Raleigh results - FEI Y/H scores

Again, the entire focus of the scoring is VERY different from the USEF scores. A USEF test may have 17-25 movements in it and each movement is scored - some with coefficients.

The Young Horse Tests have 5 scores: Trot; Canter; Walk; Submissiveness; and Overall Impression. 5 scores, five scores; FIVE SCORES!!!

The only way a movement affects the test is if there is so much tension that it is just not done properly. The movements are used to showcase the gaits, elasticity, freedom of movement, relaxation and brilliance of the horse, not to be used against the horse.

The resultant scores of a USEF Test run, generally, from 50% - 70%, with some higher and some lower. In order to be competitive, the Young Horse Test scores need to be in the 7.8 - 9.5 range. These would be based, for example, on scores of: Walk 9; (relaxed, swinging, good reach/overstep, rhythmic, regular), Trot 8.5; (even, regular, relaxed, forward, rhythmic, balanced), Canter 8.8; (uphill, bounding, rhythmic, balanced, even, regular, expressive), Submissiveness 8.7; (momentary loss of attentiveness, showing a bit of resistance picking up right lead canter), Overall Impression 9.2; (this is a horse we would all like to ride (said by Hilda Gurney at one test), shows true quality, has most of the basics down really well, shows brilliance with relaxation, shows good balance and ability to sit and collect at upper levels) Final Score: 8.84. The sum of the individual scores divided by 5. No coefficients. No comments about the individual movements by movement. If you converted this score to a percentage, the horse would theoretically score 88.4%, but that’s not really done. The scores don’t have the same meaning. If the gaits are good, the judge needs to reward them.

If the horse has resistance problems, or balance problems and/or strength problems that is reflected in the submissiveness and/or overall impression. If the gaits are good, and pure, the gait scores should reflect that. A momentary sucking back or teeny shy in a very windy arena should not be reflected in the gaits scores. It it continues, it will be reflected in the submissiveness score. A score of 6.4 does not equal a score of 64% in a USEF test and is not something to rave about. A score of 9.5 is a great score, but does NOT translate to a score of 95% in a USEF test.

And there are more tactful ways to tell people that they have problems. Hilda Gurney, at the same show where she said, “This is a horse that we would all like to ride, with wonderful gaits” went on to discuss the problems by saying that, “Unfortunately he is lacking in his basic training to the point where he has balance issues.”. That shows a good horse with a problem, while still respecting the rider. After all, sometimes an owner insists that the horse be shown in certain classes.

I didn’t suggest you suggested, YankeeLawyer. I made a general comment.

“Top horses that aren’t going to Verden”

It’s pretty much de rigeur.

Tiki said:
“Young Horse Test scores need to be in the 7.8 - 9.5 range. These would be based, for example, on scores of: Walk 9; (relaxed, swinging, good reach/overstep, rhythmic, regular), Trot 8.5; (even, regular, relaxed, forward, rhythmic, balanced), Canter 8.8; (uphill, bounding, rhythmic, balanced, even, regular, expressive), Submissiveness 8.7; (momentary loss of attentiveness, showing a bit of resistance picking up right lead canter)”

Tiki, where did you get this information? This is the type of direction what I was looking for when I attended the USDF university program. What would be the descriptor for an 8.0 trot? What if the horse has a 9 trot for half of the test and an 8 trot for the other half? Do they get an 8.5? What other positive descriptor would be added for a 9.5 canter?

Even if all of the scores “need” to be in the 7.8 - 9.5 range (which I don’t think is true, you see scores in the 6s from Germany all the time), that is 16 scores the judge needs to choose from (a bigger number of choices than 0-10). I 'm not sure it is possible to express in words the difference between these scores. I get the feeling that this might be something that is passed down by word of mouth in judge training in Europe, because scoring a gait is done in many venues, like stallion testing and mare testing, such that a person aspiring to be a judge has the opportunity to see hundreds of horses scored and it gets imprinted in their brain.

Yes, you see scores in the 6’s, but those horses don’t get to the BuCha or the WCYH. Unless the mature later, they probably also don’t make it to the FEI levels. The cutoff to qualify for those used to be 8.0, I’m not sure what it is this year. Probably right around there. For this year, in the U.S. the qualifying score to go the the WCYH was 8.2. Only one horse made it. If the horses are scoring consistently in the 6’s, they’re either not ready for this level. I’m not a judge, so I can’t answer all your questions on some of the fine points, but these are examples of some of the types of comments I’ve heard on the better horses at some of the shows. They are very different from what you hear/see on USDF tests. The focus is just entirely different.

I’m the first to say I don’t have the answer, but I do think at this point the Young Horse program is in the developmental stages - sure, we may have some pairs already competitive at the international level, but I think nurturing the horses, the riders, the owners, the whole program should be a focus of current activities.

“Things we must learn before doing, we can only learn by doing them” is an Aristotle quote I hear often enough from my coach. Getting some riders and owners and trainers to Verden even if they won’t win “this” year is part of the puzzle. Creating pairs who won’t be blown out of the water once there, or in the qualifying classes, is another part.

I’m not saying “judges, round up!” or “c’mon everyone, enter these classes!” but creating a situation where riding the tests can be an educational experience rather than a humiliating one seemsl ike it would be a wise investment in our future.

[QUOTE=slc2;3263957]

I wish ALL our national tests were judged exactly how the YH tests are judged. I love seeing the exhuberant forwardness of the YH horses, ‘submissiveness’ means something very different in there and I think it’s right. We got several tapes of the YH championships in Europe and it was really stunning. I think that’s how horses should do the lower level tests![/QUOTE]
Oh god, I hope not. These YH shows are NOT dressage!!! You yourself said that potential is being judged. That is not a directive of a real dressage test! The YH shows are not judged on horses’ training, but on flamboyance. All of the “minor” errors which these tests ignore are what prevent these from being real dressage. In an actual dressage test, you are going to be marked down for disobedience, spooking, tenseness, impure gaits.

OK, I just went back over the scores for one of the horses in the 5 y/o classes. The horse in question was Ronatella S. I chose her because she had a very good score from her previous outing, and good scores Sat/Sun at Raleigh. I mentioned this in an earlier post, but I think it reflects a really good indication that apparently SOMETHING wasn’t right at Raleigh in the Friday classes.

Ronatella’s score from Atlanta (April):
8.22 (judges Ludwig and Hastings)

Her scores from Raleigh:
Friday - 6.76 (judges McDonald & Colliander) :eek:
Saturday - 7.86 (judges Fore, Zang, Gribbons)
Sunday - 8.0 (judges Fore, Zang, Gribbons)

Again, I wasn’t at Raleigh, but I’m guessing she was one of the horses that had a really tough time relaxing in the indoor on Friday, and she got heavily penalized for it by the judge. It looks as though by Saturday, she had started to sort things out a bit, and had more forgiving judges - and the scores reflected that. By Sunday, she was apparently REALLY getting things under control.

The sad part is that, going into Raleigh, she was either in first or second place in the national rankings for the national championships in KY (don’t have the previous list in front of me). Only the Friday score from Raleigh counted toward the national rankings list for KY, and that low score bumped her down to #16 on the new rankings list.

I would submit that her OTHER scores are a truer indication of the quality of horse and rider, so it is doubly a shame that under the current system, ONE bad outing at a tough venue under an overly critical judge can affect the rankings so much. Luckily, the qualifying period for KY runs through Aug. 15, so hopefully her owner will be able to get her out to a few more qualifying competitions over the next few months to get her average back up. I don’t even know the mare or her owner/rider, but she sounds quite lovely and probably very deserving of getting an invite to KY in September.

Guidelines for Judges

Some good information here including what’s a 6, 7, 8 etc (hard to believe no one has posted it yet after 6 pages!)…

http://www.usef.org/documents/international/dressage/youngHorse/New2007YHGuidelines.pdf

I think you are always going to have a tough judge here and there…that’s the sport. But you have to put faith in the fact that two S judges (min) are required to judge these tests. Often they converse regarding your horse through the entire test, discussing what scores to give. So I think a lot more thought and effort goes into the five scores. The program isn’t right for every horse or every rider and the judges certainly don’t want to see those that it’s not right for!

Perhaps the system should require more shows and allow one drop score. Every horse has a bad day and/or maybe just lousy judges. And I don’t think they should have have regional championships - just go with the scores from all the shows they showed at up to a date. The problem with regionals in this country is the travel distance. We could very well have excellent candidates in remote areas of the US but they don’t have a chance if they don’t travel to these Regionals - which in some cases might take days and cost a bloody fortune.

This would also encourage more people to enter the classes at the shows they can easily travel to and give the horse/rider combinations more experience riding these tests in front of a variety of judges.

There should be a minimum number of scores but at least 6.

JMHO - but this would make more sense to grow the program and bring more people and there horses into the process.

[QUOTE=ise@ssl;3268859]
Perhaps the system should require more shows and allow one drop score. [/QUOTE]

The rules DO provide for a DROP SHOW. It is on the USEF site - the minimum # of shows required is 2, if you have more than 2 your lowest 1 will be dropped.

Right, the rules allow for one drop score as long as the horse has at least two other scores from official qualifying competitions. At the moment, Ronatella only has two scores from qualifying competitions - the Atlanta score of 8.22 and the Raleigh score of 6.76, giving her an average of 7.49.

Knowing Joe and Helen I would be willing to bet they get to another show before the qualifying period runs out.

[QUOTE=honeylips;3269214]
Knowing Joe and Helen I would be willing to bet they get to another show before the qualifying period runs out.[/QUOTE]

I hope so, she sounds like a very nice mare. I don’t know where their home base is, but if they are convenient to the VA shows, there are a few more qualifiers coming up this month and next in Leesburg and Lexington.

The regionals are only mandatory for horses trying to qualify for the World Championships in Verden. They aren’t mandatory for the National Championships in KY. For the NC, horses only have to have two qualifying scores of 7.2 or higher from two different official qualifying competitions, and they have to be ranked in the top 20 of their age group at the end of the qualifying period. Ronatella’s score from Raleigh doesn’t even meet the criteria, so she HAS to get at least one more qualifying score to have a chance of being invited to KY. Too bad her Sunday score from Raleigh didn’t count!

Also, I’m guessing the reason they went to regional championships for the Verden hopefuls is so Scott Hassler has a chance to see and work with all of them. There is no way he could get to every qualifying show around the country. And a minimum of 6 scores is not really practical - there aren’t enough qualifying competitions in many regions.

Ronatella/Joe Sandvens home base is Fletcher, NC. www.tantalusfarm.com
Joe is a veteran of the FEI YH world and represented the USA in Verden back in 2003 with Rachmaninoff. He certainly knows his way around the FEI YH circuit and is a fine rider.

Well I don’t see the connection of having Scott work with the people and broadening the # of people participating. We have a huge country here and we probably have a lot of good riders with great horses who could qualify to go to Verden but logistics - nixes that. Having more scores required - i.e. 6 minimum and NO regional would make more sense. I don’t see why recognized shows can’t add the classes. Even 4 makes more sense than 2.

Having someone work with a horse/rider combination at a show when they haven’t worked with them before isn’t going make a huge difference - at a show - IMHO. Having more people involved and familiar with the focus and scoring process makes it more likely on a probability basis that we will have more horses with a final qualifying score.

[QUOTE=ise@ssl;3269438]
Well I don’t see the connection of having Scott work with the people and broadening the # of people participating. We have a huge country here and we probably have a lot of good riders with great horses who could qualify to go to Verden but logistics - nixes that. Having more scores required - i.e. 6 minimum and NO regional would make more sense. I don’t see why recognized shows can’t add the classes. Even 4 makes more sense than 2.

Having someone work with a horse/rider combination at a show when they haven’t worked with them before isn’t going make a huge difference - at a show - IMHO. Having more people involved and familiar with the focus and scoring process makes it more likely on a probability basis that we will have more horses with a final qualifying score.[/QUOTE]

I imagine that Scott’s main purpose is to work with the riders and horses that may or are going to Verden. I know he was working with some (all - ?) of them at Raleigh. And I believe he will also be at Nationals to work with those horses and riders.

I still think there is too much focus on Verden with this program. There are no doubt a heck of a lot of good young horse/rider combos around the country that have what it takes to be very successful in the Y/H tests but who have no desire to go to Verden - or maybe have the desire, but not the financial means. They need to make the program more user friendly for those that are aiming for the NC but not the WC, and for those that don’t even care if they go to the NC but just want to move through the program.

just fyi – there are not that many qualifiers (re: suggesting 4 or 6 scores total)

i live in south carolina – despite 3 months left, my only remaining options after raliegh in my region to get another score were to drive 8 plus hours to florida (in the summer, nuts!), or out of the region and 7 hours to virginia…or 14-16 hours to new york :eek:

most of the south east qualifiers were in florida during the florida season – but how many young horses are going to lay down their best test that early in the season?

and for those of us that don’t travel to florida for the winter season the options are limited – i had exactly 3 shows within “reasonable” (6-7 hr) driving distance at any point this year, april atlanta, may raliegh, and july virginia (and i think there was a poplar in georgia i had a conflict with)-- it was that or nothing if i wanted to get in 3 shows. there is no way i could get to another qualifier and keep my job and sanity

I couldn’t choose 3 shows in the summer when my horse was most likely to be ready, I started in April before I could reliably lay down a finished test because if i didn’t show there then i wouldn’t have a drop anyway.

btw
for YH NC qualifying, i don’t think you have to have 2 scores over 7.2, the text reads
“and maintain an overall average of 7.2”
so ronnie is still eligible for kentucky with no more shows…although at least in 2006 a 7.48 wasn’t high enough to get invited as a 5 year, and though each year the #20th horse’s score has been higher than the previous year, that may be different with the change in the qualifying shows this year

its funny
so many people argue that the young horse classes promote over showing and pushing young horses, then others argue that there should be a larger number of scores required to qualify which implies going to more shows, putting more travel miles on the horses, more stress, etc.

just additional food for thought

There is nothing to stop the USEF from having more qualifiers. I don’t think people should have to drive great distances to be able to qualify their horses - if you read my earlier post you will understand that I feel the program DOESN’T encourage people to participate simply by the logistics for showing.

JMHO but the people who do qualify their horses to go to Verden are usually people who either have their own coaches and trainers or have enough experience to get there on their own.

It’s great that there’s a coach at the finals but I’m wondering if the current program of symposiums and clinics is working. If you look back - we may have more entries but we certainly aren’t getting more horses to qualify.