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

[netg]

That would make more sense if… it were required to qualify your freestyle for regionals, not a change to what you need to qualify to ride a freestyle.

[skydy]

@netg

That would make more sense if… it were required to qualify your freestyle for regionals, not a change to what you need to qualify to ride a freestyle.

Yes, it would.

I really don’t understand why this rule would be rushed through, without consulting the membership, as if it is some sort of emergency.

[ladyj79]

Obvs bad low level freestyles == horse abuse.

or would the 60-62.9 merely be insufficiently sufficient?

[JenEM]

@ladyj79

Obvs bad low level freestyles == horse abuse.

or would the 60-62.9 merely be insufficiently sufficient?

My mare has been trying to convince me for years that doing dressage is horse abuse and going to jump over all the things is much better for her. Apparently the USDF thinks so, too.

[pluvinel]

@skydy

Yes, it would.

I really don’t understand why this rule would be rushed through, without consulting the membership, as if it is some sort of emergency.

Because in the past the membership has objected to qualifying rules…and awareness of the proposed rule thru popular media got going a popular action that managed defeat the proposed rule. It was the proverbial coup d’etat.

I guess TPTB decided they don’t like the smurfs actually having their voices heard and decided to go underground.

[skydy]

@pluvinel

Because in the past the membership has objected to qualifying rules…and awareness of the proposed rule thru popular media got going a popular action that managed defeat the proposed rule. It was the proverbial coup d’etat.

I guess TPTB decided they don’t like the smurfs actually having their voices heard and decided to go underground.

I have a feeling they are going hear about it nonetheless.

[Belowthesalt]

It’s truly amazing that they seem to have no grasp of the issues the average non-FEI track amateur has in this country - the size of the country; the lack of instructors - almost totally in some areas; the large distances many have to travel to get instruction or to show. This isn’t Germany where the “average” horse is a WB, there is a well-founded program of instruction, moderate distances for travel0, less expense to show, and no lack of instructors. Sigh.

[lorilu]

I would really suggest that members from those wide open underserved areas ` COME TO THE CONVENTION. Do not expect your PM delegate or your GMO delegate to make enough noise. GMOs get votes based on size - and the small GMOs in underserved areas don’t get many votes. THe giant regions get more PM delegates and the giant GMOs get more votes -
If you want to change the system/rules, you must be willing to play the game - play the system - by the current rules!

[lorilu]

https://www.usdf.org/about/about-usdf/governance/ Proposals to be discussed…

[pluvinel]

@lorilu

https://www.usdf.org/about/about-usdf/governance/ Proposals to be discussed…

That’s the whole USDF Governance site…where do they specifically address the issues for the convention?

[atr]

I will be there, Lorilu. And I will be asking some questions.

[skydy]

@netg

https://www.usef.org/forms-pubs/xEtj…ffective-12118

See page 119 which does in fact indicate that it is an “extraordinary” change.

There is “contact information” listed on that page. I am not familiar with the process, but would an, or many, email(s) to that person be effective in conveying disapproval of the new rule and the process used to have it enacted?

[SnicklefritzG]

Yes!!! It is an emergency!!! Someone in Germany laughed at the Del Mar incident !!! The USA has been shamed!! Now something must be done!!! The USDF must allow the score cutoff to increase!! Oh it has already? YES!!! the USA is now serious about the sport!!!

:lol:

QUOTE=skydy;n10240578]

Yes, it would.

I really don’t understand why this rule would be rushed through, without consulting the membership, as if it is some sort of emergency.[/QUOTE]

[Cowgirl]

@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.

Its a personal agenda of many judges who themselves do not want to change, but who also only want to judge the WEG or the Olympics. So, no, I am not blowing my retirement on a horse to please you, but I will continue to train on my own.

[Cowgirl]

@skydy

Yes, it would.

I really don’t understand why this rule would be rushed through, without consulting the membership, as if it is some sort of emergency.

It was slipped through, without the membership’s comments.

[Cowgirl]

@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!

And I would argue that by saying that a “satisfactory” score of 60 is not sufficient to qualify for a Freestyle, then their numerical system is meaningless. In other words, they don’t really mean that a score of 6 is “satisfactory”, in fact they think it sucks and that a score of 6.3 is required to move past borderline. They are actually changing the scale, whether they intend to or not. So don’t plan to bring your “6” mover to any shows: you are going to need several 7s to move into the satisfactory category now.

[SnicklefritzG]

As the “Nerd Herd” discovered, the USDF is not interested in statistics or any kind of numerical analysis. The USDF is threatened by it.

Edited to add the following:
What is the harm in allowing people to qualify for a freestyle with a 60% on the highest test of the level?
-Are there so many freestyles now that shows can’t support all the people between 60% and 62.999% who want to be added?
-Is there a problem with adding more entries to the show, entries that help pay for the judge(s), the TD, etc?
-Is there a problem with gathering more fees for USDF?

Is there an overcrowding at regionals or nationals such that freestyle rides are a problem?

I don’t see any justifiable reason for changing the qualifying score unless the USDF wants to make it look like they are being tougher in order to not lose face. (thinking Del Mar and other stuff like that)

@Cowgirl

And I would argue that by saying that a “satisfactory” score of 60 is not sufficient to qualify for a Freestyle, then their numerical system is meaningless. In other words, they don’t really mean that a score of 6 is “satisfactory”, in fact they think it sucks and that a score of 6.3 is required to move past borderline. They are actually changing the scale, whether they intend to or not. So don’t plan to bring your “6” mover to any shows: you are going to need several 7s to move into the satisfactory category now.

[Cowgirl]

@SnicklefritzG

As the “Nerd Herd” discovered, the USDF is not interested in statistics or any kind of numerical analysis. The USDF is threatened by it.

But this is exactly why so many of us are confused by the judging the last few years and are now opting out. If you can’t count on the scale to mean what it says, then what is the point? The message seems loud and clear to me: average movers no longer welcome to play. Now I don’t really have an average mover (mine averages a 7), but I liked that someone could take an average mover and train it beautifully and win. Now they can’t, because they will score less than an unschooled idiot beating her international GP schoolmaster through a test crookedly…

[SnicklefritzG]

I can totally understand people opting out. I’ve considered that as well.

Even more so now I think doing well with a horse who’s not a fancy WB means selecting the right judge to show under. That doesn’t mean picking “easy” judges, but picking ones who are fair.

Marilyn Payne is one judge who comes to mind. She is tough but fair. I’ve shown in her ring and found her to be fabulous because she uses the entire scale, gives helpful comments, and rewards correct and tactful riding. It isn’t just about a fancy WB with 7-8+ gaits. Lisa Schmidt is another one of those types of judges.

Then there are judges who I’ve seen given most people very low marks, marks that are statistically different (and lower) than other judges but who will award very high marks (high 70 to low 80’s) to horses who are clearly amazing movers. These are judges for whom the scores feel like a bimodal distribution, as in super fancy horses in one narrow group and everybody else in another broad group, with not much in between.

@Cowgirl

But this is exactly why so many of us are confused by the judging the last few years and are now opting out. If you can’t count on the scale to mean what it says, then what is the point? The message seems loud and clear to me: average movers no longer welcome to play. Now I don’t really have an average mover (mine averages a 7), but I liked that someone could take an average mover and train it beautifully and win. Now they can’t, because they will score less than an unschooled idiot beating her international GP schoolmaster through a test crookedly…

[Cowgirl]

Again, confusing! I have also found a wide disparity of judging which makes it nearly impossible to know what is expected unless you keep a black book on the predilections of judges!