FEI dressage co-efficient

[Rosiefan]

I've had a reply to the query I sent which was 'why is the score for the dressage phase multiplied by 1.5 and what it is this supposed to achieve as I think all 3 phases should have the same weight in the final result' but I'm not sure I understand it .

'The multiplication by 1.5 was introduced together with the percentages calculation of Eventing dressage to keep the same balance between the three tests as before where a different calculation the 0.6 coefficient was used for the dressage points.'

I'm a relative newcomer to eventing, let alone FEI and I know next to nothing about dressage so can anyone enlighten me? When was 'before' and why was 0.6 used ?

 

[kerilli]

Ha, how long have you got?
the perfect person to discuss this with is vineyridge actually, either by pm here or on COTH or on ERA Forum board (she posted about this a few days ago.)
First of all, all 3 phases were never supposed to have the same weight in the final result, it was supposed to be, in order of importance, XC, Dr, SJ. I cannot recall the exact ratios but it was something like 5, 3, 1, so the xc penalties were supposed to be 5x as influential as any penalties incurred in the sj.
what you should probably have asked is why is it that at National level (i.e. any non-FEI event) the dressage coefficient is NOT applied, but at FEI it is? So, at say an Advanced 1 day, 70% in the dressage gives you 30 penalties... but at a CIC or a CCI, the coefficient means that 70% in the dressage = 30 x 1.5 = 45 penalties.
60% gives 40 pens at National events, but 60 pens at CCI or CIC. SO, the gap between the top and bottom gets greater (in this case, that 10% difference becomes a 20 penalty difference at FEI events, cf a 15 penalty diff at national events.) The higher dressage marks are given a very distinct additional weight/advantage.
With the demise of roads and tracks and steeplechase, you'd have thought the emphasis should have been put more strongly on the xc (because those 3 phases, where it used to be possible to pick up penalties, have now gone), but in fact the opposite happened.
One theory is that all these changes in the sport, at least at FEI levels, have been influenced behind the scenes by the very big and powerful continental warmblood breeders. The changes definitely make the top of the sport more suited to warmbloods than it ever was... to lead the dressage at top level you now need an exceptional mover, not just a good well-trained horse, and exceptional movers are far more likely to be found among wbs that the TBs and TBxIDs which traditionally dominated the sport...
to go back to your questions, i really can't remember when the coefficent changed, but i remember them playing around with different penalties etc to try to affect the ratios.
e.g. in 1999 they changed the xc penalties to 1 penalty for every second over the time (instead of one for every 0.4 secs), both at National and at FEI events iirc, so effectively x 2.5. this led to a Badminton where, iirc, the leader, Ian Stark, had 4 fences in hand... so, not the nail-biter ending they wanted!
full results here: you can see the effect of those time pens!
http://www.britisheventing.com/asp-net/Events/Results.aspx?EventId=19
so, it is possible to weight the xc more, IF they choose to do it... but at the moment, they (the FEI) are choosing to weight the Dr far more...

 

[LEC]

Wow Austin O Connor came 4th on 123 dressage!! I wonder how that phase was worked out.

 

[kerilli]

Wow Austin O Connor came 4th on 123 dressage!! I wonder how that phase was worked out.

yep, joint fastest time of the day pulled him right up the leaderboard, from 3rd last after dr. i can't remember what coefficient was used that year for the dressage, can check though as i have my dr sheet somewhere for an FEI event that year so can work out the coefficient from that...
notice that Pippa, with a great dr but 2 stops xc, still came 6th... !!!

 

[Rosiefan]

Thank you K. So the dressage was never meant to be that influential. I can see it's tricky to get it just right and I guess they mostly have. Interesting point about the warmblood breeders too - I wonder how true it is.

It's a good thing BE doesn't have a coefficient for dressage, particularly at the lower levels, as quite a few events seem to end up being dressage comps already.

 

[vineyridge]

As I understand the history, there was a major change in dressage scoring back during long format. Now, the basis for penalty points is the average dressage percentage of all three judges multiplied by 1.5. Back then, the 0.6 coefficient was applied to the average total number of positive points that the test accrued. So if one movement was worth so many points, the three judges' score for that movement was averaged, the number of points for each movement were added together, and then the 0.6 coefficient was applied. Say the total number of available points for a perfect test was 250--that would be 25 scored movements worth 10 points each. If a rider got all sixes and sevens, those sixes and sevens were added together and the total was then multiplied by 0.6 to give you the dressage score.

At least I believe that's how it worked before the shift to the average percentage score times 1.5. Since I only got interested in this after short format and historical information on scoring changes is not easy to acquire, my thoughts come from inadequate information and supposition. Those of you with history in FEI level eventing, please correct me if I'm mistaken.

Another way the FEI controlled the dressage scoring back then was by the number of movements per test. Now, using the average percentage score as the base, it would seem to me that the total number of movements or available points is pretty much irrelevant.

One would suspect that when the FEI came up with the 1.5 multiplier to be applied to the average percentage dressage score, quite a bit of number crunching was done to arrive at that figure.

If the FEI were to look at the short format results, it would be very clear to them that dressage is worth far more than 3/10 of the total results. It's perfectly possible to go double clear sj and XC and still rank behind a rider who has acquired a rail or time penalty bonus just from the dressage multiplier. In fact, I've even run across a very few results where a rider with excellent dressage and a XC stop placed ahead of riders with less good dressage and far fewer than 20 penalty points in the other phases.

I will say that from my experience, eventing dressage has become MUCH better since the scoring changes. In the US, at Rolex in 1999 you could hardly call what eventers were doing dressage. Fast forward three years later and the change was dramatic.

 

[Rosiefan]

Thank you Vineyridge but I think the more I'm learning the less I understand. I can see that you have to have time penalties (at whatever rate) for the SJ and XC but I still don't see why they have to x 1.5 the dressage penalties. What are they hoping to achieve? Are you saying they want the dressage to be 3/10 of the result with the other 7/10 being the SJ and XC? Why is it not 1/3 for each phase?

Feel free to leave me in my fog if I'm being thick - maths was never my strong point.

 

[LEC]

ok just found my Badminton programme from 1993.

It says 'Each movement is marked out of 10. The average mark is then subtracted from the maximum possible (240) and finally multiplied by 0.6 to give the penalty score - since the second and third days will be scored in penalties'

Interesting there is a page on the breeding of Badminton winners from last 25 years. It states that few of the top horses seem to be pure TB. Warmblood appears very rarely and the records of the mares are too inadequate to draw any conclusions.

It states that the most unusual sire was Fair & Square (Be Fair 1973) who himself was a top class event horse as a gelding.

In the dams most appear to be Welsh Cob, ID or simply 'hunter type'.

The sire of Jonathan(1967) was Amigo who was pure bred Arab.

It then looks at horses in top 12 in 1991 and 1992 - I did not know this but Kibah Tic Toc was a warmblood by Domherr.

The conclusion is that breeding a Badminton winner is a haphazard process!!

 

[vineyridge]

LEC, thanks so much for the old rule. It's worth saving, because, lord knows, I had it wrong.