If the JUDGES would actually give appropriately low scores for poor rides then people would self-police and go home to study some more before presenting themselves above level.
I see this whole “qualifying score” movement as a way to absolve judges from having to do the job they are being paid to do.
It is a hard…and unpleasant…job to give low score…but that comes with the territory of judging.
Judges should grow a spine and actually score what they see in front of them…people are not stupid. They will get the message and stay home.
Or they won’t, but they simply won’t qualify for the freestyle. I literally can’t grasp how the issue isn’t judging, or how they think that their members are so stupid to not understand that if there’s an issue it is up to the judges to remedy.
I just spent a bunch of time copying the names and emails of the USEF Sporthorse Committee and it’s unapproved. here is the link. I think personal emails and your stories about why this rule needs to be rescinded now would be helpful and have sway . https://www.usef.org/about-us/councils-committees/713
Silverbridge, you also have to remember that as well as your very useful theatrical training, you are fortunate enough to have a Really Fancy Horse and really excellent instruction, so that score level and throwing in some degree of difficulty probably doesn’t seem particularly onerous to you.
I have a Fairly Fancy Horse and pretty decent instruction, so it doesn’t seem out of the bounds of possibility to me, either, if I don’t actually screw it up.
But, I also know that in the remoter parts of our region (5), there are an awful lot of people who don’t have these things, whose entry fees pay for the shows that you and I go to, and who pay their dues and thus, I believe, deserve a voice and a chance to play in the sandbox.
You make valid points. I don’t who you are but since you know who I am, it’s also fair for me to point out that I did earn my Freestyle qualifying score at First Level on a very unfancy and downhill-built, regular-moving baroque type horse. And the scores I managed on her at First 3 were solid enough (not always, but, on our good days) that I would have qualified under the new 63 rule, even though 60 was required at the time.
I appreciate the entry fees of all competitors and I don’t take anyone’s financial contribution toward making shows happen for granted. I hope that those of us who often go in well beyond our entry fees in terms of class and ring sponsorships for the shows we attend are equally appreciated and not taken for granted, either. I don’t expect anyone to pony up more than they are able, and I don’t expect people who pay more to have more of a voice with USDF or a GMO than those who don’t.
Interesting to label my horse Really Fancy. He was in our budget because the seller needed a flashier mover and easier ride, in order to meet her own goals. He’s certainly a purpose-built WB and can produce a flashy/floating trot when ridden well, though not always by me. The canter has been a challenge his entire career and always will be, just due to his conformation. We knew that, going in. We looked at fancier movers than he, but with less proven records and lesser minds. He’s for sure much more the type of mover “they” like to see, versus my last horse. Interestingly, both my show partners have typically scored a 7 in the “gaits” collectives box. Both have gotten 6.5s for gaits, too.
If he gives that Really Fancy Horse impression, though, so much the better. It ain’t easy. He has a great mind and forgiving nature.
Just as someone who has shown I1 Freestyle (and finished in the top 20 nationally, just behind a ton of names you’d recgnize) – my freestyle scores were always higher than my regular test scores. Yes, my test was harder, but it was harder in the things that my horse does well. In the things that aren’t your cuppa, you can do a degree of difficulty that is less than the regular test, as someone pointed out. I did not have trouble qualifying at any level and certainly could have qualified if the requirement was 65…until I got to Grand Prix. This is really really hard and I think I’d show my horse better in a freestyle where I can start with canter work and loosen her up before I have to do pi/pa tours. I could use canter in the test to help with the forward momentum as well. But in any event, I qualified under the old rule, just never rode the freestyle I had made yet. Now I can’t and that really sucks and I really am sick of and kind of dislike the regular test and have no desire to spend thousands of dollars continuing to show it to try and qualify to ride my freestyle. And nor should I have to.
Let me also say that no one who is scoring 60-62.9 at the highest test of the level is abusing or badly riding their horse. That’s just BS.
I agree that judging is what needs to be fixed. If insufficient rides are scoring 60% average, they shouldn’t be. I have HAD those rides. Same horse who a judge this summer thought was a 5 mover, the judge thought she was a 7.5 move, and we won a class with a 64% where I rode out of the ring expecting a 58, and do not think we deserved a score over 60. So I’ve gotten “not fancy” dings from some judges, and “fancy bonus points” from others who did like her a lot. It’s interesting, but certainly I feel my recent 59% tests with the judge who hated her movement were worth more than that 64%.
Well, given the Del Mar incident used by many as evidence of a problem… not totally true. They shouldn’t ever score that high if being abusive and should be eliminated, and it was certainly a rider who never should have made it to a freestyle. But that was the fault of judges, not the points needed for qualification.
Hey USDF! I think 15 pages of the Chronicle Forum should be enough evidence that you made an error - be honest and professional - admit it, and leave the FS rule as it stands - at 60%.
The USDF passed the score increase via a mechanism that did not just bypass all input from people that make up the bulk of the USDF membership,
The USDF leadership used a level of deceptiveness to keep info about this rule change from the membership.
I would not bet any money that the same thing won’t happen again…deceptiveness that is…about rescinding the rule.
My bet is that the USDF committee members that originally proposed the qualifying score increase (the Judges Committee & Freestyle Committee) are some of the same people in the USEF who will pass judgment on rescinding the rule.
They will not want to say, “Sorry we made a mistake.”
See…how easy is it for these people to hid behind and blame “the USEF.” The same group that originated the rule is the same group that is supposed to rescind it.
Can we say fox guarding hen house?
When the original Qualifying Rule was proposed 10 years ago, the COTH played a key role in forming a united voice to defeat it. I was part of that voice. I think the same needs to happen again.
Here are the names of the committee members and the link for their emails…it should be obvious who the ringleaders of this effort are.
.
. [TABLE=“border: 1, cellpadding: 0, cellspacing: 0”]
[TR]
[TD=“colspan: 2”]Freestyle committee https://www.usdf.org/about/about-usd…/freestyle.asp[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Region[/TD]
[TD]Name[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]5[/TD]
[TD]Janet L. Hannon[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]Sharon A Vander Ziel[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]Jeanne McDonald[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]Anne Snipes Moss[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]Natalie P. Lamping[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]Terry Ciotti Gallo[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]6[/TD]
[TD]Kari J McClain[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]6[/TD]
[TD]Joan K Darnell[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]7[/TD]
[TD]Anne B Howard[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]8[/TD]
[TD]Sarah Geikie[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]8[/TD]
[TD]Ann L Guptill[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]8[/TD]
[TD]Debra J Reinhardt[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
. [TABLE=“border: 1, cellpadding: 0, cellspacing: 0”]
[TR]
[TD=“colspan: 2”]Judges Committee https://www.usdf.org/about/about-usd…ees/judges.asp[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Region[/TD]
[TD]Name[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]Gary Rockwell[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]Sharon A Vander Ziel[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]Jeanne McDonald[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]Maryal Barnett[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]Terry Ciotti Gallo[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]Marilyn Ogden Heath[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]5[/TD]
[TD]Janet L Foy[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]6[/TD]
[TD]Trenna Atkins[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]7[/TD]
[TD]David H Schmutz[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]8[/TD]
[TD]Lois J. Yukins[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]8[/TD]
[TD]Sarah Geikie[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]9[/TD]
[TD]Marilyn Kulifay[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
.
Exactly - you build a freestyle to be harder BUT in the elements that your horse does well. That is why it’s so typical that a freestyle score is higher than a regular test score.
The first horse I showed extensively at dressage was a nice TB mover, and very precise and obedient. But her medium trot was nothing special even on her best days. We could have done a 2nd level freestyle full of counter canter and precise simple changes and shoulder-in that would have been very difficult and would have papered over the less exciting medium. There are other horses that I’ve ridden that thrive on lots of transitions and then there are the ones who prefer to do the same thing for a longer time.
Knowing the strengths and weaknesses of your particular horse is a skill too and an interesting test of horsemanship. The highest test of the level is meant to be the most difficult but it’s not always that test for a particular horse and rider combination. There have always been certain tests that I didn’t enjoy riding.
Good, the emails came through finally. If you think this rule is a bad idea, I think personal emails to all of the people who have them that I posted with your stories will help. I don’t think many of them have a clue what the real world is like for most dressage riders. It seems quite a few of them live in Wellington. Sort of like a Beverly Hills address and then not understanding why people just can’t get a little more help to do better.
Remember, this rule will negate any scores that you qualified with already. That’s like taking away any medals after they decide to increase scores for getting them.
I, particularly, have an issue that they increased it more than they did with the qualifying rides, and they did the same increase at al levels. It is not a massive difference to increase a score at training level. It is a huge difference at the FEI levels, so it really punishes the people who are at FEI.
For many years 55% at any technical EC level was the requirement before attempting a freestyle; while USDF rules state 63% at the highest test of the level. For 2019 at EC competitions, the eligibility criteria will now be 60% at any technical level but it’s likely that EC will reconsider the full criteria for subsequent years.
Yep, all my fs scores were higher than my tests at the same level, even the first time out at 2nd level where I wasn’t clear enough in my choreography and got dinged for missing an entire circle - turns out a canter figure 8 with a simple change in the middle does not equal two 10 meter circles & a change. Judge said I never completed the 2nd circle. That was still a good deal higher than most of my 2-2 & 2-3 rides.
They were higher because I did the bare minimum of the stuff Ms. Mare & I sucked at and we hammed it up on the stuff we were good at. I had one judge write at the bottom “so many 10 meter circles!” … well, we could canter & trot a mean 10 meter circle at 1st level and we did the most aggressive zig zagging leg yields you’ve ever seen. But I had only 1 canter lengthening and it was just the legal length because that was NOT a good look for us at the time.
You design your FS with your strengths & weaknesses in mind so while they’re more challenging from a choreography & timing aspect, they should showcase the very best of your horse.
The other reason FS scores are higher is because HALF your score is for artistic impression. People sometimes forget that - it is why FS scores are always higher. AND of course, you can position your technical movements in a way that best benefits your horse
Do you have a synopsis…just the abstract…or is there a link to a replay?
Is anyone here in a betting mood?
My bet is that although the motion was made to rescind the rule at the USDF convention…somehow, somewhere, mystically…the motion will die and slowly fade away on its journey thru the bowels of USEF…thus keeping the current score of 63%.
Yeah, I am afraid you’ll have to swing the odds, or most of us won’t take that bet:lol:
My GMO already raised qualifying requirements for the freestyles at the annual championship show - in anticipation of USDF’s move… This has been in the works for some time now, and from what I’m hearing, the committees are very much behind making this change. They all keep blaming it on USEF, but reality is, it was driven by the USDF committees, and has been in the works for quite a while. It was shoved through so quickly, so it could align with the new tests. Voila, no comment from the peanut gallery!
Yup…and thus COTH’s Canyonoak’s (RIP) prognostications have come true.
This is what she predicted would happen after the original qualifying rule was defeated.
Apparently the blowback from introducing the comment period for the proposed rule change (back in the ca. 2008-09) for a qualifying rule got the rule not passed, with the result that some power players in USDF were royally PO’d.
It seems that when the smurfs defeated an edict coming from the gods on high the “gods” vowed to introduce the “next” qualifying rule in a manner that would not allow for insurrection from the masses.
This may be true Pluvinel, especially when you look at how the committees are stacked and the power is concentrated within a very small group of people. But it will cost them. People are already frustrated and tired of all the forms, different fees, Safesport, health certificates and other costs and obstacles to showing. Tell that they suck despite going through these machinations AND hauling 3 hours to their trainer (or some such) etc etc and their membership numbers will decline. If that is what they are going for, they they are doing it the right way.
