Similar for me. I have my silver, and my I1 scores for gold, but under that system, would have to go back to 2nd level.
Might be a moot point, as I haven’t shown for 3 years, and am quickly losing my desire to show at all (even though I’m thisclose to gold).
Up against it is just an expression.
As far as the rest of your post not sure what you mean, it was the same rider on both horses, riding the same test.
I was addressing what I perceived as the “it” the amateur was facing.
I pointed out that she would have had plenty of I-2 scores at 60% to continue showing. Assuming people are grandfathered in, she is perfectly qualified UNDER THE RULE PROPOSAL to show Grand Prix. If the rule proposal made us go back in time (which would be ridiculous, as already stated by several people), she has the scores at 4th level, and could just as easily have been in the ring at PSG doing the same riding - the rule proposal does not prevent this kind of riding. Period. All it really does is punish (even more) those with less fancy horses - those who already can not AFFORD the fancy horse, in all likelihood can not afford to show over and over and over until they get the scores they need to move up a level. So it pushes even more people out of our sport. Without improving anything one iota for the horse.
The ONLY thing that will prevent this kind of riding (both abusive AND inept) is the judges adhering to the rules - which clearly allow a rider to be dismissed for abusive behavior. AND the other issue we are up against is the way the rules and judging standards work - and judges can’t be blamed for this - but horse gait quality has huge influence over the score. When a rider can afford to buy this kind of horse (and keep it in training so it is tuned up) - that rider will, eventually, eke out the necessary scores. When a rider can NOT afford to buy this kind of horse, it will take much longer to eke out the scores, and the training and riding will need to be much more correct. And THAT is the point.
As DQ Foxhunter points out - a much more correct ride on a less fancy horse often scores lower. That is the judging standard - every single movement is first and foremost influenced by the “quality of the gaits” (as written right under the directives of the score sheet). Of course, correct riding AND quality gaits scores the best - but we see just as much of the other scenarios (incorrect riding/fancy horse or correct riding/non-fancy horse, and of course, incorrect riding/non-fancy horse, which is going to score the worst of all).
I have NOTHING against wealthy ammies - honestly, I wish I was one. But - reality is, with this scoring methodology, it ENCOURAGES people to buy horses they can not ride, because they will be rewarded for the big gaits, even if the rest of the ride is a CF. So if you can afford to show enough - you will eventually get the scores you need.
If bad riding is the concern, why not put minimum qualifying scores on the rider collectives only – that is, assuming those scores are now totally divorced from gaits? ( It has been a while since I audited the L program, so I don’t know how the new collectives are judged. “Effectiveness of the aids” is still there, but maybe the dependence on gaits is minimized now?)
ETA: for sub-FEI tests, that is.
Just make the judges do their jobs!!! We can debate until we all drop dead, but I firmly believe that ride was way over scored and the judges should have been reprimanded. When a senior judge commenting on the test is practically gasping and calling 3s and 4s and the judge scoring the test is giving 5s and 6s, there is a PROBLEM WITH JUDGING. A qualifying rule will not solve the current problems with US dressage. Don’t put it on the riders if the judges can’t agree on how to score. An average 6 mover correctly trained and ridden should be able to score a 70 by nailing the non gait scores (transitions, halts, etc, and displaying correct angle and bend, etc) but it isn’t possible with the way the judges are scoring; similarly, an international grand prix horse that is being whipped, yanked, ridden crookedly and is behind the vertical to avoid the bit contact should not score out of the 40s. That too, is impossible with the current judge system.
[QUOTE=MysticOakRanch;n10299705
The ONLY thing that will prevent this kind of riding (both abusive AND inept) is the judges adhering to the rules - which clearly allow a rider to be dismissed for abusive behavior. AND the other issue we are up against is the way the rules and judging standards work - and judges can’t be blamed for this - but horse gait quality has huge influence over the score. When a rider can afford to buy this kind of horse (and keep it in training so it is tuned up) - that rider will, eventually, eke out the necessary scores. When a rider can NOT afford to buy this kind of horse, it will take much longer to eke out the scores, and the training and riding will need to be much more correct. And THAT is the point.
As DQ Foxhunter points out - a much more correct ride on a less fancy horse often scores lower. That is the judging standard - every single movement is first and foremost influenced by the “quality of the gaits” (as written right under the directives of the score sheet). Of course, correct riding AND quality gaits scores the best - but we see just as much of the other scenarios (incorrect riding/fancy horse or correct riding/non-fancy horse, and of course, incorrect riding/non-fancy horse, which is going to score the worst of all).
I have NOTHING against wealthy ammies - honestly, I wish I was one. But - reality is, with this scoring methodology, it ENCOURAGES people to buy horses they can not ride, because they will be rewarded for the big gaits, even if the rest of the ride is a CF. So if you can afford to show enough - you will eventually get the scores you need. [/QUOTE]
This times ten. Thank MOR for the great post and describes what I’ve been seeing locally the last few years. I’m not sure how we right the ship but it is good (?) to see many of us are seeing the same trends and it isn’t region specific.
Or you can get the requisite scores in a few tests on an “8” moving GP horse, which is the trend we are seeing here, even if the horse is primarily ridden by the trainer (even in the warm up), by turning those “8” gaits into 6s and 6.5s. But eventually that horse, that scores low 70s in CDIs, will be scoring consistently low 60s. Dressage now means “untraining” instead of “training” because people are encouraged to buy bigger gaits than they can ride, horses more advanced than they can ride, and the end result is that the horse’s good training is undone, or its gaits are flattened out (or in the case of the iberian horses we are seeing, turned into sewing machines). Then its time to go shopping again.
This system WON’T work if the riders are required to qualify their international GP horse at training level to move up to 1st level. It won’t work if the riders are prevented from skipping four levels (because six figure horses come with the promise of the shad belly)…
MOR…I agree with your observations and have some additional comments/questions that perhaps you or others can clarify
(1) - Totally agree that if judges adhered to the rules, then the problem of poor or abusive riding would be dealt with by applying the existing rules and appropriate scoring.
In talking to a consulting statistician, they said that in their work with clients they see that in 80% of “process improvement” attempts either (a) the client’s misguided attempts do nothing or (b) are actually be detrimental to the process the client is trying to improve. I consider all these attempts at “improving dressage” by imposing additional rules, or qualifying levels etc to be misguided attempts to improve something that is fundamentally broken.
(2) The judges make up the judges committees that INTERPRET the rules…so I would think that judges are pretty much in control of how the rules are applied…but I may be wrong.
(3) - Here we go with how the RULES ARE INTERPRETED. So what is the formal definition of “quality of the gaits?” In the US Rule Book DR 102-105 describe the gaits of Walk-Trot-Canter. In both the trot and canter, the quality of the gait (trot or canter) “is judged by general impression.”
In none of those descriptions are “bling gaits” described…So why are we rewarding them in the movement scores? Ever see a horse with a big trot where one hind leg has a “hitch?” Why are big but irregular trots being rewarded?
Judges who judge harshly, even deservedly harshly, do not get asked back to shows by the managers. If they do continue to employ them, once word is out that the “tough” judges are there, entries suffer. I’ve heard many an ammy (and pro) complain about the tough judges to management!
So either ALL judges have to turn in their Santa hats, or it doesn’t work. And I guarantee if all judges got religion all of a sudden the shows would get a lot smaller.
My cynical view is that all this change will do is to inflate scores further. Judges are very aware of the qualifying rule and I suspect that 63% will be the score for formerly 60% rides.
I find it so strange that TPTB feel the need to “defend the quality of dressage” by limiting who can show freestyles at the lower levels. Nobody outside of those in the class much care about lower level freestyle scores. It could, however, be an encouraging factor for an ammy with a limited horse (or a limited rider). Riding to music could be an enticement to show even when they are not advancing.
Sure, most pairs should be able to get a 63% but now they have to get it at a show early enough that they can send the score with their entry. In effect, many will have to show freestyle a level below their other classes to get any mileage out of it!
I dont think it would “hurt dressage” to have no qualifications for freestyles at training through third. The judges just have to do their jobs and judge poor rides appropriately. Once you are getting near FEI, I can better understand qualifying. If they insist on qualifying, perhaps the score could be on any test at that level.
I cant get past feeling like the judges want to only view good rides. But they are judges and should see the spectrum and judge what they see. There will still be great rides with great scores to balance out poorer rides. And at the last recognized show near me, the few freestyles were placed very early (Like 8 am) one day, and after all the other classes the other day (around 5 pm) Not a lot of support and not overwhelmed with freestyles!
Thank you!!!
I was wondering if I was the only person here who thinks that 63% is the new 60%…and 60% became the old 58% when 58% was the qualifying requirement.
I can see this spiraling further…58%…60%…63%…65%…68%… …70%…etc…
Until we are at 80%… 85%…88%… and pretty soon scores will be compressed between 90% and 99.999%
This just means that the definition of a “Santa Judge” will just shift along with the qualifying score.
I disagree. Maybe at training and 1st level. Fewer people at 3rd and 4th. A lot fewer at FEI unless you have a lot of money, and then there is a even bigger jump at GP. This massively increases how much it hurts the higher you are.
This gaits thing bugs me. A lot about US Dressage bugs me. I don’t really have a dog in this fight as I compete across the pond (we have our own issues). However, a quality gait is relative to the horse. Some have natural suspension and exaggerated movement that makes them look ~fancy~ but I also respect a less flashy mover with a nice even gait with cadence and rhythm that is using himself. Said horse may not be floating above the earth, but a quality even gait with proper use of the hindend/body is still being shown.
Awarding genetics is stupid. This isn’t a halter class. Some of us may not want to ride huge gaits. Some of us may not be able to. Some of us cannot afford such an animal. Does they mean that we should be penalized?
I’m not even sure I understand the score increase to qualify for a freestyle. Ok, yes, it will work if you don’t make 63 the new 60. But will that happen? I also feel like there are other things that could have been altered and improved in the US dressage system. More arguably significant things.
I personally find freestyles at the lower levels to be boring. I’m sorry, but I do. Maybe judges feel the same way, but that doesn’t matter. If it encourages people to participate in the sport, that’s a plus!
I don’t necessarily want to belring this up again, but the Shelly Browning (sp?) ride just highlighted how ridiculous US dressage and judging can be. I get it was one incident, but still.
Harsh but FAIR judges are what is needed. Honestly, if I hear so and so is a harsh judge, I say, “challenge accepted” if they are a harsh but unfair judge, then I’ll say WTF and probably won’t enter. Dressage needs the former, but not the latter.
’ Nobody outside of those in the class much care about lower level freestyle scores. It could, however, be an encouraging factor for an ammy with a limited horse (or a limited rider). Riding to music could be an enticement to show even when they are not advancing.’
This in spades was me, 35 years or so ago. The freestyle had just started to be ridden, and of course, there was no internet to watch them. I rode one test, for Hilda Guerney, a big deal at the time. I was never a very good rider, and my horse, at 15.3, wasn’t a big girl. But I was, and am very passionate about music. I did a Kur, that I designed myself, and, had I been able to ride better, it would have been fabulous. But I was thrilled to be able to perform it in front of the local crowd. Hilda wrote something very nice about the footfalls to the music, which was a bit generous. I don’t remember what she said about my actual ride, as we flopped around the arena. Whenever I hear the music, even today, (a movement from Beethoven’s 9th,) I remember that ride.
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
