhaps some of the larger GMO’s should do as they did before and rent a room at the hotel where people can go discuss this topic.
That would be completely whacky, crazy, bitter and ironic. Here is JF’s show record: https://www.centerlinescores.com/rider/V61Z7
Janet Foy is the one who was touting rider qualifications to move up that was such a controversy years ago. I think it makes sense that she would be behind this.
Is this a case of being penny wise, pound foolish? In order words, increase qualification requirements across the board (freestyles, medals, etc.) to look better with our international colleagues but lose a portion of our membership?
Other than making the US look more like Germany, what benefit would increasing the qualifying scores have?
Back in the day of the original qualifying rule, it was commented that in Germany, dressage shows were over subscribed, qualifying scores were used to whittle down the entries…
Is that what we want for the US?
And have the PTB considered what impact will this have with on USDF or show entries when newer disciplines like WD or WE are making it attractive for people to defect from USDF/USEF shows.
I know a lot of people who clinic with Janet Foy, and they really like her, but by these standards the only level Janet is proficient at is training level…so that’s cool
I hope for a reemergence of schooling/unrated shows and people spending less and enjoying more because this is just nonsense.
Very interesting. I couldn’t open the link, but I take it that her only qualifying scores would be at training level? And this is the person who said she was “tired of seeing horses come down the centerline that should be out chasing cattle.” Not, "tired of seeing horses coming down the centerline dumped on their forehand, " which could apply to anyone, but specifying non-WB horses. Hmmmmmmm…
I have no dog in this fight because I’m not the biggest fan of usef or usdf, but Janet earned these scores in a time when a 50 was considered sufficient, and I don’t think it’s fair to judge that by the standards of today.
Really??? I’m 73 and my earliest dressage scores that were in the 50s were NOT considered good by my trainer, who was an eventer at the time. (She later successfully switched to dressage and trained several horses to GP). She would never have considered 50 enough, and we were mostly eventers going to recognized dressage shows to school, so we weren’t on fancy WB (talking late '60s, early '70s). That’s nearly 40 years ago and I think I am likely older than Ms. Foy.
As a retired teacher, I got REALLY tired of the “Those who can, do; those who can’t, teach.” crap. JF is a clinician liked and respected by many. She educates our new judges. She helps write the tests.
No, I am not saying that she is right or wrong. I’m saying it is not right to judge ANYONE who teaches by their scores from long ago.
I feel the same way about the “certified trainer” stuff from USDF.
To be fair to myself, I did say by these standards. And to be further fair to myself, I am not the one asserting these scores are bad, apparently Janet Foy and company are.
I think it’s super easy to say things were “tougher” back in the day, but I think that comes from the same clan who think that Reiner Klimke was an objectively better rider than people today, which I also think is nonsense. At the top the riders are better and the horses are amazing…from my subjective perspective haha Ingrid is better.
but we aren’t talking about the top, we are talking statistically about 9% of people who just want to ride a stupid low level musical freestyle, to which I say by god, you go girl! (Statistically speaking of course)
this is a money loser and will not at all advance or promote the sport.
Personally, I was just addressing the idea that 40 years ago, a score of 50% would have been considered adequate and standards are higher now. Standards are higher, but I don’t believe 50% was ever considered anything more than, “You may be on the right track, you didn’t fall off, and the horse didn’t jump out of the arena.” LOL
I was more bothered by Ms. Foy’s comment bashing non-WBs, but that’s relevant to this discussion only on the basis of needing a fancy mover to attain the new qualifying score. I completely agree with your comment about, WTF, if you want to ride a low level freestyle, do it. Those who will go on to attain National/International goals will do so whether lower level Ammies are forced to “qualify” to do freestyles or not. It’s addressing a problem that doesn’t exist.
I am speaking specifically to the definition of the numerical scores - a 5 was sufficient at the time. Getting a 60 was considered very good into the 80s.
At the '78 world championships, American riders scored 61.1 and 62.70 in the team (62.3 and 58.5 in the individual). Considering that was the score range of the international team we fielded, logic follows that those would be considered fairly good scores for the time at the grand prix level.
My recollection is that Reiner Klimke started as an eventer and wrote a book about it - a book in which he opined that women shouldn’t be event riders. I wonder if his daughter changed his mind on that subject. ;0)
Yes, riders and horses are better and I’m not part of the Reiner clan that thinks he is better than today’s top riders. Definitely not. I’m not even going to go ‘back in the day’, whenever that was. 50% was never considered a good score as far as I know. 60% was considered a respectable score, which is why it was used for medals.
I’ve written this several times before, but the half point has accounted for a lot of scores being at least 5% higher than before the half point was used. In addition, now that 5 is considered ‘marginal’, judges have moved on to giving 5.5 and even 6 when previously they would have given it a 5.
The above and other factors have some bearing on why Ms. Foy’s marks are not as high. But really, a large number of people (including me) think highly of Foy as a judge and a clinician. This just goes to show that to rely on centerlinescores as a way to judge trainers might not be the best way. If you are going to use it, medians are also imo misleading.
All that said, I think too much is being made of this increase in qualifying scores. I can see why it is wanted for freestyle. I think in order to perform a good freestyle, a rider should be quite proficient in all movements of that level. Getting a 60% does not show proficiency in ALL movements because of the way marks are tallied. For example, say someone gets 60% at 3rd level with bad (or no changes). It can and does happen. They get lots of 7’s (or even 8) on other movements and can afford to get 4’s on changes and the more difficult movements. I see it all the time at PSG where people get 60% missing pirouettes and changes. One might say “so what, it’s fun”, but maybe it’s not fun for a judge to watch and have to judge a lot of poor tests.
If 60% is poor than the language needs to be changed yet again to reflect that. Otherwise this is nonsense.
As I said above, I’m not the one saying that Janet Foy is bad because of her scores, I’m saying that that’s what she and other judges are suggesting about scores like her own. Or rather, I merely concurred with the poster above who first pointed out that her scores are, by the standards currently being asked for to avoid watching “poor tests” as stated above, or “abusive riding” as stated elsewhere, either indicative of “poor riding” or “abuse”. I’m not saying that, I’m merely pointing out that that is what these people are saying/suggesting.
I’m saying the rule change and reasoning are nonsense and these judges should watch as many “bad” low level freestyles as people who ride above 60% want to pay for because damn, this is ridiculous.
Score them accordingly. Because it’s your job, Janet.
I wasn’t aware that the purpose of a freestyle was to entertain the judge. They’re being paid to judge. If it’s bad, they can say so. Isn’t that the point of presenting yourself for the judge’s opinion? If it’s fun for the rider, but not for the judge, well c’est la vie. It’s not fun to judge endless TL tests - even good ones - but they do it. Are we going to have qualifying scores to even set foot in the ring at TL?
Again - the people who are destined for the top - whether because of talent, money, time, a gifted horse, etc., etc., etc. - will get there, regardless of whether some ammy at 1st level is doing a mediocre freestyle. If this upping of the qualification requirement to do a freestyle is to prevent the judge’s eyes from bleeding from having to watch an “awful” freestyle, really? Give out the 4’s and be done with it. In the real world, it’s just going to lower the bottom line for show management. It’s hard enough to profit from a dressage show. Fewer entries ain’t gonna help.
I had a horse that was not the fanciest mover, but VERY obedient and steady in the bridle. He won/placed in All Breeds throughout his dressage career. He was a convert from the H/J world, so had a bit of a late start. While we schooled 3rd level, we never showed it because he was never very reliable in his changes, and his medium trots were marginal, so I figured what the *)&#&% could I show for extended trot? I didn’t feel I could blow off the changes and trot extensions and still get a (medal) qualifying score, no matter how good his lateral work and transitions were, so I didn’t try. I HAD the scores - with that horse - to do a 2nd level freestyle (and they weren’t minimal 58% - more like a 62% median with a high score of 65%), but never got around to it. Now, we wouldn’t be able to do a freestyle, but he was a perfectly nice horse, a decent mover and certainly no judge was going to say “Oh my EYES!!!” watching him show at 2nd level, freestyle or otherwise.
This change is unnecessary and punitive, and while we “average ammies” aren’t going to be happy, I think show management and USDF will be less than happy when entries/memberships go down.
The USDF is supported by its members…how does this rule help the membership?
And how does a rule change process that does not allow member input help the membership?
How does this rule change help the GMO’s? Their show entries are probably going to go down.
Every PM member should stop paying their membership fee for a year just to send a message…the the GMO’s should threaten to withhold the GM member fees
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
