<<Janet pointed out that it would be hard to reconcile this with the current practice of hunter judges to judge “comparatively”, placing one horse against another as they show. Well, maybe (?) that would be a good thing.>>
I keep pointing out (when this subject arises) that it really doesn’t matter whether judges use a system that compares performances to each other, or compares performances against a standard…the result will be the same. Performances are seldom equal in quality–and so whether a horse is getting XX% out of 100% or whether a horse is somewhat better or worse than the other horses in the class being judged, the result won’t change. The only thing that might change if a numerical comparison against a standard is used is that a performance in one class might be fairly compared to a performance in another class. However, that’s only if one judge’s idea of perfection is identical to another’s.
I like Weatherford’s idea as it was explained this time. Such a system would have to be tested thoroughly before it’s put into use; there are bound to be unanticipated consequences, and it certainly would take some getting used to…technologically, it would not be so simple as merely getting scribes to sit with judges.
One reason such a system works well in the dressage ring is that the rides are scheduled, and the day is tightly scripted. Not the case at a busy multi-ring hunter show, with back to back rides. When horses enter the ring at the rate of 2 min per trip, the trip itself lasts only about a minute or so…an experienced judge evaluates each jumping effort, transcribes what occurs, asseses each trip in comparison to the rest, ranks each trip and is ready to begin the process again–all within that two minute window.
Using a numerical scoring system that requires a communication with the announcer (who may be busy with results at another ring, or announcing these) slows this process a little…(one reason why numerical scoring is presently popular only at larger shows and mostly for “Classics” with a dedicated announcer). Weatherford’s system would require even more communication, and as she points out, more personnel to carry out.
I would not dispute that it might be easy for all to understand, and fair. But the pace of the shows that use it would be affected, and I doubt that the number of entries presently accomodated could be served. These aren’t reasons not to suggest it or not to use it, they are just realities that would have to be taken into consideration.
In the short term, I think JustJump’s list of suggestions might be more practical, particularly the reference to changing the courses, as I stated on the Patty Heukeroth (sp?) letter thread. Right now, only one particular type of horse (quiet, good jumper, big mover) is desireable. Change the courses, and it opens up the possibility that a wider variety of horses could be competitive. That’s not lowering the standards, it’s opening up the standards, and that in itself would diminish the importance of a little headshake or a bit of play. If these are diminished, maybe the incentive to use medications to enhance performance would diminish as well, and selection of horses could be made with more attention to temperament and jumping ability from a larger pool of candidates (mostly quiet, good jumpers, big or not so big movers).
MCL
, and some completely unrelated ‘incidents’. That’s why I’m reluctant to have individuals discussed before the terms of their sentencing are clear. Just because people are being set down at the same time one can’t assume that they’re being set down for exactly the same thing. I, for one, like to make distinctions.
(I have a former jumper who loses most of her hunter style after the first roll back) In any case, all sections of juniors at AA (and A?) shows have to have one handy hunter class. The workings rarely have them, but they can be found at Devon and WIHS.
Not trying to start a fight with anyone. I’m surprised that dex has not been moved to the reporting list as it’s use is not always focused on its anti-inflammatory properties.