What an amazing days of Olympic Eventing Dressage competition, but for me I found it hard to work out the basis of marking. I guess for me to compare some horses against the others and see where the marks are awarded is interesting. Having judged a few tests I know that its always hard to judge when not in the judges position and have an overall opinion, but at the same time you do get a fair indication.
It is the belief and I think in many cases true, that riding on the second day in the same competition is more advantageous, as the judges are better mentally prepared and generally speaking the second day horses will be the Nation’s better ones. This attitude does not help the likes of the Aussies, whose horses are really all very much “peas in a pod” and so the judges may think that they should perhaps hold a few marks back in the first group as they need higher marks as the competition draw goes on! Perhaps if Andrew Hoy and Chris Burton had been on the second day would they have been closer to Lucinda and Clayton Fredericks marks.
Take the test of the wonderful Ingrid Klimke and Abraxxis and compare them to the expressive and neat Italian horse Apollo WD Wendi Kurt Hoev and Stephano Brecciarolli. I simply choose these two as they exemplify the differences I am wishing to highlight.
Stephano Brecciarolli and Apollo WD
In my eyes Apollo epitomises the expression, the balance and the total ease of movement that is the ultimate achievement in dressage. Transitions within the paces showed real sitting and engagement with the forehead raised and expressive, front legs and uphill shoulders easy to see. The three paces gaining air and lightness from the training and the consequential confidence and cadence through such consistent balance. There is little doubt that the horse was born with natural flair and it is the quality that every dressage clinic, seminar and workshop advises that we must reward. Stephano sat with ease and confidence and the whole picture showed a forward keen and happy attitude. (there was a mistake in one change but that is one mark)
Ingrid Klimke and Abraxxis
Abraxxis and Ingrid certainly made no mistakes. But there was a lack of freedom and expression within the paces, and the medium and extended trot did not show the degree of cadence and carry in a light and uphill way. By the same token though, it was a correct and well ridden test. I am sure that the training is superlative but the caution with which the test was presented, resulted with some lacking in impulsion and that “off the ground” covering feeling, leaving me wondering about where/how the judges are weighting their marks?
Ingrid certainly sits beautifully and looks fantastic but was she riding the quality mover in a collected and expressive way? Abraxxis has a more open frame that can give the appearance to an onlooker as lacking the ‘uphill look’; whereas Apollo has a more closed outline and hence shows a naturally greater degree of collection. My conundrum is that their marks were very similar.
Is it that the judges look for the correct, calm and quiet way? Are they looking as ‘policemen’ at the correctness of the riding of the test? Giving marks for a correct change, a half pass that has bend and regularity, a square halt, a steady frame (that is sometimes dead heavy and not in self carriage)? Marks given for correctness are fine, but only to a degree in my view as there is also an artistic element to judging. An ability to reward marks for that indescribable self-carriage and balance, a feeling of a horse that is elastic and free yet totally with the rider and for the ride. It’s “something” you can’t write down. It’s that “something” that is inside you. Experienced judges can see this and it is more of a feeling from within that comes from years and years of Dressage observations and discussions. When recognized & rewarded it helps to produce horses that are more elegant, well muscled, comfortable and ultimately cause people to turn their heads! It is important that there are marks left for this.
Event horses are fit and often wiry, and as someone once said “you can certainly see the chasis!” There is often not a lot of padding and cresty round necks but by the same token a good chassis is a good chasis and you have to look past the accuracy of the test for the cadence and expression. There are many horses that are very similar for different reasons, ones that a too expressive and make mistakes, and those that are on the forehand and stiff but make no mistakes. Judging is not an easy task at all, but having watched the past 2 day’s tests I am asking myself why are the marks in eventing dressage weighted differently to straight dressage? I believe the training scale and the marking scale to be the same in both eventing and straight dressage.
There is also no doubt nor question that the standard of horses and riders has improved out of sight over the last years and yet I worry that perhaps some of these achievements are not being rewarded.
Words like “engagement”, “uphill”, “lightness”, “impulsion”, “forward”, “expression”, “submission”, “balance”, and for the more eagle eyed, “over the back and thoroughness”. These words should apply to every dressage horse, and are coupled with ease and expression to produce that special horse.
Are these the words that spring to mind when watching eventing dressage..........? Are horses being rewarded for theses qualities?
Food for thought- riders want to win at the Olympics and hence model the way their horses go to achieve these qualities. Judges opinions play a key role in this crucial development of Olympic winning horses.
Is eventing dressage being judged more on accuracy encouraging riders to produce less expression?
In finishing, Eventing is a great Olympic sport and the competition over the last two days is testament to that. Go you Aussies, you are showing the depth of eventing talent in Australia. Our eventing dressage result is fantastic – well done to you all
Roger Fitzhardinge reporting for Equestrian Life
