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

[xQHDQ]

We are at a crossroads. Do we want to raise the quality of riding at recognized shows OR do we want to be more inclusionary.

Raising the qualifying scores for anything - FS/moving up/rider medals/all-breed awards/etc - will drive people away. If I don’t think I can get the score, I’m not going to show. And, yes, I may come out showing a year later better than I was after getting more lessons, but that’s a whole season where my money is NOT going into the dressage community pot (I would be putting a good percentage of my $ towards lessons anyway).

Showing for us amateurs is supposed to be fun. Period. Going for awards is part of that fun. For some people, freestyles are part of that fun. If that is taken away, what’s the point of showing recognized? Stepping out of our comfort zone and moving up a level is part of the journey, but without an obtainable goal, it gets discouraging. I know many an amateur at training, first, or second who is trying to get to Kentucky and the only way they can is by doing a FS (I am hoping to be in that boat next year). Having that chance, to show at regionals and nationals, is a big deal to someone who does this on weekends as a hobby (ok, obsession, but you get my point).

Personally, I think we hurt ourselves in the long run if we do not try include more people in our sport. The more people who contribute (including finanacially), the better for everyone.
On the flip side, we should be careful to avoid score inflation - a 60% should mean a 60%. This will keep standards up.

[TMares]

@pluvinel

Well…my answer is yes.

The AQHA has about 400,000 members and the USDF has about 30,000 members.…based on numbers, one can say the AQHA is a bit more successful at attracting people…perhaps USDF can take a page from their play book.

The USEF High Performance Division has strict qualifying requirements for international competition. The people who play in that sandbox are NOT the group of people who make up the bulk of the USDF membership…so perhaps USDF should learn from AQHA and cater more to its member base and less trying to be a mini-me of USEF.

Agreed!

In AQHA-land, you DO have to qualify for the World show. You do NOT have to qualify for Congress (no pun intended LOL), for the Dixie National, etc.

If people want to ‘throw their money away’ (my words) and get scored accordingly, so long as the check doesn’t bounce, who cares??? I have silly dreams of doing one to a Sting mash up. I think it would be fun and if it’s terrible, close your eyes

[Sticky_Situation]

@SaddleFitterVA

Only for USEF, from the 2018 FEI Dressage rule book

The scale of marks is as follows:
0 Not executed
1 Very bad
2 Bad
3 Fairly bad
4 Insufficient
5 Sufficient
6 Satisfactory
7 Fairly good
8 Good
9 Very good
10 Excellent
All Half marks from 0.5-9.5 may also be used both for movements and the collective mark, at the discretion of the judge.

Because Sufficient was not sufficiently negative or punitive enough for the “we only want HIGH scoring horses and riders to grace our dressage rings” crowd. USEF/USDF had to make that Marginal.

Interesting! I didn’t realize that it only changed for USEF/USDF (and USEA, because I event)
… I guess I assumed that it, like most things, had trickled down from the FEI.

They must have wanted the lower-level amateurs to be fully aware that their mediocre riding and $1500 OTTBs and Arabs are not, in fact, sufficient :lol:

[atlatl]

@pluvinel

Well…my answer is yes.

The AQHA has about 400,000 members and the USDF has about 30,000 members…based on numbers, one can say the AQHA is a bit more successful at attracting people…perhaps USDF can take a page from their play book.

The USEF High Performance Division has strict qualifying requirements for international competition. The people who play in that sandbox are NOT the group of people who make up the bulk of the USDF membership…so perhaps USDF should learn from AQHA and cater more to its member base and less trying to be a mini-me of USEF.

I too have pointed to AQHA as the world’s largest breed registry and certainly a very successful business model. That said, USDF is not the same as AQHA. USDF is not a breed registry, and actually is more inclusive in that there are not breed restrictions for the vast majority of programs/classes. I don’t see the AQHA business model, overall, as being applicable to USDF.

The AQHA is not concerned with bringing people up through the ranks to represent the country on national teams. Yes, I know that technically that is the USEF, however, there are many more USDF shows than CDIs.

Perhaps things have changed, but my ancient experience with AQHA was that one needed a certain number of points to qualify for the World Championships. Points were awarded based on the number of horses that you beat in a given class. There was a minimum number of points needed for each class/division and anyone with enough points could pay their money and go to OK City. If there were many many entries, the number of points for that particular class was increased the next year to make it harder to qualify.

In my years showing AQHA, I saw people “filling” classes with horses that were not competitive just to increase the entries so the winner would get more points. I was asked to fill classes, when I declined, I was told that I’d be sorry when I needed “help.”

I prefer the USDF model where you aren’t showing against others, you’re showing against yourself and awards like medals are based on your individual performance, not your performance relative to others.

While there have been discussions of declining participation/membership at USDF, I don’t think the organization is on the verge of collapse so given the very different missions, I think that there are selective lessons to be learned from AQHA and lowering the bar isn’t one of them IMO.

[SnicklefritzG]

Ding ding ding!!! We have a winner!!!

@Sticky Situation

Interesting! I didn’t realize that it only changed for USEF/USDF (and USEA, because I event)
… I guess I assumed that it, like most things, had trickled down from the FEI.

They must have wanted the lower-level amateurs to be fully aware that their mediocre riding and $1500 OTTBs and Arabs are not, in fact, sufficient :lol:

[atlatl]

@Sticky Situation

Interesting! I didn’t realize that it only changed for USEF/USDF (and USEA, because I event)
… I guess I assumed that it, like most things, had trickled down from the FEI.

They must have wanted the lower-level amateurs to be fully aware that their mediocre riding and $1500 OTTBs and Arabs are not, in fact, sufficient :lol:

Are you suggesting that mediocre riding on any horse is sufficient?

[SnicklefritzG]

Agree 100%

i think raising the qualifying score is easier for USDF compared with examining the judging standards and looking at what the judges are actually doing.

@xQHDQ

We are at a crossroads. Do we want to raise the quality of riding at recognized shows OR do we want to be more inclusionary.

Raising the qualifying scores for anything - FS/moving up/rider medals/all-breed awards/etc - will drive people away. If I don’t think I can get the score, I’m not going to show. And, yes, I may come out showing a year later better than I was after getting more lessons, but that’s a whole season where my money is NOT going into the dressage community pot (I would be putting a good percentage of my $ towards lessons anyway).

Showing for us amateurs is supposed to be fun. Period. Going for awards is part of that fun. For some people, freestyles are part of that fun. If that is taken away, what’s the point of showing recognized? Stepping out of our comfort zone and moving up a level is part of the journey, but without an obtainable goal, it gets discouraging. I know many an amateur at training, first, or second who is trying to get to Kentucky and the only way they can is by doing a FS (I am hoping to be in that boat next year). Having that chance, to show at regionals and nationals, is a big deal to someone who does this on weekends as a hobby (ok, obsession, but you get my point).

Personally, I think we hurt ourselves in the long run if we do not try include more people in our sport. The more people who contribute (including finanacially), the better for everyone.
On the flip side, we should be careful to avoid score inflation - a 60% should mean a 60%. This will keep standards up.

[ladyj79]

Fwiw there are real open classes at aqha shows where you can show any breed, so nope, still way way more inclusive.

I’ve said on other threads, primarily ones devoted to griping about horrible awful people jumping tiny jumps badly at shows wasting everyone’s precious (paid for) time with their badness and…low jumpingness that I’m 100% pro inclusion, more classes, more riders, more horses. It’s better for every part of the industry to be more inclusive and provide more opportunities.

[Belowthesalt]

@atlatl

Are you suggesting that mediocre riding on any horse is sufficient?

I think she’s suggesting that the TPTB would prefer that we just go away with our less than $$$$$ non-purpose bred horses and stop cluttering up the dressage arenas with them.

[atr]

Really, I think this talk of “score inflation” is absolute, unmitigated tosh.

The reason scores have improved over the past few years is because people actually are riding better through better education, and are mounted on better quality horses. Judges aren’t handing out bouquets for crappy rides at the shows I go to and have been going to for the past 15 years. If anything, I think the judging has become a bit harder.

The USDF should be proud of this fact. I really don’t understand why they don’t get it.

Out here in the dressage hinterlands, the standard has improved immensely–15 years ago, much of what you saw was barely recognizable as dressage and it was a pretty rag tag collection of horses on the whole. It must have been painful to judge, and I could win a training level class handily with a 61%.

Nowadays, a 65% will still win you most classes above training level at a recognized show, and it won’t be a cringeworthy ride, either (and I suspect that’s the same pretty much everywhere in the country.) It’s still rare for any class above first level to have more than 6 riders in it.

Freestyles are not my bag, but other people really enjoy the opportunity to put them together and it gives them another class to enter (and pay for) and work towards. There’s usually 5 or 6 at every one of our recognized shows.

I’m fully aware, as I attempt to climb the levels and my classes get smaller and smaller, exactly who is paying for my privilege of getting to ride in front of a decent judge.

We don’t have much in the way of schooling shows to go practice at so we have to bring our awfulness out into the horrified gaze of the public (all three of them, who are usually friends/parents/spouses anyway) rather earlier than those of you who are on the coasts.

[atlatl]

@ladyj79

Fwiw there are real open classes at aqha shows where you can show any breed, so nope, still way way more inclusive.

Fact check: All classes at AQHA shows are limited to horses registered with AQHA. The “open” means that anyone with an AQHA or AQHYA membership can enter them. Source: AQHA.com

I suspect what you meant is that AQHA shows are sometimes run in conjunction with other events.

[ladyj79]

@atlatl

Fact check: All classes at AQHA shows are limited to horses registered with AQHA. The “open” means that anyone with an AQHA or AQHYA membership can enter them. Source: AQHA.com

I suspect what you meant is that AQHA shows are sometimes run in conjunction with other events.

Eh, what I mean is that many state quarter horse association shows offer open/all breed classes at their regional/state sponsored shows. These are shows where yes you can compete your aqha horse for aqha points but also very frequently at many of these shows compete in open/all breed classes and divisions. No, not for aqha points, but for various other things sponsored by that regional aqha club.

so I wouldn’t really call it running in conjunction with other events, because it’s the state clubs at their own shows offering open/all breed classes and divisions.

[Sticky_Situation]

@atlatl

Are you suggesting that mediocre riding on any horse is sufficient?

Only at the FEI levels :winkgrin:

Seriously though … I don’t see the need to have higher qualifying scores to ride a freestyle, unless it’s a championship class or something (or the shows are totally flooded with freestyle entries to the point that they can’t accomodate everyone). There is no safety or horse welfare issue — yes, I realize it’s detrimental to the horse’s long term training to perform movements incorrectly, but let’s face it, riding a Second Level test without true collection doesn’t cause the horse any distress.

I am not personally satisfied with mediocre riding, and try to continuously work to improve … but I also feel that if a mediocre rider wants to do a freestyle, I would just let them ride the damn freestyle.

Dressage is great and very useful, but it takes itself way too seriously sometimes.

[pluvinel]

@Sticky Situation

…

Dressage is great and very useful, but it takes itself way too seriously sometimes.

Only the dressage powers that be…

Or else someone(s) are confused as to the role of the USDF…whose stated 501©3 purpose is “Education”…NOT competition…

Since the USDF is a member supported organization, I would like to know where are all the members that are clamoring for increasing the qualifying scores???

Or is someone(s) driving a personal agenda?

I suggest people vote with their wallets and not renew memberships.

[atlatl]

@pluvinel

Only the dressage powers that be…

Or else someone(s) are confused as to the role of the USDF…whose stated 501©3 purpose is “Education”…NOT competition…

Since the USDF is a member supported organization, I would like to know where are all the members that are clamoring for increasing the qualifying scores???

Or is someone(s) driving a personal agenda?

I suggest people vote with their wallets and not renew memberships.

Fair enough point about education, I stand corrected. However, you don’t get promoted in the education system without mastering the prerequisites. Competition can be viewed as the practical exam.

We are in complete agreement about voting with our wallets.

[lorilu]

@alibi_18

I know I’m supposed to be angry but I’ll respond to this because it is interesting.

I spoke with judge Francis Verbeek about this last year. She wasn’t too thrilled because it got complicated for the scribe and the judge who didn’t know the test enough in advance and it ensued a bit too much talking back and forth to make sure everything was followed/there/the right thing. The usual sheet is quite easy to follow. Floor plans are apparently like regular tests, and when you don’t know the test kinda by heart, it’s more complex to follow. I once had to read a Para test for a judge (didn’t have another copy of the test) and write comments at the same time… Not doing that ever again if I can avoid it.

How it works : http://www.dressageheadlines.com/articles/dressage/value-new-grand-prix-freestyles-degree-difficulty-dod

https://inside.fei.org/system/files/FEI%20Freestyle%20System%20Degree%20of%20Difficulty%20(DoD)%20Appliance%20Guidelines.pdf

Degree of difficulty assessed - how to : http://dressagefreestyle.fei.org/data/pdf/Creator-Manual.pdf

If this is something people would want to do at the lower levels, it would need to be done in a « professional/standardized » way like it is at the FEI level and that would probably bring some extra costs or fees.

Isn’t this for FEI competitions - like CDIs? Not general USEF/USDF shows?

[alibi_18]

@lorilu

Isn’t this for FEI competitions - like CDIs? Not general USEF/USDF shows?

Yes, as stated in my post.

I was answering MsM’s #66 post on this thread.

[SnicklefritzG]

Excellent idea.

@pluvinel

Only the dressage powers that be…

Or else someone(s) are confused as to the role of the USDF…whose stated 501©3 purpose is “Education”…NOT competition…

Since the USDF is a member supported organization, I would like to know where are all the members that are clamoring for increasing the qualifying scores???

Or is someone(s) driving a personal agenda?

I suggest people vote with their wallets and not renew memberships.

[yaya]

@NJRider

I have a question to those wanting to be able to enter a show and ride their freestyle for fun and there not be a minimum score requirement to enter. Why not ride HC?

Because riding HC means (basically) riding without your score counting. You still have to follow all rules, such as for equipment, drugs, and qualifying for the class.

[MsM]

Are shows really overrun with crummy freestyles at the lower levels? If not, I don’t see the need for any qualifying there. Let people enjoy creating a ride to music even if they get low scores. If the riding is so bad as to amount to abuse, then the judges have to DQ and explain why. Otherwise it seems like a good way to promote participation.

As for the show being a test and not an educational opportunity - for many people it must be both. When we are stretching our horse dollars, the opportunity to get feedback from qualified people is part of the appeal of riding at a show - freestyles included.

If they must, I guess I could see having qualifications at the higher national levels, though I would still argue that a 60% is plenty there. We only want to assure a baseline competence - that they can produce most of the movements called for. If a pair is barely scratching by at 3rd but have a creative, musically interesting freestyle that highlights their best qualities, we should celebrate that!