agreeing that every problem out there is the fault of some anonymous person at usef/usdf, that there’s nothing good about qualification, that members are all doing everything they’re supposed to, and it’s all the bad judge’s faults, and if i saw one bad judge out xteen years ago there it’s a universal problem that the usef/usdf should fix and we don’t have to do anything about, and the power mongers at usef and usdf are trying to destroy our happy educational experience, will make you much more popular here. :lol: i tried it the last couple a days and it worked great.
well, if we ban from recognized shows anyone who cannot score over sixty % in their level then the will be very small #s of competitors very quickly
anecdotally I believe that the basic skills of the average rider seen in shows today HAVE improved enormously in the last 10 - 20 years – I think that the midline of the bell-curve has moved to the right WITHOUT any mandates or intervention from above - just more education, better training,…
Hi Anne,
If you look back at previous threads, I think you will find references to large numbers of people comprising groups, including some of the largest GMOs, are against the proposal and the reasons why. You are right, there’s not been an official poll, but I think you can find plenty of references supporting the idea that opposition, for many reasons goes beyond the people on this bulletin board. And I can say for myself that I’ve discussed my thoughts with many more people in person than I have on this board. At the very least, I am convinced that a significant chunk of the membership is opposed to the system (although they are making the system more manageable apparently and I’m very happy for that).
In my opinion, 40% of riders (3% scoring less than 50%, 43-3=40% if the numbers are right) scoring between 50-60% at second level does NOT support a qualifying system, since that presumes that a) there is something monumentally wrong or dangerous about a ride scoring between 50-60% b) no one has a bad day or bad show and most importantly c) the majority of those people scoring in that range are actually planning to move up every year. I still have yet to hear a convincing argument that clearly shows how legislating what level you can ride in at a show as you move up the levels for the first time improves how people ride dressage in the U.S. Maybe it is there but I don’t see it. I see many more important factors contributing to overall bad riding that will never be addressed by showing restrictions.
I am waiting to receive a copy of RY’s report, but if it is similar to the thoughts she has expressed here, I can’t imagine anyone who actually read it and contemplated the data came away with the idea that a qualifying system is necessary. If they did, I would LOVE to have an on-point discussion that addresses the meat of the rationale supporting and opposing the change. THAT is what is missing, IMO. I would be happy to change my mind about the system if someone could convince me it would significantly improve dressage riding, as opposed to dressage showing.
J.
[QUOTE=slc2;3082804]
it has, however, been said many times in the course of these discussions about qualification, that we need a new organization among other reasons, because the judges judge wrongly. they don’t use all the marks, they judge unfairly, they reward bad riders on nice horses with high scores. they reward bad riding on nice moving horses. i am still disagreeing with that.[/QUOTE]
I would agree with your disagree 
My OTTB is living proof of judges judging fairly: he was able to win many times against much fancier imported WBs in the $85,000-$100,000 price range. It was the quality of training the judges rewarded him for.
I had the privelege of showing my boy in front some great judges, their score card comments were often priceless and really helped our training.
[QUOTE=Sandy M;3082805]
For what it’s worth, slc, the worst judge I’ve ever seen is still judging and is a relative of a highly-placed national equestrian organization bigwig. S/he did indeed give good scores to fancy movers, regardless of their performance otherwise. You could look at a class list and place them without seeing the rides if you knew who the rider was (BNT) or if the horse was obviously a fancy mover…
The well-trained good to average movers were/are always low scored by this person (and VERY low score - i.e., 38% for what even most “hard” judges would score in the 57% to 61% range). Now, I will agree that such judges are few, but they ARE out there and USEF/USDF does nothing about them. Perhaps part of the problem is that people have simply given up: They are (rightfully) convinced that lodging a complaint merely paints them as “complainers” or “whiners.” All judges are perfect and fair. Riiiiiiight.[/QUOTE]
That’s out there too. My horse was shown UL by a USEF “R” judge/trainer, so she knew who to avoid. That’s why this is such a slippery slope on setting the Qualifications Standard at something so artibrary as 58%.
I remember once we got a bad judge who didn’t know the rider was also a judge: and ripped my horse and rider apart unfairly (what a score card that was). So, we scratched the next test (also in front of the same judge) so our All Breeds average wouldn’t go down. Not my idea of a good show day. And yes, my horse had consistently shown the same test successfully, so it wasn’t as if he or the rider didn’t know the test.
An “R” judge scribing the test saw my judge/rider afterwards and even told her, wow you really were unfairly scored. My rider/judge shrugged it off–after agreeing of course.
The proposed Qualifications Standard basically is an artifical standard: we should be able to do better.
But remember, for every glass that is half empty, there is a glass that is half-full: If 43% of the riders at 2nd level are scoring BELOW 60 percent, then 57% are scoring ABOVE 60 percent.
When you really get your nose into the data and track individual riders, what you see is that the people getting the less than 60% scores are NOT the ones also riding at 3rd level – riders tend to SELF-REGULATE. Yes, we have all heard stories about Training and First Level riders who rush out to buy a double-bridle – but those riders tend not to show up in the ring … they just admire that bridle hanging in the tack cabinet and dream their dreams.
In every Bell Curve, there will be a portion of the population that scores below the Mean and Median. This discussion about Performance Standards for MOVING UP a level is really not about “the defectives” in the population – those that score below the cut-off threshold or below the Mean / Median. “The defectives” will be allowed to continue to puddle around at whatever level they are stuck at until they finally give up or squeak out sufficient qualifying scores.
The psychological impact of this ‘stucked-ness’ is not being considered (so far as I can tell) in the design of the next version of the proposal. Nor, again so far as I can tell, is there consideration of whether or not THE RIGHT qualifying criteria is being designed. The data we examined showed quite clearly the scores earned at 2-4 are NOT GOOD predictors of scores at 3-1, and that scores at 4-3 are NOT GOOD predictors of scores at PSG (unless you look at the LOWEST 4-3 scores … those did correlate to PSG scores …)
Any qualifying system in any discipline / sport / hobby / breeding / whatever has to be based on criteria that relate to the desired outcome: you don’t approve stallions with crooked legs if the breeding goal is stock with straight legs. The big worry that I have in all of this is that the WRONG criteria will cause damage 5 or 10 years down the road that will be far worse than the current state of no criteria.
star
board behaving badly … duplicate post … sorry
star
[QUOTE=ShotenStar;3083116]
The big worry that I have in all of this is that the WRONG criteria will cause damage 5 or 10 years down the road that will be far worse than the current state of no criteria. [/QUOTE]
Not only is the wrong criteria/standard being applied for a solution: one doesn’t “punish” a rider and hopes the rider will somehow muddle through and figure it all out. What one should do to create an environment for success is provide better tools so rider can learn:
- if the judge should grade a 4 or 5 to get a point across (hey, no pun intended) that more training is needed, then don’t grade a 6
-as someone else posted, long ago and far away, break up the rider’s marks so more feedback is given. I think the sugestion was break it into three sections so specific weaknesses can be addressed rather than all vaguely lumped together.
And further, any system has to recognize the reality that not every rider lives within an hour of a dressage show every weekend.
[QUOTE=SGray;3082882]
well, if we ban from recognized shows anyone who cannot score over sixty % in their level then the will be very small #s of competitors very quickly[/QUOTE]
This is the kind of over-reaction that makes reading the bulletin board conversation difficult to stick with, SGray!:eek:
Who says that folks who can’t score 60 percent should quit? That is not the agenda of the DC, I’m sure!
The issue is that those riders who can’t score over 60 percent with some ease should not be moving up. Shotenstar made a good point that many of these riders probably “self-regulate”, but those aren’t the ones that the rule is aimed towards. I just picked up my latest edition of Dressage Today and thought the quotes from some of the DC members were quite well put.
Axel Steiner said “Most of us know that we often spend 80 percent of our time on 20 percent of the problem.”…“With this proposed system, we are attempting to do the same: 80 percent of the riders are responsible to themselves and their horses. It is the other 20 percent who either feel they are above earthly rules and the Training Scale or are just ignorant. It is these riders that we need to properly influence for the sake of their horses and our sport.”
I hope that the DC doesn’t WATER down the performance standards too much, quite frankly. I agree that riders shouldn’t have to spend a fortune traveling to shows to get qualified, but why on earth would any serious rider (amateur or otherwise) be irritated that they have to prove themselves competent before moving up? I don’t get it.
Personally, I would welcome the challenge and would feel a great deal of personal satisfaction if I am able to get myself “qualified”.
And I would be happy for the horses of those who feel compelled to compete at higher levels when they don’t have the skills to do it well.
Furthermore, I would love for the quality of the riding at the nationally recognized shows to improve so much that it actually attracts more people to the sport.
Who knows if the proposal they will come up with will achieve this, but I am hoping it does.
Raising the bar is good for the sport. That is what matters to me. The sport. Not my personal rights. Not what I think is “fair” (besides…WHO decides what is “FAIR” in life anyway??).
I DO hope they come up with a plan to monitor this qualification stuff that doesn’t cause show fees to increase, that’s for sure!!
anne
If this is, indeed, the true problem statement and goal, then a better form of the standard would be something like: score below X percent in 2 consecutive shows (or from 2 different judges) and you are required to move down a level until you achieve N scores of X percent or better from N different judges.
it would be a devil to administer and track, but it would more directly address the issue of poor riding.
star
[QUOTE=PennyRidge;3083920]
Axel Steiner said “Most of us know that we often spend 80 percent of our time on 20 percent of the problem.”…“With this proposed system, we are attempting to do the same: 80 percent of the riders are responsible to themselves and their horses. It is the other 20 percent who either feel they are above earthly rules and the Training Scale or are just ignorant. It is these riders that we need to properly influence for the sake of their horses and our sport.”
I hope that the DC doesn’t WATER down the performance standards too much, quite frankly. I agree that riders shouldn’t have to spend a fortune traveling to shows to get qualified, but why on earth would any serious rider (amateur or otherwise) be irritated that they have to prove themselves competent before moving up? I don’t get it.
****Because this is a sport. It’s not curing cancer. Obviously on one small part of your point, I do agree. IF the qualification happens because the membership needs/wishes is ignored, I hope it isn’t watered down either because then as members we’ll be paying for a monitoring infrastructure that doesn’t really do anything but put in a qualifying system in place.
Personally, I would welcome the challenge and would feel a great deal of personal satisfaction if I am able to get myself “qualified”.
****Good for you. But for some of us, improving comes from education, not a punitive system and we’d rather see the resources put toward education not punishment.
And I would be happy for the horses of those who feel compelled to compete at higher levels when they don’t have the skills to do it well.
*****Well, don’t hold your breath because a qualifying system won’t fix this. Just watch the warm-up arenas and see the spurring, pulling, whipping (and where IS the TD?!) or peek into stalls where horse’s heads are tied to their sides. This qualiyfing rule won’t cure those ills. (And that’s where I really feel for the horse.)
Furthermore, I would love for the quality of the riding at the nationally recognized shows to improve so much that it actually attracts more people to the sport.
******* Really? And how will a qualifying system do that? By showing people they need lots of money to compete at shows to qualify?
Who knows if the proposal they will come up with will achieve this, but I am hoping it does.
Raising the bar is good for the sport. That is what matters to me. The sport. Not my personal rights. Not what I think is “fair” (besides…WHO decides what is “FAIR” in life anyway??).
I DO hope they come up with a plan to monitor this qualification stuff that doesn’t cause show fees to increase, that’s for sure!!
****Show fees may or may not increase, but you can bet that your membership dues will or that there will be more member fees in some shape or form to pay for this monitoring system. You don’t add more “services” without there being a cost.
anne[/QUOTE]
So for those reasons and many more, I’d rather see the resources (and the costs associated with the qualifying system…and there will be some) going to education of riders and trainers. Perhaps I put too much hope and emphasis on education, but to me that’s what we need to do to help riders understand what is required. Showing is after the fact. Wouldn’t it be better for people to know and learn what is expected BEFORE they get to a show?
My points are in-between the *********
So for those reasons and many more, I’d rather see the resources (and the costs associated with the qualifying system…and there will be some) going to education of riders and trainers. Perhaps I put too much hope and emphasis on education, but to me that’s what we need to do to help riders understand what is required. Showing is after the fact. Wouldn’t it be better for people to know and learn what is expected BEFORE they get to a show?
“Properly influence for the sake of our sport?” I believe that penalizing trainers and coaches of such riders would have a greater influence on our sport than restricting the classes one might enter. But I digress… Honestly, 20% or riders actually feel “above the earthly rules” or are “ignorant”? TWENTY percent of riders? I know very, very few people who truly fall into either category. It is statements like this that make following the logic of the DC difficult.
[quote=PennyRidge;3083920]I hope that the DC doesn’t WATER down the performance standards too much, quite frankly. I agree that riders shouldn’t have to spend a fortune traveling to shows to get qualified, but why on earth would any serious rider (amateur or otherwise) be irritated that they have to prove themselves competent before moving up? I don’t get it.
[/quote]
Again, I will refer you to the many, many threads on this board that more than adequately explain why serious riders are irritated by the rule change proposal. I’m certain that some research on your part will answer a great deal of your questions. Most people, as you have observed, prove themselves competent through their scores or by feedback from their trainer. There is not a need to replicate good scores or bad scores at horse shows multiple times for a rider to understand their competency.
[quote=PennyRidge;3083920] Personally, I would welcome the challenge and would feel a great deal of personal satisfaction if I am able to get myself “qualified”.
[/quote]
This is wonderful for you. Most people also feel a sense of accomplishment when they achieve good scores or qualify for championships.
[quote=PennyRidge;3083920] And I would be happy for the horses of those who feel compelled to compete at higher levels when they don’t have the skills to do it well.
[/quote]
The rule change will not stop this. If you are in the dressage showing business and have students, you likely understand this.
[quote=PennyRidge;3083920] Furthermore, I would love for the quality of the riding at the nationally recognized shows to improve so much that it actually attracts more people to the sport.
[/quote]
The general quality of riding does not attract people to the sport. Accessibility does. If the sport is not accessible, people will not feel as though their money is spent wisely. The membership demographic data in multiple disciplines support this idea.
[quote=PennyRidge;3083920] Who knows if the proposal they will come up with will achieve this, but I am hoping it does. Raising the bar is good for the sport. That is what matters to me. The sport. Not my personal rights. Not what I think is “fair” (besides…WHO decides what is “FAIR” in life anyway??).
I DO hope they come up with a plan to monitor this qualification stuff that doesn’t cause show fees to increase, that’s for sure!!
[/quote]
It is interesting yet valiant that you are willing to throw yourself, your “personal rights”, and “what is fair” on the sword for what you consider to be " the good of the sport". It is very noble of you. In my opinion, there are several very wealthy sponsors who are keeping the sport alive at the highest of international levels. This is great. However, to attract and maintain the demographic who buys tickets to the world cup, who buy the competition and “dressage self-help” videos, who pays most of the membership fees, who keeps the GMOs and the vast majority of recognized shows afloat and usually in the black, the sport must respect the personal rights of it’s membership and to do “what is fair”. This IS “the sport” in America - a thriving sport with ever-increasing membership. Dressage IS building by every account and very quickly relative to other countries, so I’m perplexed why you are so worried about the good of “the sport”. By RY’s analysis, 97% of riders are at least “sufficient” by USDF standards. What is so earth-shatteringly terrible about this??
I’m unfortunately still not convinced that there is a direct link between restricting the level at which someone shows as they move up through the levels and improving overall dressage riding and “the sport”. I am eager for someone to directly explain this.
I am exhausted from all the work that has gone into this and so, I am sure, are Shotenstar and Pluvinel. We appreciate the support we have had from the dressage community. Right now I am feeling pretty misunderstood and misquoted by TPTB. They clearly have connections in the press and while our suggestions as to objective, published articles have been rejected, I am kind of discouraged by the sound of the Dressage Today article. More later, because I need to actually do some of my OTHER work and earn some money. But really quick, I wanted to address one small point:
There were two members of the Dressage Committee at the Region 1 meeting on Sunday, 3/16. Neither one was a judge. One was a very active, well-known, well-respected trainer (and competitor) and the other was a TD who is also in a position of “control” in USDF. Both are VERY influential.
We still don’t have a “draft” and probably won’t until summer. More about that later, too. So we really don’t have an “official” statement of what the Dressage Committee thinks is the “problem”. We are assuming, from other statements and the first draft, that one thing they would like to address, is “bad riding”. This was discussed at the Region 1 meeting.
Among many other things, the trainer/competitor (while wearing his “trainer/competitor” hat and not his “Dressage Committee” hat) who was present said that this qualification rule will NOT get rid of bad riding. He said that he sees as much or more bad riding from professionals as from amateurs.
Again, there was a lot more said than just that. We have extensive notes from the meeting and as soon as we can catch our breath we will try and catch up on those. We definitely got a message of “stop the negative rudeness on the bulletin boards”, by the way. I am not saying that is reality, but that is what people at the Region 1 meeting admonished us for, correct or not.
Alternate Rule Change Proposal
I believe that the issue remains with the judging. TPTB made an attempt to address rider problems in previous years by raising the coefficient on Rider from 2 to 3.
BUT - large but - judges have stated that as long as the horse gets the jobs done, even if despite the rider, they have been instructed that they should give a 6…that 5’s and below only come into play if the rider is grossly interfering with the movements of the horse.
So, that change in coefficient, while well intended, did not have the desired effect. Leading to the current rule change proposal.
Perhaps, instead of raising the coefficient, they might have split the “Rider” section.
Currently: Rider (position & seat; correctness & effectiveness of the aids) X 3.
So – problem to be addressed is bad riding – split “Rider” into two scores, each with a coefficient of 2.
“Rider Connection” (seat, reins, legs) – this part would address bouncing butts, jabbing hands, banging legs, …
“Rider Effect” (use of aids and execution of test) – this part would address the outcome of the test…that the rider knows how, when, where to ask the horse for the various movements.
Instituted for the national level tests this could let judges better pinpoint where problems lay.
THAT is my rule change proposal
[QUOTE=J-Lu;3084543]
Again, I will refer you to the many, many threads on this board that more than adequately explain why serious riders are irritated by the rule change proposal. I’m certain that some research on your part will answer a great deal of your questions.
*****I have no idea how to effectively handle this quoting thing, so I will use Touchstone’s methods withe asterisks…J-Lu, the only rational explanation that I see as to why the system is unwanted is: 1) the fear that folks would have to spend too much money getting to shows when they live in remote areas 2) That it could create too much work for show organizers potentially 3) it will create even HIGHER fees to members.
I think it is quite possible that the DC is addressing these concerns as they revamp their proposal.
The other argument about “fairness” and “personal rights” is ludicrous in my opinion. Who decides what is fair? *************
The general quality of riding does not attract people to the sport. Accessibility does. If the sport is not accessible, people will not feel as though their money is spent wisely. The membership demographic data in multiple disciplines support this idea.
********** The sport will still be accessible. If a person doesn’t have the skill required to qualify at a level that they are just dying to show in…they can still go to a schooling show. They can keep developing their skills if their goal is to show at the big shows. ********************
However, to attract and maintain the demographic who buys tickets to the world cup, who buy the competition and “dressage self-help” videos, who pays most of the membership fees, who keeps the GMOs and the vast majority of recognized shows afloat and usually in the black, the sport must respect the personal rights of it’s membership and to do “what is fair”.
******What are these personal rights, by the way?? What is FAIR? I’d love to know what personal rights are being ignored by implementing a qualifying system? Seriously…what RIGHTS are being stomped on here?
This IS “the sport” in America - a thriving sport with ever-increasing membership. Dressage IS building by every account and very quickly relative to other countries, so I’m perplexed why you are so worried about the good of “the sport”. By RY’s analysis, 97% of riders are at least “sufficient” by USDF standards. What is so earth-shatteringly terrible about this??/QUOTE]
I imagine that the DC realizes that this rule will not stop abuse. Rebecca pointed out that this was mentioned by one of the DC folks at the meeting she attended. It’s a start. Dressage has come a long way and I’m sure that lots of folks in leadership are wondering how they can improve judging, education, training, etc. I doubt they claim this will solve all the problems with the sport.
As for the mantra that some are chanting here…that they should focus on education…please…they have spent a ton of effort on education. It’s probably not enough, and they could do better, but honestly…the educational opportunities abound. Scholarship money is made available and requests for input are made. The truth is…the education won’t be sought by many a rider until it is required
anne
Sun Wu and his book: The Art of War
[QUOTE=rebecca yount;3084765]
I am exhausted from all the work that has gone into this and so, I am sure, are Shotenstar and Pluvinel. We appreciate the support we have had from the dressage community. Right now I am feeling pretty misunderstood and misquoted by TPTB. They clearly have connections in the press and while our suggestions as to objective, published articles have been rejected, I am kind of discouraged by the sound of the Dressage Today article. More later, because I need to actually do some of my OTHER work and earn some money. But really quick, I wanted to address one small point:
There were two members of the Dressage Committee at the Region 1 meeting on Sunday, 3/16. Neither one was a judge. One was a very active, well-known, well-respected trainer (and competitor) and the other was a TD who is also in a position of “control” in USDF. Both are VERY influential.
We still don’t have a “draft” and probably won’t until summer. More about that later, too. So we really don’t have an “official” statement of what the Dressage Committee thinks is the “problem”. We are assuming, from other statements and the first draft, that one thing they would like to address, is “bad riding”. This was discussed at the Region 1 meeting.
Among many other things, the trainer/competitor (while wearing his “trainer/competitor” hat and not his “Dressage Committee” hat) who was present said that this qualification rule will NOT get rid of bad riding. He said that he sees as much or more bad riding from professionals as from amateurs.
Again, there was a lot more said than just that. We have extensive notes from the meeting and as soon as we can catch our breath we will try and catch up on those. We definitely got a message of “stop the negative rudeness on the bulletin boards”, by the way. I am not saying that is reality, but that is what people at the Region 1 meeting admonished us for, correct or not.[/QUOTE]
Rebecca,
You are to be commended for your effort in organizing a grass-root uprising among the students of dressage in the US, and the bravery required in leadership. Many, support you in your efforts.
I have not read the Dressage Today article, but I would recommend to you and others finding themselves exhausted from these early confrontations with a long, arduous battle to come, read “The Art of War.” Sun Wu was recommended to me by a colleague (now spouse) as a way to deal with the administrative front and the “good ole boy system” at my former university. It also worked to relax me so I could fall off to sleep for the night (and, the nightmares were reduced significantly).
Many of you, I believe, will be amazed at the parallelisms found in those pages. And hopefully, renew the passions and become wiser to the strategies of USEF, etc…
Remember…
- many were former or present day competitors and driven to win…
- do not write their document for them — sending them all the data, etc. besides, many [of them] are inarticulate, so the final version put to members will be written by a professional…
- organize your supporters and be ready to confront their document point by point (set up committees that will research and write rebuttal arguments to their points — NOW, as many are predictable)…
- energy should be put into forming a committee that will insist the rule change document be presented no less than 6 month before it will be voted upon -------- and, that USEF circulate the opposing document to all voting participants 2 months prior to the vote. Just like a voter’s pamphlet.
- always, appear that you are willing to work with them, don’t permit them to imply that this is the irrational response from an fringe group………
- you might request that Dressage Today consider publishing a follow up article.
Thank you, Derid – we’re thinking along the same lines. Not only are we are in this for the long haul, we truly are devoted to the concept of using data to design a system that addresses the core problems, not just the surface issues. This is not personal for us … Rebecca will likely be grandfathered into whatever system is designed, while pluvinel and I don’t show much or anymore.
star
