This is just one example. I took a look at the other regions. There are 4 other regions that are either already completed or have ride time available. The only region with entries as small as you saw was 7 - and CDS riders are notorious for not caring as much about the USDF championship classes. Region 1 & 2 don’t have ride times up yet - I don’t know about 1, but I have ridden in Region 2 for years - those classes usually have 12+ entries, often 20+ depending on where it is held.
At the lower levels, freestyles are homemade and costs related are close to none with the techonologies nowedays.
I really don’t understand the need for different freestyles for different footings?!? and rings?!?
Ok for the 20x40 vs 20x60… but apart from that?!!
Make the sport seem foolish. I think this is true of all the rides to music at any level. Some people find it all fascinating and artistic, I have never seen the point of it as riding to music has zero to do with the training of the horse or rider.
The musical ride is still required at GP so there was no sense in my posting that we should get rid of it, but I don’t think musical rides at any level add anything to the sport at all.
It actually attracts spectators, which is very important.
Music is, and will always be, part of the classical horse riding. It’s all about tempo and rhythm. It’s sad that you haven’t figured this out, I have yet to meet a horse who doesn’t love music.
What makes the sport foolish is people who always complain and never propose solutions or actions to improve our sport.
Just because my opinion differs from yours doesn’t mean I’m not allowed to have one. If you think the musical rides are fun, by all means do one, it’s your prerogative, just as it’s mine to not do one because I think they are dumb.
You are allowed to any opinion you may have, but do you have to be condescending and rude about it?
What does it bring you to do so? Are you happier now that you’ve told a lot a people they are stupid?
I don’t understand how it has zero to do with training of the horse a rider. IMO, it’s another way of having to ride an accurate test. Sure, it’s not published on paper by some entity, but if the test is not accurate and mistimed, then it doesn’t work. If the beat and movements are off, you can tell.
I think that they add some entertainment aspect to the sport. I’m not saying they’re hugely valuable and it does come down to personal taste and preference.
Yes and no. Yes, I am an advocate for good riding.
No, because good riding is the result of good training…NOT the result of raising scores.
Which raises a ton of questions about rider access to “good training” (especially if you live in “flyover country”)…it also raises questions about how dressage is being judged and WHAT is being judged…eg., the DelMar case and judge’s responsibility to judge appropriately.
So if “score inflation” is the justification for raising the qualifying score…WHO gives out these scores that have gotten inflated???..and what are the judges" role in inflating these scores?
In my book, judges are abdicating their responsibility to judge appropriately and putting it all on the smurfs.
If dressage scoring starts “with the gaits”…then by definition, dressage will exclude certain types of horses. I just left DaD…and there was one quite spectacular toe-flinger this afternoon…almost Spanish trot…but he got applause from the audience.
I love to watch freestyles and I’ve ridden freestyles up through 4th level. I actually miss the music when I don’t ride a freestyle.
That being said I don’t have an issue with the necessary scores increasing. I actually don’t think that the scores are being inflated I think that the horses are getting better. If you look at what a 6 means it is satisfactory. Needing a score of 63% just means that you have to have received a few 7’s to be considered fairly good.
I guess time will tell if the powers to be have shot themselves in the foot or if we will be seeing better freestyles.
To me, the freestyle is the fun aspect and I don’t think we should limit it. The judges get paid to judge and if someone wants to try a freestyle and is willing to pay their money, they should be allowed to do it. Here, the freestyle classes are so small anyway, I don’t know why they would want to limit them further. Also, a 63 at first level is quite different from a 63 at GP. I think there also might have been some AAs who qualified for nationals at GP freestyle who would not now be able to do that.
In Europe, the qualifying scores are up around 66 or higher, but then they don’t have the limitations that there are for a lot of US members (access to a trainer, access to enough shows, access to schoolmasters, etc.). I don’t think we should be striving for the same qualifying numbers as Europe–we need to accept who we are and run with it.
Also, and just my own little backhand–I’d like to see the people who are making this decision get on and get those qualifying scores from the normal horses that most USDF members have to ride…
What was the score?
Or who was it - in private - scores are up on the website.
Because its toes fling during the extended trot doesn’t mean it shouldn’t win the class either…
Because its toes fling during one movement doesn’t mean its not through its back or engaging its back legs at all during that movement or the rest of its test.
So to say they won doesn’t prove any point you were trying to make.
Good scores technically show good riding/training.
If you get scores below 60%, your training is not satisfactory.
By raising the score up 3 points, I believe, like I said, the USEF is trying to limit freestyles to people who have satisfactory rides more consistently and therefore, are at the right level for their horses.
I’ve seen quite a bit of rides in the mid-high 50% who can, once or twice, reach 60% during a show season.
These riders are not, to me, at the right level or haven’t reached the skills yet for that level. USEF seems to think they should concentrate on their test instead of creating a freestyle they may not be ready for.
Which raises a ton of questions about rider access to “good training” (especially if you live in “flyover country”)…it also raises questions about how dressage is being judged and WHAT is being judged…eg., the DelMar case and judge’s responsibility to judge appropriately.
In the DelMar case the rider was eliminated for the rest of the show.
I saw the ride, saw the score.
It wouldn’t have score high enough to qualify for a freestyle either.
This particular rider doesn’t score much in the 60%.
That’s exactly the type of riders that shouldn’t be allowed to do freestyles for now.
So if “score inflation” is the justification for raising the qualifying score…WHO gives out these scores that have gotten inflated???..and what are the judges" role in inflating these scores?
Judges are trying to be more sympathetic, especially at lower levels and National/Regional shows by acknowledging that not all riders will go to the Olympics.
What is a 6 is satisfactory. I don’t think they lowered the bar so much as it’s the people who believe reaching 60% is sooo incredible.
If dressage scoring starts “with the gaits”…then by definition, dressage will exclude certain types of horses. I just left DaD…and there was one quite spectacular toe-flinger this afternoon…almost Spanish trot…but he got applause from the audience.
So… they should dismiss the toe flinger? I had one like that, it was part of its gait. What was I suppose to do? Punish him for being a toe flinger? Retire from competing?
No, I worked him through its back, engage its hind and trained him like any other horse.
You are saying judges shouldn’t start by judging the gaits and that’s exactly what you are doing.
I don’t want to get into an argument about a specific ride. It is a rabbit hole we can discuss about ad infinitum without an answer.
I mentioned the one ride as it stood out in my mind and as a way of questioning how dressage is being judged and the judge’s responsibilities to judge appropriately.
And appropriately includes judging pure vs broken or irregular gaits.
My point is that judges are the ones that are giving these “inflated” scores that are being used to justify increasing the qualifying score…and the smurfs are left to deal with the fall-out.
I think the USDF decision makers should hold a mirror to themselves and ask a question as to what their mission is all about.
The USE/USEF has a “high performance division” that already has steep qualifying criteria. Why is the USDF ignoring its member base and adding an additional burden to show.
If the judges feel there is crappy riding, and riding is that bad, then give a low score. That is all that is needed.
I think it’s a shame, as someone who has been showing a :eek:Training:eek: freestyle the last two years. I actually thought at one point that the qualifying score was higher, and have a 65% at T3, so I can keep on keeping on, but really, I think raising the score is just making it more difficult to have a little fun in the dressage ring, and isn’t that why most of us do this–for fun? As someone who is mainly a hunter/eq rider who does dressage because it’s good for me and good for my horse, and adds some variety to our show year, I know that with not primarily dressage-specific training we’re capped out at First. Rather than riding the same old tests for years on end, it’s nice to add a little freestyle to the mix, and this year I’ve mainly been doing freestyle and Dressage Seat Eq.
My mare, who I love to bits, is an average mover, and we’re stepping in that ring with a 70% to start with on a good day. I was delighted when we did finally get a 60% at a recognized show at First this year (we’ve been doing 61-62% at schooling shows, and hitting 58-59% at recognized for over a year). With the score raise, I know we won’t get a qualifying score to move up to doing a First freestyle, which frankly takes away some of incentive for me to do recognized showing. I know my teenaged horse is topped out at the level we’re at, and it’s not our main discipline, so why waste the time and money, when I can spend the cost of one class doing a nice GMO show?
And in my opinion, they are judging appropriately.
They are not judging only the gaits, because then you wouldn’t see « regular » horse winning - getting good scores.
My point is that judges are the ones that are giving these “inflated” scores that are being used to justify increasing the qualifying score…and the smurfs are left to deal with the fall-out.
I really don’t see these scores as « inflated », I doubt USEF/USDF really said that…
Scores are less harsh today to actually reflect the quality of the average horse. People who ride correctly will get 6’s. If you add some good moments here and there, 6.5 and 7’s will get you easily that 63%.
Their mission is to promote good training practices and good riding in general.
The USE/USEF has a “high performance division” that already has steep qualifying criteria. Why is the USDF ignoring its member base and adding an additional burden to show.
High performance division isn’t for the member base at all. It’s PSG and up. It’s to qualify for Young rider-PanAm- Short/long listed for other games.
If the judges feel there is crappy riding, and riding is that bad, then give a lowscore. That is all that is needed.
60% is not a high score.
Problem is surely with those who score below 60% consistently and happen to have had a better ride or two… Someone who can get to 63% usually has scores more consistently over 60%.
But anyway, I think it is for the best.
Have a great day Pluvinel.
I almost didn’t get to qualify my FS this year because I started so late. But that was my fault.
And I have yet to do 1-3 without changing out of the counter loop. That means I’ve earned AA QRs in 1-3 with several 4s in my test.
So I suppose 63% is just fine. Or at least lets say moot?
I’m so happy I was able to pull it off though hecause
My FS is the one test that has a chance to be very competitive at Regionals and hopefully Finals.
As for those who think baby FS are a waste of time, then go out to eat or take a nap at the show when the FSs run. No one is forcing you to watch them.
It is the riders decision to pay for a FS.
FS are also harder to ride. But the negative Nancys on this post probably don’t know or care to know that.
As a new member of the USDF (see my thread on “ROad to Dressage Finals” mybFS has given me higher goals and improved my riding.
And after that last halt, when Lilo is smiling and laughing, well, ya just can’t take that feeling of pride away.
Having a judge comment, Great FS. Thank you, it was so fun to watch…
I tend to believe judges appreciate good music with good coreography.
I’m having a great time. And I’m going to stick to it.
While many riders at the top level pay someone to create a Freestyle for them, most lower level riders don’t. Having the opportunity to create a Freestyle at the lower levels allows those riders to learn about what works and what doesn’t with fewer required movements.
With all the questions about lack of entries and how to get more people showing, organizers are unlikely to object to the additional class entries that freestyles bring.
While I think Freestyles are fun to create, to ride and to watch I would not insist that everyone must ride or watch them. Those who don’t like them are equally free to not ride and not watch them and not prevent others from creating, riding and watching them.
63% is more easily attainable than 60% back when the qualifying score was put in place. Having half marks can make a big difference when your horse is producing big sixes rather than little sevens.
[QUOTE=alibi_18;n10238697
I really don’t see these scores as « inflated », I doubt USEF/USDF really said that…
[/QUOTE]
It was on Facebook by one of the key judges leading this crusade. The person also said: “63 is the new 55”. I understood that to mean that today’s 63% is the same ride that would have scored 55% way back when that was the qualifying score to ride a freestyle or championship. If that is the case, then the judges and coaches are not doing their jobs. Why would you mindfeck people by overscoring them and then try to level it by raising the qualifying scores? Then tell them that 60% really isn’t sufficient after all?
