spin-off: Leveling the Playing Field in Dressage

[Manni01]

For me leveling the field does not mean to protect any breed or gait quality or non quality. For me it would be to give every ride the same chance to participate. And IMO right now it is not. Right now there are limiting factors for some riders. One really important one is money. Money can buy you bit gaits, good trainers and ability to pay all the fees. I think everything else is not really important… If it would be more affordable, more people could compete. Some of them probably switch to Western Dressage because of frustration.

And after I learned that the fees cannot be reduced I think maybe changing the AA status would help. There are people who need to work in the horseindustry in order to make some money to afford riding and showing. Right now these people have to start in the open class which might give them tough competition, because there are the trainers riding these extremely expensive horses bought by the rich AAs… So I still think I would remove the AA and Openstatus and divide classes by a ranking system. You can earn points by scores in classes. I am sure there is a way to do it. And then everybody can ride against riders on the same level… in each level

[Janet]

I am going back to the original post, but I have to address this

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.

Restrictor plates were introduced for safety, not “fairness”. The engines were producing more power than the tires could handle, and there were some pretty dramatic accidents due to tire failures. The restrictor plates fixed that problem. But it was nothing to do with"leveling the playing field"

The “body configurations” goes back to the very founding of NASCAR, which was the bootleggers racing the cars they used to outrun the revenue agents. The founding premise is that they are “hotted up” production cars. The “body configuration rules” are lip service to that original premise, and nothing to do with “leveling the playing field”.

[KayGee]

@Gestalt

When western dressage first came to my area I was thinking why on earth do we need another form for showing. But I see the attraction now, I wonder how many years it will take before this form gets tainted by money.

Yes!
Optimistically, I hope it doesn’t get tainted because it’s given so many a competitive avenue and a drive to develop better communication with their horse. Would be a shame, but I can see it happening easily.

[netg]

@Core6430

The trend toward flashy movers means a lot of the basics can be covered up for a long time. It’s not until you need those basics for the more upper level work that you suddenly realize why it was so important. A lot of those owners either never get to the level where you realize what’s missing, or they hand over the horse for the trainer to train up (why even own the horse then?)

See, I don’t think that flashy movers hide the lack of basics. I think they get scored as if the flashy movement is hiding things - bonus point for flash. At the same time, I have seen judges REALLY reward correct, even at the World Cup. And both correct and flashy, if given in one presentation, tend to win every time.

@exvet

I agree with you for the most part and you sum up a lot of what I’ve seen over the years as well. It’s not just the issue of a trainer’s capabilities training horses it’s also their ability to teach riders and influence them to push themselves as hard or harder than the horse. Neither are easy. I think that many people who train and/or teach are capable for a certain type - a certain type of horse and a certain type of rider. There are few, though they do exist, who have a broad range of skills that adapt to all walks of life be it beast or person. I agree that the onus is on the rider for improving and achieving their goals and what’s holding most back isn’t the horse. I’m not sure I agree that all or even the majority need a better trainer. What I see that most need are more realistic expectations and a willingness to actually work on themselves - put more sweat equity into improving their fitness, their ability to feel and react, their flexibility, etc which doesn’t mean throw more money at it; but, it usually does mean throwing more time, commitment and a willingness to accept some of the pain tat comes with it too. I see decent riding instructors/trainers who provide correct instruction, it’s just the audience doesn’t seem to embrace it or are challenged to apply it and effect change.

I basically just quoted this because of the comment on expectations. It’s a good post and I agree.

I think that the scoring rewarding incorrect flash is an issue and causes unrealistic expectations at times too. Perhaps judges shouldn’t only be commenting on what happens in the ring like they are currently taught - but start to be encouraged to comment on correct/incorrect work and overall impression. There are lots of rumors and negative impressions about every trainer around if you ask the right people, but having a judge who is an impartial observer may well be able to help get things a bit more clear for someone who doesn’t understand they aren’t being taught the basics they need.

Of course, there are also different opinions on which basics you need at what point. I stood next to a trainer as her client was riding a test, and she said she was going to work on a specific part of the student’s riding to help the pair do better showing (I think during a 1st level test), then commented that SHE (the trainer) had not yet learned that until she reached PSG.

@MysticOakRanch

I wouldn’t penalize a talented horse - I would just not put SO MUCH emphasis on one aspect (gait quality), and put more emphasis on quality of the overall work/training. The changes in dressage judging have occurred in recent history - and are most likely marketing oriented, to drive up the prices of the fancy moving Warmbloods that come out of northern Europe. A talented horse and talented rider still have the advantage if we put less emphasis on gaits, and more emphasis on training.

I think the emphasis needs to be on correctness. Through the whole body. I agree that some rewarding gait quality is a positive - because gait quality DOES improve with training and work. Just not as the only influences of which decade of percentages you fall within.

[right_horse_at_the_right_time]

I like blue ribbons, and I post that sh!t all over Facebook. I didn’t “earn it?” um…I think I did, when I paid my entry fee, took my horse over, got on, and halted and saluted twice.
It means I showed up. However you want to interpret showing up… That’s fine. But for me, I showed up is enough.

[xQHDQ]

@right horse at the right time

I like blue ribbons, and I post that sh!t all over Facebook. I didn’t “earn it?” um…I think I did, when I paid my entry fee, took my horse over, got on, and halted and saluted twice.
It means I showed up. However you want to interpret showing up… That’s fine. But for me, I showed up is enough.

Showing up represents all of the hard work that went on at home, and should be celebrated. Sometime showing up is half the battle. Sometimes it’s the whole battle.

[right_horse_at_the_right_time]

@xQHDQ

Showing up represents all of the hard work that went on at home, and should be celebrated. Sometime showing up is half the battle. Sometimes it’s the whole battle.

Exactly <3.

[MysticOakRanch]

Someone posted a 2nd level dressage test from 1975 in one of the groups I belong to. Very interesting to see how much the tests have changed over the last few decades.

In the 70s, 2nd Level test 1 was performed in working gaits (not collection), there were lengthenings and the rider posted 2 of the 3 trot lengthenings. There was no counter canter, no simple changes (changes through the trot), and the only lateral work was SI at the walk. There were 10 meter circles at trot and canter.

There was mention of regularity of the gaits and maintenance of rhythm in the lengthenings. Nowhere did the directives discuss “quality” of the gaits, just regularity. Compare that to today’s directives, where every single movement includes quality of the gait.

The changes I see over the years - more and more emphasis on “quality” of the gaits (correspondingly, less emphasis on quality of the actual movement), and harder and harder dressage tests from a technical standpoint. I went through the L Program about 10 or 12 years ago, and audited it just a couple of years ago - and in both those programs there was much emphasis on QUALITY of the gaits - reach, scope, elasticity, impulsion. No longer just purity and regularity. Of course, the judges still look at more then just the gait quality, but reality is, if you start with an 8 mover, you start with a higher score. If you start with a 6 mover, you start with a lower score. The focus of the sport HAS changed.

Having said all that, I still think the overall quality of horses, riding, and judging has improved tremendously. But I think the shift toward “gaits first” is making this an elitist sport. And honestly, that isn’t going to bring in sponsors, show entries, and volunteers. That may not be an issue in Europe, which really does “drive” the rules through the FEI, but here in the US, it is an issue.

[pluvinel]

Interesting points…my comments embedded below…

@MysticOakRanch

Someone posted a 2nd level dressage test from 1975 in one of the groups I belong to. Very interesting to see how much the tests have changed over the last few decades.

In the 70s, 2nd Level test 1 was performed in working gaits (not collection), there were lengthenings and the rider posted 2 of the 3 trot lengthenings. There was no counter canter, no simple changes (changes through the trot), and the only lateral work was SI at the walk. There were 10 meter circles at trot and canter.

I would say that at 2nd Level, there should be no “collection.” You want a horse that has a very forward “go” button…thus the working gaits. The SI at the walk is appropriate to educate the horse. This is the way I have been shown to introduce the SI because at the trot, you get into tension when the horse does not have the ability to engage…thus why you start at the walk.

There was mention of regularity of the gaits and maintenance of rhythm in the lengthenings. Nowhere did the directives discuss “quality” of the gaits, just regularity. Compare that to today’s directives, where every single movement includes quality of the gait.

So, who is to say what is “quality” of the gaits? The “regularity” of the paces is a dimension of the quality of a gait. Right now you are seeing “bling trots” being rewarded where the diagonal pairs are not parallel. Is that “quality?” It might be interesting to see the rulebook from the time that test was written.

Per the US rule book
The quality of the trot is judged by general impression, i.e. the regularity and
elasticity of the steps, the cadence and impulsion in both collection and extension. This quality originates from a supple back and well-engaged hindquarters, and by the ability to maintain the same rhythm and natural balance with all variations of the trot.

The quality of the canter is judged by the general impression, i.e. the regularity
and lightness of the steps and the uphill tendency and cadence originating from
the acceptance of the bridle with a supple poll and in the engagement of the hindquarters with an active hock action - and by the ability of maintaining the same
rhythm and a natural balance, even after a transition from one canter to another.
The horse should always remain straight on straight lines and correctly bent on
curved lines.

Nothing in the quality of the trot does it explicitly say 2-beat rhythm and canter a clear 3-beat rhythm.

The changes I see over the years - more and more emphasis on “quality” of the gaits (correspondingly, less emphasis on quality of the actual movement), and harder and harder dressage tests from a technical standpoint. I went through the L Program about 10 or 12 years ago, and audited it just a couple of years ago - and in both those programs there was much emphasis on QUALITY of the gaits - reach, scope, elasticity, impulsion. No longer just purity and regularity. Of course, the judges still look at more then just the gait quality, but reality is, if you start with an 8 mover, you start with a higher score. If you start with a 6 mover, you start with a lower score. The focus of the sport HAS changed.

Agreed…it used to be a test of training where a horse with exceptional gaits got a few bonus points in the collective marks. Right now, the focus of the dressage test…as is being taught in the L-program…is not a focus on training but on the horse’s gaits.

Having said all that, I still think the overall quality of horses, riding, and judging has improved tremendously. But I think the shift toward “gaits first” is making this an elitist sport. And honestly, that isn’t going to bring in sponsors, show entries, and volunteers. That may not be an issue in Europe, which really does “drive” the rules through the FEI, but here in the US, it is an issue.

Agree.