Serious question : BE dressage judges versus pure dressage judges

Bubblegum

If you can go for some lessons with Bev Brightman http://www.beverleybrightmandressage.co.uk/ she is a 4* eventer turned dressage diva after she broke her back. She has a remarkable insight into the differences between pure and eventing dressage. She is expensive but very worth it. Tells it like it is but isn't scary. I find her very approachable. Although we haven't used her for wa while.

She isn't that far from you, Colmworth on the A1 near Black Cat roundabout.

A lesson with her would be about the same as going for 4 tests, bet you'll get far more out of it though!
 
From an outsiders point of view( ie I don't compete BE but do compete BD) I watch a lot of tests and there seems to be less concern about the horse being slightly behind the vertical in BE dressage.
 
QR - the "sitting trot" thing just isn't true... I've done a number of BE PN tests in sitting (this year and last) because I find I can "place" the horse more accurately, and have not had a negative comment (just some :D scores). Ditto the advanced outline. One thing I have noticed though is that to give the impression of elasticity / forwardness it seems that you have to be a little "quicker" at BE esp in trot, perhaps because they don't have the spring from the surface... Which can be disproportionately adverse to big moving weaker horses who need time to keep balance... WHEN WILL IT RAIN?!?!
 
I asked a friend of mine who is a listed Judge who does both BE and BD how she marked and she said she marked the same. She also said that she sees a higher standard than a few years ago.

Also at BE80 and 90 the judges dont have to be listed ,just to have ridden to a certain level so maybe they mark different, as have had no judge training.

I know i've had a few tests from un listed judges who have put unsuitable comments on the sheet that they are not meant to.

Hope this helps:)
 
Love this thread...I keep my boys on a private yard the lady who owns it is a list 3 judge. She will not judge BE at all, she cringes. I can score good marks at unaff - 68/69's, if I do aff dressage, I will always be low 60's if that. I know why and I work harder, so i dont grumble. There can be a big difference between unaff and aff judges i'm afraid. As BE use listed judges, i personally practice for BE at Aff dressage comps only - I get a more truthful result then. and with the help of YO i'm fully prepared and she explains WHY i'm losing the marks. Inaccurate riding is one of the things she sees most of - ride to your markers. Subtleness and acceptance of the bridle being the other. My boy is an Anglo and is very tense, can drop the contact and go very tense - he takes a bit of riding in! I hear eventers say (a lot) that they cant do dressage as well as pure dressage as the horse has to jump after - I dont agree, especially at the lower levels, rythem, balance, subtleness any horse should be able to do. Look at Ruth Edge....she's got it right (and I think BE will lose her to DR).
Dont shoot me down - im just saying what the pro says, and she knows her stuff. She teaches a lot of eventers and the lessons are very interesting to watch/listen to. They also get good results on the day.
 
SpottedCat said:
There's no formula applied for UK one days - the dressage coefficient only comes in at FEI level over here. So a 40 is 60% because all we do is take the % mark away from 100 to give penalties.

Thus the OP is getting roughly a 10% difference in scores with BE being 10% worse than 'normal' dressage.
Click to expand...

Copied from BE (Dressage) - This is the formula I was thinking of

4.15 Scoring – The following principles apply:
i. Good marks are awarded in accordance with the specification in each test by
each judge. Deductions will be made for any errors of course to make a net
figure;
ii. The percentage of the net good marks as compared with the total obtainable
is then calculated to two decimal places;
iii. Where two or more judges have marked a test, their percentage marks are
then averaged to two decimal places;
iv. The average(s) is(are) converted to penalty points by subtraction of the percentage
calculated as in iii. from 100, then rounded to one decimal point
 
Evelyn said:
Copied from BE (Dressage) - This is the formula I was thinking of

4.15 Scoring – The following principles apply:
i. Good marks are awarded in accordance with the specification in each test by
each judge. Deductions will be made for any errors of course to make a net
figure;
ii. The percentage of the net good marks as compared with the total obtainable
is then calculated to two decimal places;
iii. Where two or more judges have marked a test, their percentage marks are
then averaged to two decimal places;
iv. The average(s) is(are) converted to penalty points by subtraction of the percentage
calculated as in iii. from 100, then rounded to one decimal point
Click to expand...

Which translates to: work out the % and take that away from 100, which is what I explained. So a 42 at BE is 58%, so if the OP is getting high 60s at 'normal' dressage as a %, so 66% or 67% lets say, the equivalent BE scores you'd expect to get would be 34 (for 66%) or 33 (for 67%). But as the OP is getting low 40s BE, and high 60s (%) dressage, there is a 10% discrepancy, give or take. Hence the discussion. So saying you need to take into account the 'formula' for BE doesn't really help in terms of the differential between the scores, it still exists. It would make a difference at FEI level when a coefficient of 1.5 is applied to the dressage score, because then a 40 dressage would not be equivalent to 60%. But for one days, the penalties/% marks are directly comparable, which is the point the OP is making.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top