Reading through BEF results

[Neddy13]

Now several of the evaluations have taken place with a selection of evaluators - all of which I have now googled to see who they are. Within the evaluators there is a much stronger leaning towards dressage IMO and this I feel is being reflected in the overall results. Having attended two myself now and have sat and listened to the comments throughout both days with interested there are a couple of points I would be interested in having some feed back with.

I understand from all the liturature the "aim" of these evaluations are to find GB olympic horses of the future. However at the days I have attended the panel seem only to assess each animal as it is on the day and announce comments to us viewing "unfortunately today this ? is croup high" "unfotunately today this ? lacked sparkle" "unfortunately today this ? hasnt as yet developed a wither".

The evaluators I have watch seem to lack experience in seeing youngsters at a very early age and cannot see past what they have in front of them - I thought they were there to find the "future top class horse under saddle"

Event horse breeding is what GB is known for with our horses competing successfully world wide - breeders are now being encouraged to cross out with proven dressage and show jumping lines for our eventers. TB blood x with our traditional part breed mares have served us well for years and will continue to do so - they are a valuable commodity.

IMO we need to see more of Richard Meade evaluating as he knows more than anyone on the panel what GB needs for our future event horses. The results at Sunnybank reflect this as the event scores were the lowest of the series so far but the catelogue of breeding reads similar to everywhere else!

 

[sywell]

I am pleased to see comments like this and they should be sent to Jan Rogers as an item for discussion at the Futurity washup meeting. I personally would like to see (when funds permit) internationally recognised young horse evaluators on the panel as a referee. Some of the grading judges from other countries look at six hundred horses a week for five weeks and have a good eye for the potential horses and our evaluators are improving and the futurity will continue to look to improve with well reasoned comments>

 

[JuliaFSH]

Bridget Parker who has been very successfully breeding event horses for decades and is currently Chairman of the British International Selectors was an evaluator at The Grange - I think she might also know just a little bit about how to breed an eventer for the 'modern sport'. Hopefully she will be available for more evaluations in the future. I don't know how much breeding Richard has done but clearly his knowledge of producing young event horses through to the top levels is a great asset.

I agree that for dressage and showjumping, continental input would be invaluable. I'm less convinced about them adding vastly to the knowledge pool on event horse breeding, but I'm open to being convinced...

 

[KarynK]

Was meaning to say this to Gingernags after Fin’s comments about lacking sparkle, but here will do!

Appaloosas are not ones for being overly flamboyant, they don’t tend to waste energy showing off, but as a direct result when you need maximum effort they have more than enough petrol in the tank to give it.

I have observed at a lot at events even at the novice levels, animals that need hours of working in before a dressage test, those that play up even before entering a start box, who pull like a runaway train for the first half of a course then need pushing and shoving to get home, so I would ask why so much emphasis on the need to see excessive sparkle in a yearling? Surely if you are looking for international horses why oh why are you not penalising a level head for a big occasion?

I am sure that the likes of Mr Mead are busy people, but would it not be feasible to have a panel of top level participants or experienced evaluators as hangb suggests, involved in the sport, discuss with the judges for all venues before the Futurities start on what are desirable traits and what are less so, so that at least there would be a level of consistency?

 

[cundlegreen]

Hear, hear! I agree wholeheartedly with you.As a breeder for the event market albeit the junior market,I feel that this country has far more chance of breeding Olympic eventers than we do dressage or showjumpers. I have noticed that this year the evaluators seem to be different at each venue, whereas last year it seemed to be the same three at nearly every futurity. As there isn't an Elite show this year, I suppose it won't matter if some venues seem to score lower than others as they are giving out Champions and Reserves at each one. Is it me or are the scores lower this year than last? I remember several foals being given Elite last year at Arena UK. Perhaps they are marking more severely, or is it just that standards have dropped? As a firm believer in good movement, the photos from greenleas have been an eyeopener.There are a lot of youngsters that don't get "off the ground" in their trot even in a sequence of pictures. If we want to win in event or dressage disciplines surely this is the first thing to be looking at, especially as the powers that be keep "dumming down" the cross country stage.

 

[Emily99]

We were discussing that the other day cundle green, that the marks seem to be lower. Maybe its just the standard of horses coming forward, but also the mark sheets have changed alot this year, with much fewer categories of marks. I do think the vetting has been much more thorough this year which is a good thing.

 

[madeleinewachman]

I was surprised also this year that they have had different evaluators at different events as I believe last year as cuddlegreen says, there was the same evaluators across the series. I do think that some sort of consistency is important to encourage more people to attend and to ensure the results are meaningful and have value.
That said my boy had almost identical scores this year as a two year old as he did as a yearling, which did give me some confidence that despite different judges there is some consistency coming through.
I do think that KarynK suggestion of having some top level evaluators that attent all evaluations or at the least give quidelines to ensure consistency is important to ensure that the evaluations continue to attract the UK'S top youngsters and that the results are meaningful.

 

[Ciss]

[ QUOTE ]
Now several of the evaluations have taken place with a selection of evaluators - all of which I have now googled to see who they are. Within the evaluators there is a much stronger leaning towards dressage IMO and this I feel is being reflected in the overall results. Having attended two myself now and have sat and listened to the comments throughout both days with interested there are a couple of points I would be interested in having some feed back with.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Futurity is always interested in receiving feedback on its procedures and approach but we do ask that it is relatively informed feedback and I do feel that some of the judgements you have made are undeservedly harsh and more a result of having an incomplete picture of what goes on rather than anything else. I have therefore tried to correct these misconceptions below and I hoe that this puts your mind at ease a little.

Fistly, I am not sure where you get your statitsical information for making such a sweeping statement about dressage bias, but looking at the list of evaluators being used this year there is really only one who is a dedicated dressage rider at present but as she is also a test rider for young horses for all disciplines in several studbooks as well as having trained as a young horse producer across all disciplines in mainland Europe this is hardly the sort of bias your statement indicates. All evaluators (however senior) also have to attend regular training days as well so that they are able to apply the same standards across the disciplines according to the requirements of those disciplines as apporved by the relevant World Class Performance Directors (which is as high as you can get in the talent-spotting stakes ). These days are open to the public as part of our desire to educate and inform, so if you would like to come to the next one to see how it all works please let Jan know asap.

[ QUOTE ]
I understand from all the liturature the "aim" of these evaluations are to find GB olympic horses of the future. However at the days I have attended the panel seem only to assess each animal as it is on the day and announce comments to us viewing "unfortunately today this ? is croup high" "unfotunately today this ? lacked sparkle" "unfortunately today this ? hasnt as yet developed a wither".

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually the fact that they mentioned these issues showed that they were actually taking them into account when assessing the long-term potential of the horse and thus allocating scores accordingly. They are well able to see when a youngster is tired and also when its apparent downhillness is only transitory and will correct itself in time becuase they are usually basing this on what the back and hind quarters are doing rather than the positio at the front end (as would be the case in the showring). This is what makes them so expert at what they do as to ignore it and mark 'just for the day' without allowing for it would make the whole procedure pretty worthless.

[ QUOTE ]
The evaluators I have watch seem to lack experience in seeing youngsters at a very early age and cannot see past what they have in front of them - I thought they were there to find the "future top class horse under saddle"

[/ QUOTE ]

I am again really surprised at this statement as almost all of them have had many years of in breeding and know exactly how young horses grow and develop across all disciplines and how to market them to top riders by meeting the riders needs for animals able to perform at the top of their chosen discipline. Many of them are also experienced stallion and mare grading judges (some of whom have officiated abroad) and this is the sort of experience that makes them able to assess the conformation, paces and potential of the youngsters in a tight timetable but a sympathetic way. They are able to base their judgements not only on what is happening on the day but on how the youngster concerned will develop and the type and training it will need to fulfill its potential in the future. Again, perhaps a visit to an evaluator training day might help you to realise that what they see in the arena -- and use as a basis for their assessment -- may not be exactly what you see at the ring side and to assume in this case that 'the onlooker sees more of the game' is certainly far from true.

[ QUOTE ]
Event horse breeding is what GB is known for with our horses competing successfully world wide - breeders are now being encouraged to cross out with proven dressage and show jumping lines for our eventers. TB blood x with our traditional part breed mares have served us well for years and will continue to do so - they are a valuable commodity.

[/ QUOTE ]

True it has served us well in the past, but with the introduction of the short format and the changed requirements -- especially at FEI four star level which is where the top animals should be aiming for -- it is no longer enough. Yes there are still animals out there doing quite well with this sort of background but with a team selection now based upon the fact that no horse without the paces and conformation that means that it can score less then 40 in an FEI event dressage test being one of the criteria of the World Class Performance programme, the requirements of a top class event horse have changed. Those breeders that do well in the eventing section do well becuase they have realised that not just gallop but also walk, trot and canter paces are very important for success in the sport and this is not becuase of any 'dressage bias' within the evaluator panel but because the world of eventing breeding has moved on. In fact, I think the eventers do every well in scores overall as most of the breeders have realised this and whilst there will always be a larger number (not necessarily percentage) of dressage youngsters achieving high scores than any other discipline (becuase they are generally easier for their owners to present) the eventers are certainly punching well up to (if not welll above) their weight and have done from the beginning as Julia's results (for example) will testify.

[ QUOTE ]
IMO we need to see more of Richard Meade evaluating as he knows more than anyone on the panel what GB needs for our future event horses. The results at Sunnybank reflect this as the event scores were the lowest of the series so far but the catelogue of breeding reads similar to everywhere else!

[/ QUOTE ]

Richard was an evaluator at Sunnybank so I'm not sure what your argument is here. Pergaps you think that the marks were more severe becuase he was on the panel, which is not true as all evaluators are trained to common bench marks based upon the specific requirements of each discipline, or that there was some other reason for this disparity(apart from a slight dip in level of participants), bearing in mind that his co-evaluator has bred a graded stallion currently competing Medium level in South Africa and about to move to Europe as well as sveral champion KWPN foals and a stallion that I think is one of the very few ever to score 10 in its jumping evaluation and is now doing very well in young horse classes in Germany (oh yes and she also bred the highest scoring eventer at evelaution at The Grange this year). Or do you believe that there was some other reason that escapes me as this is surely the sort of *apparently* well-balanced panel that you would prefer? If there is please let us know.

Hope that helps to explain the situation a little more clearly and wholistically.

 

[Ciss]

Madsmw and Kyra K

Hopefully the answer I just posted explaining the evaluator training process helps put your mind at rest -- as well as the fact that Madsmw's horse got the same marks running with two different panels on two different years. I think very few equine judge traing systems could claim that degree of consistency (and therefor success in their training and standardisation methods) .

 

[christine48]

it must be difficult to assess a potential SJ or event foal, yearling or 2 yr old as you cannot assess their jump and only have conformation and movement to go on. This may be why someone has the perception of the better marks being given to the dressage entries.
One thing I did notice at Arena UK was that the judges repeatedly commented on how the horses were restricted in movement in hand but better loose and gave the impression they were marked down for this. Surley they should take into consideration that not all handlers can run like olympic athletes!

 

[S_N]

Sorry, but LOL at not all handlers being capable of running like olympic athletes (I would put myself into the non-olympic athlete category for sure!)

May I also be so bold as to pose a question: Why is it so often commented on (regardless of discipline) that foals 'lack bone'? I mean, they're foals! It's well documented and backed up with research (which unfortunately I do not have to hand), that generally horses do not lay down their full bone and bone density until they reach 2 years of age.

 

[Ciss]

[ QUOTE ]
it must be difficult to assess a potential SJ or event foal, yearling or 2 yr old as you cannot assess their jump and only have conformation and movement to go on. This may be why someone has the perception of the better marks being given to the dressage entries.

[/ QUOTE ]

The type of canter is really the key factor in assessing a young showjumper ie one that is too young to be loose schooled over a fence) and the conformational proportions vary from discipline to discipline too (see Futurity guidelines on this on the web page). Even so, ot could have something to do with the fact that they are usually less falshier and are allowed to grow on so we tend to get (for example) vert few 2 year old showjumpers but the 3 year olds we get generally really know how to operate over a fence and score accordingly!

[ QUOTE ]
One thing I did notice at Arena UK was that the judges repeatedly commented on how the horses were restricted in movement in hand but better loose and gave the impression they were marked down for this. Surley they should take into consideration that not all handlers can run like olympic athletes!

[/ QUOTE ]

Np, they certainly weren't marking them down for that, just noting the difference and hopefully trying to make clear that we always give them the benefit of the doubt. I was on the mic for much of Arena UK and I must admit if I didn't make that clear I am sorry but there is often quite bit to say in quite a short time and the occassional thing does get overlooked -- and its a bit like having to rub your tummy and tap your head with all the paper shuffling we have to do as well

 

[Ciss]

[ QUOTE ]
May I also be so bold as to pose a question: Why is it so often commented on (regardless of discipline) that foals 'lack bone'? I mean, they're foals! It's well documented and backed up with research (which unfortunately I do not have to hand), that generally horses do not lay down their full bone and bone density until they reach 2 years of age.

[/ QUOTE ]

The evaluators -- being very experienced foal and youngstock raisers and judges -- know exactly how much bone a foal will put on at maturity compared to what it is looking like as a foal (ie they know how to project forwards for any skeletal structure). So when they say 'lacks bone' they do not mean it needs to develop more bone as it grows (as of course it will) but that its skeletal structure and type at the age at which they are seeing it is not sufficent to ensure that when mature it will have sufficient bone to carry its own top half and a rider for several years of training and competition work.

 

[madeleinewachman]

Ciss thankyou for above information, it is re-assuring to know that there is this level of training going on to ensure the consistency that is needed to ensure the future success of the evaluations. I am a strong supporter of the BEF and of the young horse evaluations and what they are trying to achieve, so am keen to see them suceed.

 

[JuliaFSH]

I would also like to add a comment to support the evaluators as I think it's pretty invidious job. Let's face it, most of us think our horses are wonderful and probably think they are better than they actually are. When we take them for evaluation we are therefore more likely than not to be slightly disappointed with the scores rather than overly pleased. They have to not only score the horse, and agree on those scores, but provide the reasoning in writing (as they should do), but then also break that news, whether it be good or bad to to the handler. It's not an easy thing to do...

As Ciss has pointed out the evaluators do attend training days and at these events they are clearly trying to benchmark and harmonise the scoring - in a similar way to dressage judges having a guinea pig test to judge before the full dressage competition starts. They need to all get their eye in on the same things, and this is a fundamental part of the evaluators preparation and education.

As an event horse breeder I'm acutely aware of whether there is someone on the panel that is sufficiently knowledgeable in my specialist field to provide me with a valuable assessment of my animal, and I would be very supportive of seeing some more people of Bridget and Richard's calibre in the panels. I can see why it is perceived there is a bias towards dressage in some of the panels, but on reflection, flatwork is the root of all disciplines and the fundamentals of athleticism therefore apply multilaterally. It is the finessing of that movement that separates the disciplines and this may or may not be missing in panels that are perceived to be dressage biased. I have now presented 6 foals for evaluation with 3 different panels - both eventers and showjumpers and speaking personally I can't say I've felt any kind of adverse bias.

I think everyone recognises that the Futurity is an evolving animal and thanks to Jan and her team of extremely dedicated and patient people (both paid and voluntary) they continually review and attempt to improve this scheme year on year. None of them claim it's perfect and all are prepared to listen which I think is a tremendous credit to them. Thinking back over the years the Futurity has been running IMHO it's made giant strides. I think it still has a way to go, and continually improving the evaluation panel's breadth and depth is one area that does have focus from the BEF team and I'm sure we will see further developments in this area.

Taken as a whole the Futurity is undoubedtly a good thing for British Breeders, but obviously as with all things it's not perfect. The good news is the people at the helm are focussed on identifying weaknesses and addressing them

 

[Thefuture]

I too have attended more than one of the evaluations and have now read replies made byCiss and all the others.

It could be said on the day maybe the evaluators when addressing the pubic with their decisions possibly dont make themselves clear, as I too have always felt that when they say unfortunately this colt is lacking sparkle that they are actually marking it down for this, not telling everyone that they are making allowances for it. In fact I will go as far as to say that Ciss I think you will find that these animals are being marked down!

"Sparkle" or whatever name you give this part of the evaluation which I assume comes under Type and Temperament surely has to also include trainability. I would rather have a youngster lacking a little of the X factor than one which cannot stand still at all, but gets evaluated on the move throughout and still gets a 1st premium - this I saw so not hearsay!

These evaluations are making huge strides forward, but we need our top competition riders on board to assess these horses as they come through from foal to 3yo. Breeders assessing other breeders horses who have only been breeding for a short period of time, cannot by any imagination be able to begin to know which traits our top riders want in their next top rides. Good horses are only made into excellent horses by excellent riders and trainers or we need these guys on board to help point us all in the right direction for our breeding programmes - not other breeders and stallion owners. More Bridget Parkers and Richard Meades along with Pammy Hutton and the Whittakers etc

 

[S_N]

I was discussing the type of person who would make a good evaluator earlier with someone, who made the extremely valid point that the scouts that spot youngsters for the top riders (like in days of yore when there used be guys who would do this for the top sjers - I know there are still some around.....), would be the ideal type of person for evaluating young horses to go on and perform in their discipline of expertise.

Also to say this

[ QUOTE ]
The evaluators -- being very experienced foal and youngstock raisers and judges -- know exactly how much bone a foal will put on at maturity compared to what it is looking like as a foal (ie they know how to project forwards for any skeletal structure). So when they say 'lacks bone' they do not mean it needs to develop more bone as it grows (as of course it will) but that its skeletal structure and type at the age at which they are seeing it is not sufficent to ensure that when mature it will have sufficient bone to carry its own top half and a rider for several years of training and competition work.

[/ QUOTE ]

WOW!! Can you also predict lottery numbers in your crystal ball? Surely, at best, all anyone can do is make an educated guess. A guess at which at least one horse I know of who went through the evaluations as a foal, has proved the evaluators incorrect at. But then, most foals that day (and at others that year in particular) were told the same. Was there perhaps something in the water that year to produce foals light of limb? Or how about the more recent trend of "horse lacked length of stride"?

 

[YOUANDYOURS]

SN your last comment made me smile (even this late at night) as I actually did feel at the venues I have attended they did have a crystal ball hidden in with the rosetts as some of the comments could have only been given with such insight.

Maybe we are asking them to do too much - dear old Tom Hudson would have been the ideal person on the mic for those viewing and may well have been able to get across more clearly the panels views.

If someone could be found for this "job" then the evaluators need not have any breeding information in front of them whatsoever which would be a good thing as another comment I heard on more than one occassion this year " this foal has suberb free movement which was a suprise as it is nearly full thoroughbred". It is quite apparent that most of the evaluators are pro warmbloods and seem to be afronted when a TB shows grace of movement - what would they say about it and would the marks differ if they did not know the breeding in advance.

 

[Maggie2]

I'd be very interested, and am sure many others would, if the training days could be thrown open to public attendance.

Maybe if we could hear and see the comments made about horses we would have a better understanding of the markings and remarks on the day.

I have no idea if real horses are used in training, but feel they should be, in the way that sometimes riders are used as guinea pigs for ridden clinics etc.

Seeing three (to pick a number) of foals standing in a line, with someone saying that one foal has better length here, or better angle there, and how that ought to be marked would be of real value. If training days are to be held behind closed doors, then I still feel that some seminar type of event would be of great value. It is not so easy to look at pictures and see what they are saying as seeing the foal/horse in the flesh.

And I also agree that not knowing the breeding would be an advantage, but I know it is used on the Continent.

 

[magic104]

Perhaps they do have a crystal ball because it was Ciss who told me not to be so down when my 3yo was looking like this

and that when he was this big would make at least 16hh

I have seen 100's of foals growing up over the years but am still surprised at how this boy has turned out. Ciss was 100% right & I could not hope for a nicer chap.

 

[Maesfen]

Well anyone can see your three year old would do nothing but improve, it was going through a ropey stage as the majority do and by the same token, you will have seen on here how many posts of "how big will my foal grow?" which have all been answered, equally well by others on here. Anyone with a bit of experience can do it so it is not only a prerogative of evaluators I'm afraid but full marks to Ciss for helping you.

 

[stolensilver]

You know there isn't a bias towards dressage horses at the Futurity. Here's the number of Elite premiums awards compared to the number forwards in each discipline. There have been more in the eventing section than in dressage.

SJ 4 out of 116 (3.45%)
Dressage 7 out of 190 (3.68%)
Eventing 8 out of 190 (4.21%)

 

[nijinsky]

Maggie2 - I absolutely agree with you, I for one would be very interested in attending as I feel I have so much to learn.

 

[S_N]

Magic - you have taken my point out of context completely!

 

[magic104]

What I am saying is as a yearling he should nothing of how he would turn out as an adult. Comments were made about his poor neck & they are shocked at how different he looks now. Also there were others who were convienced he would make 15/15.2 and have been surprised at his height. The point being that despite others & my previous experience with youngsters we got it wrong.

 

[Partoow]

There are quite a few interesting points here.I will try and answer some as well.
Firstly, at the training day we do use REAL horses! The training days are held with a master judge, this year from the KWPN last year with someone from Warrendorf.
We look at a selection of horses and ponies from foals to full grown . The assesments are made and then discussed , openly and often some very interesting conversations and veiws are aired.
The intersting thing is we are all looking and seeing the same salient point and the relevance and the significance is being understood and marked accordingly.
As for eventers not being understood or given credit i think that is not the case.
At Heart of England 3 out of the 5 elites given were for eventing!
It is very hard work as en evaluator and the responsibility felt is huge. I think each and everyone of the evaluators feels the same. There is a huge breadth and depth of knowledge and everyonehas some thing to offer.
I dont doupt we need to work more at it all but i will do that for the rest of my days and still know there is more to kllearn.