spin-off: Leveling the Playing Field in Dressage

[pluvinel]

In the Fla. lawsuit thread the issue of “level playing field” in dressage was brought up. So what would you do?

We can look to NASCAR where the organization has tried to standardize cars to supposedly judge driving ability. NASCAR requires restrictor plates to limit horsepower, standard body configurations, etc.

What would you do to level playing field in dressage?

• We could have breed specific, like "WB Only" classes?
• We could have rider swap horses to show trainability?
• Since bling trots are the gait du-jour, how 'bouts we limit by height?

Even then, there are people who are willing to skirt the edges of the explicit rules....google Smokey Yunick.....

(I was going to post a link, but the board would not post)

[alibi_18]

@pluvinel

In the Fla. lawsuit thread the issue of “level playing field” in dressage was brought up. So what would you do?

We can look to NASCAR where the organization has tried to standardize cars to supposedly judge driving ability. NASCAR requires restrictor plates to limit horsepower, standard body configurations, etc.

Did it worked?

What would you do to level playing field in dressage?

• We could have breed specific, like "WB Only" classes? [B]How would this be fair? Which breed would go to the Olympic? And people would scream that tests aren't suitable for X breed anyway... so we would need more test and it would become a feud between breeds... which we've been trying to avoid for decades...[/B]
• We could have rider swap horses to show trainability? [B]They stopped doing this at WEG because it was dangerous and the liability too big. Not fair for the horse... I mean, you try to build a relationship with a horse. Doesn't mean because you cannot ride someone else's horse perfectly after 5 minutes that you aren't a good rider... Some horses need more time to adjust.[/B]
• Since bling trots are the gait du-jour, how 'bouts we limit by height? [B]Limit by height of?!? The swing of their legs?!? You're gonna videotape each ride or put rulers all around the arena's sides?![/B]

Even then, there are people who are willing to skirt the edges of the explicit rules....google Smokey Yunick.....

(I was going to post a link, but the board would not post)

I really don’t see how it’s not playing level when the rules are the same for all.

Find a horse, ride and show. Get scores. Win.

The rest is life.

[dotneko]

I think a ‘limit’ system might be helpful. Have a class called ‘everyone who has never scored a 62% or above or won more than 3 blue ribbons’. Like a baby green hunter class.

[Manni01]

I have been thinking about it…It is kind of tricky… This weekend I rode in a class with 3 people, 1 AA, 1 JR and 1 open… Everybody got a blue ribbon. Ok great that everybody got a blue ribbon BUT imo they could eliminate them… In Germany if you get a blue ribbon in a class out of 25 people thats something… but in a class of 1 ???

I read the rules for Dressage Seat Equitation and they give out pins for Rider awards. And they have 3 levels. One for scores in the 60s, one for scores in the 70s and one for scores in the 80s… (don’t remember the exact scores required but something like that) I think thats a neat idea. So maybe cancelling the open, AA and Jr division and go for classifying according to scores received?

[mvp]

@alibi_18

Did it worked?

I really don’t see how it’s not playing level when the rules are the same for all.

Find a horse, ride and show. Get scores. Win.

The rest is life.

Not true… at least thanks to selective breeding.

Look, gaits play an enormous importance in producing scores, particularly at the lower levels. The idea, of course, was that these were a demonstration of the horse’s excellent training, riding and conditioning, not the breeding goal or acumen behind him.

Back when I was a kid, the dressagists told me that each horse was judged against a rather pure standard, and one dictated by the limits of his build. So the judge would evaluate just how well the, say, downhill little AQHA or tight-backed Arabian was moving, given his type. The goal was to produce a horse that used his particular body to the utmost.

There is nothing wrong with selective breeding that produces a better-moving horse, or one whose build makes it easier for him to do the job. But if that is so, we still need to be able to parse out the “nature” from the “nurture” in that animal.

Insofar as the vast majority of the people putting money into this sport are riding at those lower levels where gaits have such a big value, it seems fair to me that the showing industry give them Fair Sport. After all, why should any of those players feel an affinity for a project like, say, funding an Olympic team when those at the top of the sport allow their own level of competition to work against them? I, for one, will not pay to be treated badly or carelessly and I don’t think anyone else should, either.

[mvp]

@dotneko

I think a ‘limit’ system might be helpful. Have a class called ‘everyone who has never scored a 62% or above or won more than 3 blue ribbons’. Like a baby green hunter class.

I think the “limit” divisions done by score are a fine idea.

Most folks want to come and compete (as well as get the judge’s comments so that they can see how their training is doing… at least on that day.). So make it an actual competition! Why not?

[TwoRoads]

To me a level playing field means everyone has to follow the rules, use approved equipment and no performance enhancing drugs. Our sport is different from most because it involves an animal, something you can’t really regulate for fairness. But the horse itself is an athlete, it’s about the team. If you look to pro football or basketball teams they pay for the best players they can afford, and subsequently their programs do better the more money they spend, then more people go to their games, then they get more money in return. Now if I were a football player I would just have to be realistic about the level of competition I could partake in. Maybe I’m not even good enough to make a high school team, or maybe I could play in college but pro is outside of my skill level.

If my horse and I aren’t good enough to play on a national level then so be it, that’s where our “team” is. Maybe we’re at the go to a schooling show level, or the recognized competition but not regional championship level. Maybe we just aren’t good enough to move up to 2nd level. But that doesn’t make the competition itself unfair, people are just flat out not good enough to compete on every single level. Whether that has anything to do with how much you spend on your horse it doesn’t matter. Either you are competing at the level you should be competing at and are competitive or you are stretching it and competing in a class where you just aren’t good enough to be competitive yet. And this will be cyclical, maybe you were killing it at 1st level, but now at 2nd level you are placing last. Doesn’t mean you don’t belong there, just that you aren’t good enough yet to be competitive at that level.

So if you want a fair playing field put yourself where you actually belong. If you aren’t placing in the top don’t blame the folks at the top, decide whether you are good enough to be competing with these people at the top, and maybe you need to take a step back, who cares if you can actually do a half pass and a flying change? that alone does not make you a rock star 3rd level pair. Remember you can score an 8 on every movement which only means good and get an 80%, not even very good, just plain old good. At 70% you are still only fairly good, and 60 is satisfactory. Some people think satisfactory should be enough to win, others like myself would like to see people winning these classes who are actually good. I think its a more positive experience for the horses and riders when you can come out of a test and say, that was good. And yes you need to challenge yourself and your horse, but doing so when you are only satisfactorily completing the requirements below your new level? That sounds like a recipe for an unhappy athlete to me. /rant.

[pluvinel]

Just to be clear…I am NOT advocating “leveling the playing field.” I started the thread to separate from the horse selling/fraud thread as this was a separate concept.

I am an AA but compete Open classes as I want to be judged Open, to be judged with the top performers.

Back in the Dark Ages, Bruce Davidson was reported to have said something along the lines of (my paraphrase) “getting first in an amateur class was being the best of the worst”…or some words to that effect.

As far as the NASCAR analogy, Smokey Yunick had a penchant bending the rules. He said he’d never do something illegal, but if it wasn’t in the rulebook, it was fair game.

So think what people would do in dressage to game the system…and it ain’t pretty…unfortunately, there is a living animal involved.

It is my understanding that Valegro cost 4,500 British Pounds, or about $6,000USD.

[AZ_TD]

@mvp

I think the “limit” divisions done by score are a fine idea.

Most folks want to come and compete (as well as get the judge’s comments so that they can see how their training is doing… at least on that day.). So make it an actual competition! Why not?

I think this can be done now, just have to get show management put it prize list. Back in the old days you could offer a breed specific class in a dressage show as long as an open class was offered, thus you could have arab only or TB only classes.

[Manni01]

@TwoRoads

To me a level playing field means everyone has to follow the rules, use approved equipment and no performance enhancing drugs. Our sport is different from most because it involves an animal, something you can’t really regulate for fairness. But the horse itself is an athlete, it’s about the team. If you look to pro football or basketball teams they pay for the best players they can afford, and subsequently their programs do better the more money they spend, then more people go to their games, then they get more money in return. Now if I were a football player I would just have to be realistic about the level of competition I could partake in. Maybe I’m not even good enough to make a high school team, or maybe I could play in college but pro is outside of my skill level.

If my horse and I aren’t good enough to play on a national level then so be it, that’s where our “team” is. Maybe we’re at the go to a schooling show level, or the recognized competition but not regional championship level. Maybe we just aren’t good enough to move up to 2nd level. But that doesn’t make the competition itself unfair, people are just flat out not good enough to compete on every single level. Whether that has anything to do with how much you spend on your horse it doesn’t matter. Either you are competing at the level you should be competing at and are competitive or you are stretching it and competing in a class where you just aren’t good enough to be competitive yet. And this will be cyclical, maybe you were killing it at 1st level, but now at 2nd level you are placing last. Doesn’t mean you don’t belong there, just that you aren’t good enough yet to be competitive at that level.

So if you want a fair playing field put yourself where you actually belong. If you aren’t placing in the top don’t blame the folks at the top, decide whether you are good enough to be competing with these people at the top, and maybe you need to take a step back, who cares if you can actually do a half pass and a flying change? that alone does not make you a rock star 3rd level pair. Remember you can score an 8 on every movement which only means good and get an 80%, not even very good, just plain old good. At 70% you are still only fairly good, and 60 is satisfactory. Some people think satisfactory should be enough to win, others like myself would like to see people winning these classes who are actually good. I think its a more positive experience for the horses and riders when you can come out of a test and say, that was good. And yes you need to challenge yourself and your horse, but doing so when you are only satisfactorily completing the requirements below your new level? That sounds like a recipe for an unhappy athlete to me. /rant.

I agree!!! I admit I got a blue ribbon this weekend in the AA class, because I was the only one, but still I am not really proud to earn a blue ribbon… Ok it was a first time at a rated show in that level and I came fairly close to my goal, but I still missed it I don’t think I earned a blue ribbon…

[ToN_Farm]

How many AA-only classes do you all see? Here in area 1, the only time I see AA-only classes are at the large shows. What’s more, AA’s in the same class with Open are not generally pinned separately here. The only advantage then to being an AA is if you are trying for some year end award.

Any kind of restricted classes are probably not a good idea because there are so few entries in most classes. Again, except for big shows (and training/first level) there are usually only 4-5 people in the class and often less.

[Scribbler]

It’s tricky because the horse as well as the rider is the athlete, whereas in other sports it is human athlete plus gear. It is easier to ban a certain type of equipment across the board than it is to ban a certain type of athlete. No one wants to put a height limit of 5 foot 10 inches (modern average height for men) on basketball players!

There is no “level playing field” in respect to the aspects of a sport that rely on physical ability, and in riding the physical ability of the horse matters, in the end, almost more than the human’s ability (proof being that an international level rider might not make the Olympic team in a year when their top horses have all gone lame).

There is no level playing field in any horse sport, if you mean that the lower level horse can go in and realistically compete against the better horse. There are efforts to do so, for instance TB racing tends to divide up in tiers based on the quality of the track, and then have multiple classes with all kinds of restrictions. Hunters have a series of green classes. Having show classes split between AA and Open is supposed to accomplish this, but of course as everyone points out, there are deep pocketed AAs out there who buy a high end horse, have it completely under the care of a BNT, and just get on to pilot it, and would probably beat most smaller trainers who are riding project horses.

So really the quality of the horse is the single biggest factor in whether you are going to get ribbons in any horse sport. Its true that the giant gaits of the top WBs skew dressage towards effectively being a breed show, but even if you stopped weighting giant gaits so strongly in the marks, there would criteria. If there was more emphasis placed on collection, that would make riders of Andalusian horses happy, and might put some QH in the arena, but it would still favor horses with natural collection.

So I don’t really have an answer.

OK, I see now that OP wasn’t really thinking levelling the playing field was possible so maybe all this is off topic.

[pluvinel]

@Scribbler

…

OK, I see now that OP wasn’t really thinking levelling the playing field was possible so maybe all this is off topic.

OP posted the thread to see what the rest of the world thought about a “level playing field” in dressage…

My feeling is that competition is just that…competition…eg., you compete…eg., you get as good as, or BETTER, than the current competitors…and voila, you win!

And money does give any competitor an advantage…access to top machinery, to better equipment, to training…and in dressage, to top horses.

So obviously, no one has anything to worry about from me.

[Tanny98]

I think it’s about as fair as anything else in life.

[lorilu]

Sigh. Once again. We all know that different breeds have different abilities. My breed of choice the Lusitano generally does not have the big swinging walk and extended trot but can really collect. If I expected to win the blue over an equally well trained WB I would be continually disappointed.
The secret to “Success” in Dressage is to COMPETE AGAINST YOURSELF. That is all.

(No one suggests that tall gymnists have special competitions because they are at a disadvantage. No one suggests the less-than- graceful iceskater have a separate competition because they cannot do the triples. Compete at the level where your training is secure. Look to improve your scores - demonstrating that you are in fact improving your horse’s way of going. Be happy.)

[Gloria]

Dressage levels already lend themselves to leveling the field. I am not sure any further division is beneficial.

[Training_Cupid]

@TwoRoads

If you look to pro football or basketball teams they pay for the best players they can afford, and subsequently their programs do better the more money they spend, then more people go to their games, then they get more money in return. Now if I were a football player I would just have to be realistic about the level of competition I could partake in. Maybe I’m not even good enough to make a high school team, or maybe I could play in college but pro is outside of my skill level.

**Subject to salary caps or luxury tax

Lol, poor choice of comparison because most pro sports do try to create parity. That is why they have salary caps, or drafts where the worst teams get to pick first.

[Halt_Near_X]

You could go nuts trying to create a “level” playing field, until people were winning blue ribbons in the “Paid Less than $5,000 For Their Horse, Rides No More Than Three Times A Week, Has Trainer Ride No More Than Two Times Per Month, Has Never Scored Over 65%” class.

But in all seriousness, at least in my area I don’t see the need for leveling. My theoretical options for showing next year (and I’m in a pretty decent area, so I know not all areas have all options):

1. Rated shows. Do I want to compete in regional qualifiers, stick to regular classes, or go for opportunity classes?
2. Schooling shows.
3. Chasing Year End Awards from my GMO (at rated or schooling shows)
4. Chasing USEF Year End Awards
5. Chasing All Breed Awards
6. Showing at Breed Shows
7. Chasing horse or rider achievement awards through USDF
8. Chasing horse or rider achievement awards through my breed organization

…

Somewhere among all those options I’m sure I can find something I would be reasonably competitive at and/or have a solid chance of achieving recognition at.

I don’t really think the powers that be need to protect me from competition. I can level myself.

[Scribbler]

@Tanny98

I think it’s about as fair as anything else in life.

The difference with sports is that you compete on such a thin slice of skill and performance. You can be world champion shot put based on what, a 30 second toss? The rest of life can be pretty competitive but you get to bring a package to the table and to work in real time. Arts academia politics all only let a few people suceed but you can bring your own blend of originality social skills and dillegence and create your own unique profile. Whereas in sports everyone is competing to do exactly the same thing just incrementally better than the others. I don’t know if it’s more or less fair or unfair compared to real life, but sports are definitely more narrow in scope. Indeed riding sports are more complex than a lot of other things like sprinting or swimming or even cycling.

[Manni01]

@Gloria

Dressage levels already lend themselves to leveling the field. I am not sure any further division is beneficial.

so you would also eliminate the open and AA divisions?? I would actually because the rules for being an AA are IMO not ok… I mean you can earn a living by selling horses and be an AA but you cannot get sponsored by a company for a skin care product… for me thats not understandable… And I agree the levels are leveling enough