BILL— I remember riding in a clinic in 1973 on a little OTTB mare whom I was eventing Training Level. These days it would be a First Level test, but back then we did Training 3. Looking to the future I asked the clinician if we could work on lengthenings in the trot. She made a non-committal, disheartened response. And now I know why. The horse was simply not enough on the aids—not enough between leg and hand—not through. Real lengthenings were implausible if not impossible. Without those qualities if you got anything at all, it was likely just to be hurrying. That was also a time when meaningful warmbloods were almost nonexistent in the US, so your horse’s natural movement and cadence were not going to help you very much.
(“Everything went black around him.”)
(“. . . giant hairy exotics ridden by diminutive ladies . . . “)
(“It was fun at Training Level but far more entertaining at PSG!”)
(“They came down eventually—about the same time the poor horse’s mind did.”)
Can you explain this exercise to me? It’s not in any of the tests.
Personal disfigurement seems to be all the rage these days. . .
(“Witches, plastic spiders, and ghosts were everywhere.”)
BILL–That’s an interesting question, especially because just recently I was on the panel that judged the Region 1 Dressage Seat Equitation Semi-Finals. There are two good online resources which speak to this question: The USEF rulebook has a section within the Dressage Division which is quite explicit about what we should look for. In addition there are the Dressage Seat Equitation Guidelines for Competitors and the Guidelines for Judging Dressage Seat Equitation Classes prepared by Lendon Gray which detail what really matters and how we arrive at a numerical score.
(“Fifty-five and stay alive!”)