Thanks.
Thats at Oatridge College, near Edinburgh.
the school airs are not in any competition test because it would be a terrible, horrible thing to do that - the old masters would roll over in their graves. i feel indeed the early designers of the tests are right and the school jumps should never be part of competition.
I don’t feel the GP test has gotten easier in any marked way. Ask the people riding it if it’s easier, that’s always a good idea.
there’s a very sad tendency of people to look back at the ‘great old days’ of dressage. it’s always about 20 years. now it’s the eighties, in the eighties, it was the sixties, in the sixties, it was the forties. it’s always some period 20 or 30 years ago that was great and the current era sucks. human nature i guess.
There is no indication that early tests involved jumping a barrell. That is often stated by ‘experts’ who were not there, but try to find it in the tests - that’s difficult. there was at time mention of proving the horse’s obedience by taking him up to something that had startled him in an olympic test. and there were jumps, but there was no mention of a moving barrel in the competition rules of any of the olympics. there were other, officers tests that involved the horses performing in the presence of drums or other parade ground things, but this was not present in the olympic dressage tests. it was very intentionally and specifically excluded.
Early tests in the 2nd olympics in 1912 (the riding event did not take place in the first olympics) for example involved 5 jumps which by the time of podhajsky were as of his own admission irrelevant and a big problem and something of a formality.
In the 1912 olympic riding there was no tempe changes, no half pass, no piaffe, no passage, the test then was much more like a 2nd level or 3rd level test than a grand prix test. it bore no resemblance to modern tests in difficulity. it’s hard to find a photo of top notch work in those days unless one makes sure the rose colored glasses are firmly on.
in the 1920’s when the one time changes were first proposed it created a firestorm of protest, with the french i believe it was claiming they are not a movement at all but an impure ‘amble’ and the german’s saying, 'well no wonder you don’t want ‘em in the tests, since your horses can’t do them!’ despite the fact that baucher was supposed to have invented them and the french were supposed to be so great at flying change work.
and those ‘difficult’ movements were not a consistent part of the early tests at all, in fact they were explicitly left out, put in for a time, and removed again, like a ping pong ball, til 1948.
the changes in the GP test more reflect the evolution of the sport, such as the dropping of the ‘ride off test’ and the creating of the grand prix special and the freestyle, as well as the creating of national tests that absorbed the schaukel, so that it was removed from teh GP only because it was covered in lower national tests.
the GP test is supposed to flow and show fundamentals and these others are supposed to contain the more difficult work and transitions.
the tests are not always changed in effort to make them easier - that’s another part of the ‘good old days’ mythology we all so want to embrace. sometimes they are changed as an admission that so many people are doing a movement so badly, that the test is not achieving its goal - to help average people train properly.
some movements in early tests were very abrupt. they sound good on paper only and were part of a sort of military idea of ‘handy riding’. they looked pretty nasty in real life like the half pass half center line to rail to the center line and then WOOPS! run into the end of the ring! turn, turn, sparky! some of those things were pretty ugly. i’m glad they’re not with us any more.
the horses have gone from doing 1 test of early on 10 min and at various times 12-16 min, and possibly a ride off test of under 6 min, remember the gp test to start with was not 17 min but 10 min, to doing 2 tests and a freestyle, which actually totals more ring time and represents far more difficulty than ‘the good old days’. but i’m probably the only one who doesn’t want to create a ‘good old days’ of when i was a yout and men were men and horses were horses and they all rode like Apollo, LOL! There were great riders then and now, the sport is always changing and growing, there are always problems in any competitive sport that people feel passionate about and that represents an ideal.
[QUOTE=slc2;2868495]
I don’t feel the GP test has gotten easier in any marked way. Ask the people riding it if it’s easier, that’s always a good idea.[/QUOTE]
that is a good idea. wait a minute. the person actually riding gp is the person who asked the question! so tell us again the highest level you have actually competed slc?
Well, I wasn’t trying to stir up fond memories of the ‘good ol’ days’ as I was a child then and certainly not showing FEI…it was a rational ‘from the saddle/in the ring’ observation & query as to why the tests have gotten less technical than they used to be…believe me! It IS much harder to do a 4-8-8-4 zig zag in the canter than 5m-10m-5m like it is now. You just have to ride the I2 vs. the I1 to know it! 
:yes: A 6 loop serpentine might be time consuming but it will tell you a lot about the quality of the two leads in the canter!
JMHO but I would rather the tests were tougher, personally. The walk pirouettes, rein backs, etc are all important ‘tests’ of the horse, so maybe when the new tests come out there will be additions to them. (I can hope, right?)
Or maybe the philosophy is that a horse must have learned those things to have made it to GP, so there is no point in asking those ?'s in the upper levels?
FWIW - The old schoolmistress I had the privilege of showing during the years of multiple GP revisions was so much easier to ride in the GP A…she had never learned that test pattern, so she couldn’t do ‘her’ version of the test!! And the higher level of difficulty kept her honest & on the aids. 
Unlike B and the various revisions that went on - it was always fun to try to ‘discuss’ that in this test there was now a walk/canter/passage/piaffe/reinback or some other transition and it is NOT where it used to be…shakes head & smiles What a horse! Maybe that belongs over in the ‘embarrassment’ thread!
that’s actually exactly what i’ve been told many times, and i asked a lot of questions exactly like that because on first learning the changes i was really wondering ‘why in the WORLD do that???’ and when the committee changes tests they usually can back up their changes with exactly that. it’s already been proven in a lower test is the reason alot came out of the gp test and allowed it to be shortened. when i look at some of the old tests i thought they were very rough and the changes represent improvements too.
alot of changes to lower tests have been to make them ‘young horse friendly’, ‘more rideable’ and many complaints have countered ‘okay so now it’s too easy’, so these test writers sometimes cain’t win for losin’, LOL. at the same time you can find plenty of evidence to prove the lower levels have been ‘leveled up’ and made harder over specific time frames too. 3rd level used to be the stomping ground of the ‘no further’ amateur, it’s now 2nd level, 3rd is too hard, LOL.
na, that doesn’t belong in the ‘embarrassing’ section, it belongs in the ‘i had a wonderful horse’ section. i think you have a lot of very valid points and i liked your discussion about it and learned from it. i don’t entirely agree that the tests are in major ways easier (when competing in the GP, GPS and Kur are taken into consideration) and i especially don’t agree the riding was better - but you have made good points i respect.
where i think i differ the most is the suggestions others have made, for example, that it’s such a shame a halt was taking out of an eventing test, or that all or even most event horses don’t do halts because they’re so hot to trot and fit - i also think it’s very common to get really good scores on halts - i’ve gotten the same good scores on halts many others have mentioned and in many past threads here people have said many times that their best score was for a halt, so it’s not rare.
i also am not unhappy about changes to the int 1 and 2 tests over time to make them more distinct and different, more progressive in a development program. the test writing committee always seems to have a sensible rationale about the changes made - though over time some don’t hold up, like allowing double at third because a lot of people bought schoolmasters that bull them if they don’t have a double (hilda gurney was sited as originated those remarks and that rationale, i don’t know if she really did or if she felt that really carried that rule all that well) - that rule just has alot of detractors.
i think if you really think it’s bad, you should be active and put in your 2 cents and serve on the test committee, i’m not saying so to be rude, if you have some valid points they should be presented to committee - it’s good to have different inputs. i realize my point of view is not popular here and alot of ‘it’s not THAT bad’ comments go over very, very badly here and have for a very long time. it HAS to be that bad, here, LOL.
i think there was a lot of grand prix riding 20-40 yrs ago in america that isn’t of the same quality today, i can remember going to shows in fla, even devon, many years ago, seeing ‘the best of the best’, and i think the good old days were not all so good - at all. i think overall, the quality of the riding is better at that level. i think alot of the intentions are good in the changes that have been made to the tests, i think alot of the changes made don’t make that much difference especially taken together with other changes made there is a method to the madness at least most of the time.
Thanks slc! I am mainly a lurker on SHB and tend to shy away from this board (I’m a chicken), so any feedback from other people is much appreciated…I just don’t know how much my opinion as a rider would count for with TPB. Any suggestions of who to make suggestions to at the USDF? It would be nice to say something to someone who could make a difference…
TIA!
Oh my Annie was/is quite a girl…she was wild (a la Man from Snowy River wild) until she was 7 and then trained up to GP in just 3 years. Kept me humble and taught me more than any other horse. :yes:
the USDF has no input to the FEI whatsoever. USEF does, but are not going to forward your comments/inquiries/whathaveyou to the FEI unless they are already of the same opinion and intending to do so anyway. So if you wish to comment about the FEI tests, best just to tell the FEI directly, although if you don’t compete in FEI-recognised events they don’t have much reason to listen since you would be outside their competitor pool. e.salomon@horsesport.org (Eva). For CDI competitors, the IDRC is the other avenue for input.
i think it’s good to discuss it and educational to know the history regardless.
i can very dimly recall years ago seeing ‘The Rawls’ ride back east, LOL, talk about ‘being in at the start of the hunt’, man oh man. it was great to see the photo gallery on your web site. absolutely beautiful.
I also remember the YR test with tempis going towards the judge… who, on my first time out, was Axel Steiner. That memory will stay with me forever and I still get nervous when I see him at shows/clinics.
Am I the only idiot who failed to remember that the PSG is still from 2000? I knew it hadn’t changed in a while, but was oblivious until the other day that it was that old. Wasn’t that the first year they started requiring YRs do a freestyle?
…another terrifying “first” - My canter music didn’t even match my horse!
Is it not true that, 25 yrs, ago, a whip wasn’t allowed{not just for championship classes} and the zigzag had alot less zigzagging, PLUS the passage and pissoff{i mean piaffe} tour was alot longer. I could be wrong and ready to accept appropriate beatings.
[QUOTE=siegi b.;2864412]
In my opinion, today’s FEI tests try to be a little more harmonious and easier to watch, not necessarily easier to ride. I do think that one of the goals is to attract more spectators which is evidenced by the emphasis on free styles.[/QUOTE]
This is THE correct answer, at least this was told to me by the designer of the new tests, and when you love the schaukel and all other movements you can always use them in your freestyle test.
Theo
it depends, if you think doing piaffe and passage in 3 tests instead of 1 test at a competition is ‘shorter’.
Some people want to see 80 1 time changes, or 200 steps of piaffe and passage, school leaps, levades, yadda yadda yadda. I don’t. The shorter the tests are, the longer the horses are able to compete over the years. The simpler they are, the less unscrupulous people are trying to force horses to do at home. In any case if a judge can’t watch a simple test and evaluate the horse, he is not a good judge.
Even if some earlier tests were harder, what would be the purpose of it? To wear out the horses sooner? If the test demonstrates the principles are there then I think it’s fine. After all, the modern horses are doing THREE tests in most competitions now, not one, and going to many, many more competitions for a longer part of the year, having to do much more to qualify, having to get much higher scores to make it to the top, traveling much further, and often, showing more at prior levels. It all adds up to ‘harder’, not ‘easier’.
