(“An indignant auditor literally ‘read me the Rulebook.’”)
Am I enthralled with everything I see in the show arena? Hardly. But if you believe the anti-showing nattering nabobs, everyone who chooses to compete is an egotistical glory hound who craves only success and is willing to achieve it at all costs. I’m sorry, but that viewpoint just doesn’t jibe with the reality that I see. I don’t deny that such riders do exist, but I find them to be distinctly in the minority, and I don’t think they get to claim all the high scores and the good ribbons. Quite the contrary, I recall three horses I judged recently where “fancy” did keep them out of the ultimate doghouse, but its pursuit at the expense of harmony cost them placings in the end.
One was a guy on an elegant young stallion—an excellent mover who couldn’t manage to fit in his own skin. Heavy in the hand, he rushed through his test, flinging his haunches out through every turn and corner. 8 for Gaits, 6 for Impulsion because of the tightness in his back, and only 5 for Submission. Clearly, he did himself no favors by performing that way! His score reflected it.
Second was another big mover who could perform all the required exercises but did his whole test crammed together in an overly shortened frame. 7 for his Gaits score—higher had he exhibited more Freedom—but no higher than 6 in the Collectives for Submission, and many times when the disharmony was particularly evident, the scores for the individual movements went even lower.
And third, another good mover that spent his whole time considerably overflexed and behind the vertical. Did my scoring “crucify” him? Some ideological hardliners would say he deserved all “Insufficient”s, but he was clearly capable of mid 70s, and my decision not to go above a 6 when I saw those evasions was punishment enough, given the other good qualities he exhibited.
The message: “Fancy” only gets you so far.
Some years ago at a USDF Instructors Workshop I was conducting, I showed a video of Corlandus competing in the 1986 World Championships. An indignant auditor literally “read me the Rulebook” wherein it stated that in piaffe, the forelegs should be raised midway to the height of the opposite cannonbone and the hinglegs should lift as high as the opposite fetlock. That Corlandus’s did not, he insisted, should make his work all 4s. Of course, that’s not how judging works. A fundamental flaw very heavily lowers the score. But if a movement doesn’t fulfill the ideal which we wish to see, it still gets partial credit for the good elements displayed.
Along these lines, I would argue that judges and thoughtful trainers are very interested in the harmony displayed between horse and rider. You might note that in the most recent rendition of the tests we use, it gets its own score in the Collectives so as to make clear to riders how much it matters.
The professional critics would have you believe that show riders don’t care about their horses, and that we ride in an adversarial manner. Oh, hush up! I see a lot of riding. It isn’t all good, but the vast majority of it is “friendly,” and plenty of it is cheerfully harmonious where the Acceptance isn’t anything likel the “truckling subservience” the Rulebook warned against. I see lots and lots of horse and rider pairs who clearly are having a good time together—as it should be!
More thoughts on what defines harmony and “calmness” next time.