I’m new to all of this, and more likely focused on eventing than dressage, and wow, reading this thread, why do I want to join USDF again??? My new horse is lovely and knows her stuff (in fact I need to catch up with her as she’s schooling 1st and 2nd level dressage and I am… not.) But… she’s a 15 hand Palomino Morgan, and with USDF focused so much on the upper levels, she’s a “nobody.” Her sire has competed in open USDF shows, but his owners are switching their focus to eventing. I think I can have more fun and spend less money and get less attitude going to open schooling shows if I am going to show her in dressage.
Quietann, that’s what’s so sad about this whole trainwreck.
If Star is right and 60% is becoming the new 50%, then the DC is slowly and methodically killing off the All Breed Awards Program. What is the point? Let the WBs score at the top with 70%, 80%: who cares? But let the non-dressage breds participate in learning dressage as the TRAINING SCALES of gymnastic development and not as a GAITED CONTEST.
[QUOTE=ShotenStar;3062568]
Jill
The numbers from our sample were:
Level… N…Mean
Training…1954…62.316
1st…1585…61.739
2nd…888…60.591
3rd…690…60.198
4th…453…61.313
PSG…274…60.339
Intermediare…157…60.122
GP Version B…64…59.116
Just a reminder: this was sample from 1 Oct-30 Nov 07; for the analysis, we used only scores earned in Open classes. Therefore, these numbers represent about 20% of the total population of Open classes for a year.
Yes, I see a choke point coming at 2nd lvl, with an even bigger drop-off at 3rd and above.
I also see 60% becoming “the New 50%”, and lots of whining in future years that scores in the 70s are needed to advance.
star[/QUOTE]
I am curious. How did you chose your "n"s?
Clearly, the "n"s go down with each increasingly harder level but with your 20%, was that accross the board or did you use a higher ratio of riders in the upper levels?
If you really were able to get about 20% of all riders at each level and it was a non-biased sample, doesn’t the data show that people are doing a great job of policing themselves in terms of moving to the next levels? At least in open classes?
So, can you elaborate on how sampling occurred?
Actually, it is kind of amazing how consistant the average scores are level to level. I like that you used mean and not average (it might be interesting to show average too -that would show a lot about spread. An ANOVA type stat test might be interesting -really easy to do too (if the data is in EXCEL and already in a spread sheet). Looking at P values between specific groups would also show whether there is a huge variance between groups.
CA – look in the thread re: Performance Standards … we have an extensive discussion there of where the data came from, how it was analyzed, some of the results, etc, etc, etc. ANOVA, using MinTab, was run, as well a regression analysis on the 2-4 to 3-1 and 4-3 to PSG scores. We have a 41 page paper that discusses our findings, which was distributed to the Dressage Committee. When the next version of the proposal shows up, we will re-run the analysis with it in mind, and see where those results take us. If you want a copy of the paper, email Rebecca (dryount@yahoo.com) and she will add you to the distro list. Put ‘analysis’ in the title of your email.
star
ShotenStar
THANKS!!! I stand in awe of you people (seriously).
It is so nice to see data like this coming out of any venue of the equine world!
[QUOTE=ShotenStar;3071228]
We have a 41 page paper that discusses our findings, which was distributed to the Dressage Committee. star[/QUOTE]
Star, will that paper be available to the public? Or do we already have the essence of the results on this BB.
Yes I second Cielo Azure, you guys are amazing.
The paper will be available for the asking. Send an email to Rebecca (dryount@yahoo.com). Put "analysis’ in the title so she knows what it is about.
We are holding off wide-spread distribution at the moment - waiting to see what the DC comes up with as the next iteration of the rule. If needed, we will update the paper to address the changes. Then everyone can decide for themselves if the rule change works or not.
star
then I’ll wait for the DC also to get their act together, and not create any extra work for RY!
Here’s a philosophical question…
[QUOTE=sm;3070373]
Quietann, that’s what’s so sad about this whole trainwreck.
Originally Posted by ShotenStar
Jill
The numbers from our sample were:
Level… N…Mean
Training…1954…62.316
1st…1585…61.739
2nd…888…60.591
3rd…690…60.198
4th…453…61.313
PSG…274…60.339
Intermediare…157…60.122
GP Version B…64…59.116
If Star is right and 60% is becoming the new 50%, then the DC is slowly and methodically killing off the All Breed Awards Program. What is the point? Let the WBs score at the top with 70%, 80%: who cares? But let the non-dressage breds participate in learning dressage as the TRAINING SCALES of gymnastic development and not as a GAITED CONTEST.[/QUOTE]
QUESTION: Based on the numbers above, ~84% of the rides were 3rd level or below. So, should the USDF cater to the 84% “lower level” majority, or should its goals be focused on the 16% “upper level” minority?
I am totally in for an amateur organization.
Rosinate, 80%+ are lower level, so in my mind for the USDF to spend so much time – and eventually member money – to put in place a monitoring system is absolutely unnecessary and an irresponsible way to spend membership money. And, in my mind, with such a large percentage of members at the lower levels, it perhaps would behoove the organization to focus its energy and attention on education of riders, trainers and judges.
Also, my concern is that the qualifying system is one of perception…it will discourage riders from thinking they would ever deserve to try to ride at that level. Dressage is a challenging enough sport on an individual level; to have a national organization that is suppose to be about promoting and encouraging the sport implying, “No way are you good enough – we’re going to make it difficult for you to even try,” is no way to grow the sport and encourage riders that riding the upper levels is achievable. Good grief, dressage doesn’t cure cancer!
Exactly!
It will discourage people like this:
http://www.dressagedaily.com/2008/dd_200803/dd_20080315-braun.html
unless it somehow separates the Olympic wanna-bes from the rest of us. We have an idea that they should have two “tracks” and apply all the artificial standards they want to people like this:
http://www.dressagedaily.com/2007/dd_200712/dd_20071202-browning.html
(By the way, that’s the President of USDF standing right there–the person who has refused to let us look at simple data). Unbelievable.
It’s inexcusable that the USDF (and specifically parent USEF) don’t understand that the success of riding in Europe is based and BUILT on a system that focuses on correct training and riding at the lower levels to build toward the top of the training pyramid.
HERE the focus seems to be - get as much money from all the levels as possible and dole it out to the riders at the top. So is it any wonder that we have fewer successful and competitive riders at FEI than European countries? We must also note that several of our most successful riders were individuals who were products OF the system in Europe or went to Europe to benefit from that system.
I wish we could see the breakdown of MEMBERS in the USDF and how many actually compeete and non-amateurs by percentage of total.
I really don’t see the system changing in the USDF/USEF. We pay for life horse ID #'s for our horses. Why then do we have to pay for another # for the USDF and the USEA? Well they are rather upfront about the reason…THEY LIKE THE CASH INCOME from this redundent system. Amazing that they can just say to members - we could probably just use your USEF # - BUT WE WANT YOUR MONEY.
Yep - money, money. As an eventer who occasionally rides in dressage shows I am horrified at the amount of money I have to shell out just to compete. Can’t there be a simpler way? I’m in on the new association if you can streamline those forms and costs.
And the underlying (or over-arching) concept of the “little people” having the say again appeals to my sense of fairness. Let them eat cake!
I suspect that we will have to run GMO-like organizations under the new parent, but I am willing to try and get a St Louis one started, when the time comes.
[QUOTE=rebecca yount;3075283]
http://www.dressagedaily.com/2007/dd_200712/dd_20071202-browning.html
(By the way, that’s the President of USDF standing right there–the person who has refused to let us look at simple data). Unbelievable.[/QUOTE]
Referrng to Sam Barrish. Does anyone know who he directly answers to at the USEF, is it the DC? Or does he answer directly to someone higher? Wondering who outranks him, and if he is under strict orders from the DC to not comply. USEF by-laws regulate timely release of data analysis so I doubt he is acting on his own accord.
Ms. Yount, Brava!! Count me in. As a non member of any of our national organizations for a number of years due to total disillusionment and a hearty supporter of riding and improving simply for the joy of doing it, I will support any and all efforts toward you new organization idea.
check out swdressage.org – this is only aimed at holding yearly championships - but of note is that rules specify exactly where the $s are going
