| Author | Message | ||
     Lynne Hamilton |
Thats interesting Claire, what would be the difference in scores based on the new proposals. It would appear that the strongest marathon scores result in an overall win. | ||
| Clare Iveagh |
FYI Just did a rough count up of all the classes run at all the Full Nationals this year. I then counted the number of people who had won their class and had also won the marathon. Then counted the number of people who had been first in the dressage but didn't win the marathon but also won their class. I am awful at counting and maths so these are probably rough. The percentage of competitors who won their class overall and also won their marathon phase was 64% The percentage of people who won their class overall and won the dressage phase but NOT the marathon was 24%. | ||
| David Taylor |
I am probably misguided, but I thought that Dressage was the preparation for the cross-country and its obstacles, and that cones was the test afterward to see if the horses were still supple obedient and fit, and that the main event around which the rest revolved was the cross-country! I certainly suspect that if the influence of dressage continues to grow it will price/frighten the common man away. I also think that the marathon can still be a test with three sections as much as five. The latter with shorter phases and the extra breaks were often less grueling than three longer phases. Brighton was a good example of a tough event of three phases. Five does increase the logistics with extra stewarding needed. The marathons certainly have got steadily easier when one recalls pony speeds of 15kph for A, 18 for C and 28km overall. Lowther however was in my view a bit harder when it shortened to 22 Km as it was no longer possible to go to the top and the course was through a lot more soggy terrain than the wet but easier rocks on high! | ||
| Julia Liles |
I am afraid, Mike, that we must all look beyond any particular phase of trialling we like and look at the competition as a whole. If we don't solve our diminishing rate of Membership and Competitor entries, none of us will have sport to argue about in the very near future. We don't want entries fees to double or more, so me must attract new members, the public, sponsors and media; and must discover the best 'ratio' or 'weighting' of competition to try and suit them all. It is known, the subjective phases of standing presentation and dressage are daunting to the newcomer. Without music, dressage has never been popular with the public and media, and therefore sponsors. They all want the thrills and spills of the marathon, and rightly so, because whether our sport is based on eventing, trialling or 'militaire', they were all marathon based and biased. Percentage scoring isn't 'dumbing down' dressage or reducing it's importance; it's reducing its effect on the overall result. It is the obedience and suppleness gained in dressage training that gets you through obstacles and around cone courses; just as Xenophon's training of 'movements' prepared his horses for the battlefield. To keep it's cross country 'battlefield' to the fore, ridden eventing has strict guidelines as to what level of dressage movements are allowed in Competition A; and rigid height limits and related distances in the showjumping phase; to ensure competitions are won by 'eventers'. Jeff | ||
| Mike Hodgson |
people will always want what works well for them, if they are good at dressage then they wil want that to be more important and the same for marathon and cones. has anyone thought of having a scoring system that gives an equal importance to dressage marathon and cones. then are horses and driver would have to be good in all 3 phases to do well. is that not better than having a compition won on 1 aspect on driving trials? mike hodgson | ||
| Bryan Gauson |
Members this is great reading and some interesting comments. I loved my weekend at Windsor. I remember John Bowman standing middle table after the dressage and moving up into 2nd place after the 5 stage marathon at one event with a 2 wheeler with his welsh cob stallion still flying at the end through the obstacles in gruelling wet and trying conditions. Very exciting and not to be missed he eventually won the event moving up after the cones. This year it remained free to come on Friday to view the dressage as they cannot find anyone apart from competitors and friends. All the horses finished fresh at the National (DRIVING TRIALS) after completing the very short marathon on near level ground giving very little test of fitness or stamina. Very few received a penalty for being late finishing the driving trial on time. It does not happen at all 3 day eventing trials. During one of the toughest recessions of all times. What is the answer? Please dont have the classes decided on the Friday alter the format to make the last phase worth getting up to watch. Lets make things exciting and testing. Listen to the drivers who love the sport. Adjust the dressage before it is too late. Even class winners seemingly wish change. Comment from enthusiastic spectator who came in the train from Edinburgh for the weekend. | ||
| James Broome |
Mike, The argument of changing the competition so that people can't benefit from their expensive dressage horses is flawed because if the marathon phase became more significant, within a few years, you would have drivers spending large amounts of money on ex-eventing horses (or whatever). Basically, in every equestrian sport, those with a bigger purse will have an advantage. However, those without a large purse tend to have more drive and determination and those characteristics are a huge asset in themselves. It's also damn satisfying when you beat someone that you know has spent more money on their animals. | ||
| Mike Hodgson |
ok £100,000 may be abit over exaggerated, but if the marathons were longer and tougher people wouldn't be able to have the dressage horses to give them such a good mark in the dressage because they wouldn't have the stamina needed for the marathon. plus as jannet pointed out it would be adding to the chance of people reciving penilties on the marathon making it a more even and balanced compitition. this system has worked for years with the 5 section marathon. why should we be reduce the sections on the marathon after all this is a trails compitions. shouldn't it be psyically testing? mike hodgson | ||
| D Paffett |
If driving horses really did sell for £100,000 I think it would solve more problems than it created. | ||
| Janet Pilling |
You mean do something like a five section marathon? With two walk sections so a greater opportunity to gain walk penalties? That would be a brilliant idea!! ;) | ||
| Mike Hodgson |
would another answer be to simpley make the marathons harder and more depanding again so people cant use there £100,000 dressage horses | ||
| D Paffett |
Perhaps you should look at how difficult it is to score an extra point. In the marathon you have to be 5 seconds quicker, which seems quite a lot. How much harder or easier than this is it to shave a point off your dressage score? | ||
| D Paffett |
I have a slight problem with the "%contribution" approach. If you score a double-clear in the cones the %contribution will be 0%. But that doesn't mean your double clear had no impact on your final place! | ||
| James Broome |
Let's not assume that there is not a human factor in obstacles and in fact, in the cones course. The coursebuilder will have a significant influence in the final outcome of a class depending on the challenges that he/she presents both of these phases. Some equines will perform better in tighter obstacles for instance, while others are better at tough, physically challenging ones. I present this viewpoint only to challenge the logic that because dressage is subjective it should have less influence. | ||
| Mike Watts |
Thanks for expanding the spreadsheet, Jan. It's a tricky business analysing data. I think the weighting is most practically judged as how much difference is there between competitors in a competition, rather than what is the average score. For instance, if the best score is 37.9 in dressage and 83.8 in marathon, and the sixth best score is 50.4 dressage and 93.9 marathon, then there is 12.5 points variation in dressage and 10.5 in the marathon - so the dressage is effectively weighted more heavily than the marathon (this example from Intermediate Horse - different results depending which sample you take, should use standard deviation as I put earlier in this thread). However, using the average scores to estimate the weighting suggests that dressage is weighted twice as heavily as marathon in that class - I don't think that reflects the real effect of each phase for people competing in that class. I think pressure for change comes because of this big variation in [currently factored] dressage scores while marathon scores amongst the best competitors get very close - and also because the dressage judging is by its nature subjective. | ||
| Faith Szczuka |
Many thanks to Mike for putting up this very useful spreadsheet, which makes it much easier to see what really happens when you change the weighting. As Mike says “ Not a huge number of placings change”. So why so much pressure to change the weighting? What is the real significance of the change in weighting? I have added a few extra columns to Mike’s spreadsheet, in order to show the relative contributions of dressage and marathon scores, to the final total, under the current system and under the proposed new system. You can view the “expanded” spreadsheet at Spreadsheet showing differences In general it would appear that the situation is approximately as follows: Old system: Marathon 60% Dressage 30% New system: Marathon 70% Dressage 20% Thus under the old system, the marathon contribution was (already) twice as big as the dressage contribution. Now under the new system, the marathon contribution would be more than three times as big as the dressage contribution! Do we really want to send a message that all the hard work involved in achieving a good dressage score should be worth so little? We can all appreciate the difference between a driver who drives cleanly through an obstacle, and one who crashes from one post to the next. Which one is more likely to (also) be the better dressage driver? Which type would we prefer to encourage? Jan | ||
| Mike Watts |
To see the effect of different weighting of dressage scores, here are the Windsor results with unofficial dressage adjustments to 'percentage' - out of 100: pdf version with 'percentage' - dressage out of 100 Excel version Both versions show the old and 'new' total score and place, and where the place changes it is in red. In the Excel version you can choose your own dressage weighting to see what it does, by typing a number in the yellow 'Dressage out of' box. 160 is the current rule, 100 is the 'percentage' system. These are simply pasted from the published results, plus some formulae, - entirely unofficial, but it lets you play with the values. Not a huge number of placings change when dressage is out of 100 ... but it's a matter of opinion how significant the resulting changes would be - very significant if your place changed?! If your place changes here with the different weighting, please don't be offended - these are just fantasy results to see what would happen if scoring were changed ..and there could be mistakes... | ||
| Julia Liles |
Jan, percentage scoring doesn't change any of the criteria required for equine and driver to win a competition. Please explain the merits of the use of the co-efficient system. It doesn't make competition closer and more exciting; it's not more reflective of the judges opinion; it's certainly not easier to understand; and it's been dropped by our hugely successful ridden counterparts. With 'Section E only' marathons just around the corner,our sport could become unrecognisable to its origins. We are so lucky to have British Eventing piloting and trialling schemes before us. Problems such as competition structure, Novice qualification, multiple entries, qualification at 2DEs, they have already solved. They have produced a product that competitor, sponsor and public clamour for. Would just copying them, be such a bad idea? Jeff | ||
| Faith Szczuka |
Time for percentages? So Sara Howe had a lead of 34.6 over 2nd place in the Marathon in the National Championships. Then again Andrew Williams had a lead of 33.28 over 2nd place in the Marathon in the National Championships. How could anyone stand a chance of making up that deficit over the dressage and cones? The biggest margin in any class between 1st and 2nd in Dressage was 14.4 for Horse Tandem (but this was smaller than the 14.7 margin in the Marathon for that Class). The biggest margin in any class between 1st and 2nd in Cones was 10.6 in Pony 4s. Why should anyone be wanting to belittle the achievements of Sara and Andrew and arguing that the importance of the marathon scores should be reduced in order to make the competition “fairer” for others? What I believe we should be doing is admiring their tremendous achievements and congratulating them! The point is of course that some people are better at some disciplines than others. So what’s new? Some people are much better at dressage, others are much better at marathon ... What do we want to value in our sport? Is it the better paces that some ponies/horses have than others? But of course we all know of competitors who can more than make up for any shortcomings in paces, by better accuracy. Is it the naturally superior acceleration and/or quicker turning ability that some ponies/horses have than others? But then again we know that raw speed isn’t everything and intelligent driving and route selection can win the day. Or is it the extra work and training that some drivers are prepared to put in, in order to improve their performance? Look at David Beckham, Johnnie Wilkinson, the Beatles, Bill Gates to mention just a few – all of whom put in absolutely massive amounts of training/practice, to become world class performers in their particular field of endeavour. Of course it is frustrating when you are starting out, and you want to progress as quickly as possible, but in reality there aren’t any easy short-cuts. That’s the nature of competition. One of the benefits of BHDTA to Members, is the various kinds of training supported by it. Over the last year or so BHDTA has been successful in securing significant funding from Sport England for training for Coaches, World Class Performance, Drivers with Disabilities, and Grass roots (“Training for Trials”), thereby further developing this support. The best way to beat the competition – in any field, is often simply to train and work harder. Finally, there seems to have been a great deal of emphasis on what happened at Pratoni, but how relevant is that to the vast majority of our Members who only ever compete in this country? Certainly this has been a very interesting discussion, but I for one am far from convinced that any changes suggested so far, will genuinely improve “fairness”. Jan | ||
| Julie Hoskyns |
You have my support, I agree that anything that makes it more of a competition has to be good for the sport. | ||
| Julia Liles |
Martyn, Philippe Lienart's programme already has the capacity to show the Judge's percentage mark so I can't imagine this would be difficult to turn this into a score. Vic Kusin is probably the man to answer this query and many thanks to Vic for calculating the percentage scores at previous events, and hopefully he will do the same for Windsor. I agree it must only be trialled initially but trialling is necessary, as although it is very interesting, retrospective calculations do not show the full impact a change of scoring would have on a competition. The tightening and closing of the gaps between competitors Dressage scores would reduce the ability of competition leaders to take the 'softer option' or 'risk free route' in Obstacles; or sadly as I have heard it mentioned allow a 'schooling' round. Trialling will stimulate more informed debate. Jeff | ||
| Martyn Willis |
I am a great believer that we should always play our sport at National level by following the FEI rule book as closley as posible (I know we have red penning.) That way we have no shocks when we compete Internationally. Jeff I would support you proposal on the following basis; It has the support of the FEI for it to be a trial of say a year. If after that trial period the FEI decide that they do not want to adopt it then we revert back to what ever scoring scheme the FEI prescribe. I have looked at a recent British Dressage score sheet and what you are proposing is the same as their scheme how ever they only have 2 penaulties for and initial error of course and 4 for the second with elimination for the third but I think bringing our dressage penaulties in line at this stage would be a step too far. One question though will this change in scoring have any effect on the live scores posting that many enjoy when they cant get to an event or will Philippe Liénart's program be able to show these revised scores? | ||
| Patti Atkinson |
Jeff. I think your proposition will get a lot of support. It certainly gets mine (even as a driver of one of the poor dears!) I would like nothing better than to return to the 5 section marathon days. Just because a horse moves well doesnt mean it is incapable of being hard fit. We are really looking forward to NEDTL's 5 section at Escrick, York in Sept - just like the old days. | ||
| Julia Liles |
Having received representations and views from members of every Class, overwhelmingly the Membership feels the eroding of the influence of the Marathon has been detrimental to the sport. Whilst not being a panacea, it is thought wise to follow the example of ridden eventing and redress some of the imbalance by adopting percentage scoring in the Dressage phase. Percentage scoring is more representative of the Judges opinion and much easier to understand. A staggering amount of competitors and judges did not understand the use of the co-efficient. The narrowing of Dressage scores between competitors will make competitions more exciting and tighter scoring will only elevate the standard. A closer, easier to understand scoring system within the competition would be more attractive to newcomers to the sport, as well as media and sponsors. There is no problem with Britain leading the way with this idea, as it is relatively simple to also calculate the co-efficient scores for those requiring International qualification and will have no impact on British team selection. I would therefore, on the Members behalf, like to propose at Conference: "The BHDTA in 2011 trial percentage scoring in the Dressage phase at all competitions, so the scheme can be fully discussed whilst in operation, by the Membership, the Council and the FEI". Jeff | ||
| David Taylor |
Been a very interesting discourse. Everyone I have spoken so far to agrees with the general drift of the comments. We seem to be slowly turning horse driving trials into a show class. Expensive dressage horses to seal your place, a gentle drive out that won't test the poor dears and a slight risk of blowing it in the cones. I certainly understood the competition to be the marathon with obstacles, with the dressage being a demonstration of preparedness and the cones afterwards of still having (a) sound sane horse(s). Re having dressage and cones followed by marathon, it removes the stress on the driver of being in the lead by a "smidge" and having to control yourself and drive a competent cones to retain that lead. A test of a real athlete. | ||
| Carole Redgrave |
Hear,hear,Douglas. I think I'm what you would call a "grass roots" driver and I would love the marathons to be of 5 stages! However, I do know how much more pressure this would put on our already overworked Club Committees and their loyal bands of Volunteers. Could they cope with the extra work involved? And should we expect them to? With my tongue firmly in my cheek- may I suggest that we start with a 5 stage marathon, followed by Cones and finally when I stand half a chance of getting some submission, the dressage!!!( scored of course on true percentages! ) Dream on eh? | ||
| Douglas Strachan |
Thoughts by Grumpy Old Man Douglas Strachan I agree with Janet that any proposed changes to the marathon in the U.K. must be thoroughly discussed. The whole concept is that the Sport of Horse Driving Trials is surely based on the word TRIALS with the emphasis on the Marathon ( not Dressage with a truncated Obstacle section) There are two aspects to consider - Scoring and weighting of the three elements - Physical aspects of the marathon Scoring Approximately five years ago I argued that Dressage was beginning to have too high an influence on the Sport (Cones had been reduced to 3 penalties from 5) I therefore agree with Vic and others that the balance between the three elements would be better if the Dressage element was based on percentages Marathon At the last two AGMs of the BHDTA I have advocated that we ,on this side of the Channel, should retain the 5 stage marathon I note that Jill’s blog from Pratoni described Section A as “quite a short Section A (5.5km)” and that Section E “criss-crossed and doubled backs” (This implied to this simple soul that the area for a good sized marathon was restricted) This was also the impression I had of the World 4’s at Beesd. I have just looked at the Holker 1986 catalogue in which the distances were A=9.3, B 0.8, C 4.2, D 0.8, E 9.5 giving a total of 24.6km. The horse speeds were respectively 15,7,18,7,14 kph. The entry was 115 including 20 teams. I wonder if the “International” element of our Sport envisage that eventually there will only be Section E. This would certainly be more suitable for dressage bred horses which might not have the stamina for the longer, more taxing terrain that we can enjoy on this side of the Channel.(How wonderful it was to get up onto the top of the Lowther marathon and look down on the lake) I wonder if the grass roots of our Sport want reduced marathons ? At the NEDTL AGM we asked our members. Few had experienced a 5 –stage marathon so at Escrick this September we are having a 5-stage marathon. This is at the end of the season when animals should be “fit” and the tracks are flat-flat . We hope other clubs will join us as it is also the Northern Championships. | ||
| Vic Kusin |
James: No, it should not. It may however influence the way competitors perform in the dressage if they know that their dressage score is less important for the final outcome of the event. D. Paffett: Yes, we are saying that a judge looks at a movement and says "that was a 70% medium trot". The actual process may be slightly different. The judge creates an imaginary scale in their mind which, based on their experience, has the worst possible movement at the bottom and the best performed movement they have ever seen at the top. They then have to place what they are seeing somewhere on that scale. Because we need to have a numerical score at the end of the competition, that mind-scale has to have some labels attached to it. It is wide-spread in modern society to use percentages. People are brought up with them and they are familiar with them. They can easily imagine a percentage scale. If you tell someone there's a 75% chance of rain, they'll have a pretty good idea what you mean. It is therefore natural to label the judge's "goodness" scale from 0 to 10. And the judge does say to their writer "that movement gets a 7". We all agree that dressage is entirely subjective, but it still has to be scored. If we ran a dressage only competition - like the ridden dressage competitors do - with no marathon to follow, we would still have to have marks at the end of it so that drivers and horses performance could be compared. This is no different from other sports like figure skating or diving. The valid point that Chris Hillman made earlier is whether the marks we give in the dressage influence the final outcome of the competiton so much that the importance of the marathon or cones is diminished. There is no doubt that for a sponsor who is investing in the sport or the TV viewer who has to be attaracted to it, the marathon is the most interesting part and unfortunately without sponsors, the sport cannot continue. By the way, in Europe they are experimenting with running the marathon as the third phase of the competiton on the final day to make the event more exciting and more appealing to spectators and sponsors. Maybe dicussion of the pros and cons of this idea should take place in a new thread ! | ||
| James Broome |
Here's a question for you: Would changing the way that dressage was scored actually have an effect on the distribution of marks that the judges give? | ||
| D Paffett |
Jeff, (i) Are you saying that a judge looks at a medium trot and says “that looks like a 70% medium trot to me?” (ii) Are you saying that the historical basis of driving should be the current basis? I think that dressage is much more subjective than those cute little percentages suggest. Marathon, on the other hand is rigorously measured and barring human recording errors is 100% objective. | ||
| Julia Liles |
D. Paffett, This has been explained in previous posts - the co-efficient is used solely to convert the judges score to be out of 160. When the judge gives 'good' they are actually scoring 80%, 'satisfactory' 60% and so on. There is an historic basis, not a mathematical one why the marathon should be given more emphasis - eventing was marathon based. Jeff | ||
| D Paffett |
“What is unarguable, is that percentage scoring in dressage is the judges true opinion rather than being exaggerated by co-efficients”. Jeff Liles I’m not sure I understand this. The judges true opinion was “good”, “satisfactory”, “broke pace” etc. You have already reduced it to coefficients by giving it marks out of ten. | ||
| D Paffett |
OK, I’m saying that how you compare chalk and cheese is arbitrary (i.e. a matter of opinion or preference that cannot be objectively justified). Are you saying that there is a mathematical basis why the marathon should be given more emphasis? I fully understand that you make this “comparison” in order to decide who is the best overall competitor. I’m just saying that because the disciplines are different and they are measured differently you can never arrive at a weighting scheme that is fully justifiable. If you move the argument on to the “influence” of the disciplines are you not window-dressing the basic incompatibility issue? The Swiss came first and second in the marathon. So you might be putting up a system where dressage scores don’t matter. You might even be right but would it improve the sport? The IHDTA use a dressage score based on percentages and the marathon specialists take all the honours. It seems to me the only objective assessment you can make is “will this scoring system take the sport in the direction you want it to go?” (I knew it would boil down to continental warmbloods sooner or later!) However, the argument that the current scoring system is difficult to follow and should be made easier is definitely the one that gets my vote. | ||
| Vic Kusin |
I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear in the previous post, but we are definitely NOT comparing the dressage with the marathon, and never have done. And the units of measurement are different - that is also a fact we are not trying to change. We are comparing the influence each of the three phases has on the total mark. The "weighting", if you like to call it that, which has to be applied exactly BECAUSE the three phases are so different. This weighting can be adjusted by changing the co-efficient (in the case of the dressage) or the obstacle time penalties (for the marathon) or the knock-down penalties or time penalties (in the cones). Adjusting any of these will affect the influence that phase has on the final score. What that ratio should be is debatable. Jeff mentioned Prince Philip's 3:10:1 ratio, which was based on eventing. But, as we have seen from the previous few posts in this thread, the whole thing is so subjective that taking a rule from another discipline obviously cannot be applied directly to driving without some adjustment. Vic | ||
| Julia Liles |
D. Paffett, Our sport must make a comparison. What influence any phase should have will always be open to debate and there are any amount of scoring systems to adjust the balance of a three phase competition. What is unarguable, is that percentage scoring in dressage is the judges true opinion rather than being exaggerated by co-efficients. At Prattoni, co-efficient scoring secured the team win for Germany; percentage scoring would have rewarded the Swiss 1st and 2nd places on the marathon with gold. Probably, none will agree exactly on what 'weighting' is correct but I think Chris Hillman will have his work cut out explaining to public, sponsors and media that despite the thrill and excitement of a Saturday marathon, competitions can often be decided by the 'boring bit' on Friday. Jeff | ||
| D Paffett |
Surely comparing dressage to marathon is like comparing chalk to cheese? Dressage is judged purely on style and not at all on speed. Marathon is judged purely on speed and (within limits) it doesn’t matter how you do it. Also, the units of measurement are different. You can compare two different mileages or two different weights, but dressage is measured in style points and marathon is measured in time units. So, as VIc Kusin, says ANY system of weighting must be purely arbitrary. The system you adopt depends on how important you think dressage is versus marathon. You can certainly say that someone else might have won but you cannot argue a case that one system is more fair than another. Looking at the top 30 can be misleading because the top 30 got there by having better dressage scores because of the weighting! Looking at standard deviations is also dangerous. Standard deviation is a measure of how far away the scores are from the average score. So if the dressage scores are heavily weighted their standard deviations will be higher. Furthermore, if you make one mistake in the dressage the damage to your points score is limited. But making just one mistake in the marathon could leave you with a cricket score. Generally, this is what has happened to the lower order competitors. Big differences from the average such as this would lead to a dramatic increase in the standard deviation. (Try recalculating it without the Italian who got 144 in the marathon at Pratoni). So lies, lies and more damn statistics but whichever way you crunch the numbers the underlying truth is that you are trying to compare the ballet to the front crawl. | ||
| Vic Kusin |
Percentage results comparison for the World Singles Championships in Pratoni is now shown at: http://www.horsedrivingtrials.co.uk/reference/percentages_pratoni_2010.pdf As you will see, quite a lot of the final placings would have been different if percentage scoring had been used in the dressage. Most notably, Ian Bertram, who had done well in both the Marathon and the Cones would have finished 9th instead of 16th. In the end of the day, it does not really matter whether we use perecentage scoring or co-efficients in the dressage. What we are doing is altering the influence the individual phases have on the final score. Mathematically, it is perhaps neater and simpler to use percentages, which may be more easily understood than co-efficients. We could just as easily alter the ratio between the phases by changing number of penalties awarded in the marathon for time in the obstacles or, as we have done a few years ago, change the cones score by altering the number of penalties for a knockdown or for time over the time allowed. | ||
| Julia Liles |
Mike, You're are absolutely right, ratios move continuously; a generous dressage judge, a course builder that favours knockdowns, a particularly twisting cones course have an enormous effect on an overall competition. Each individual event will create it's own ratio, so we must generalise. I have been looking at results in the sport in recent years compared to yesteryear and the effect performances in each phase have on a competition. I have used the static percentage differences between competitors rather than the ever changing points systems to measure and compare all phases. I think you'll find 5:3:2 isn't very far away. What we are a million miles away from is the 3:12:1 that our ridden counterparts try to achieve. Jeff | ||
| Mike Watts |
Jeff, how did you arrive at your figures for the current effective weights of the phases "at the present time the ratio is nearer 5 for Dressage, 3 for Marathon and 2 for Cones."? If you look just at the average scores in the phases, we'd get dressage 60, marathon 102, cones 13 at Sandringham or 61, 81, ? at Pratoni. What really counts though is the difference in scores between competitors in each phases and this depends strongly which figures you use. For instance at Pratoni, the variation (standard deviation) in scores in the top 30 is: dressage 7.9, marathon 4, but of all competitors: dressage 8.7, marathon 13, i.e the top competitors are very close in the marathon, but vary lots in the dressage, making the dressage effectively very important in their outcome ... the current weighting is dressage:marathon 8:4 or 9:13 - it depends very much which set of competitors you look at. | ||
| Julia Liles |
Mike, the co-efficient can't be changed arbitrarily because it converts the score to be out of 160. Percentage scoring actually reduces 1.6 penalties to 1 penalty, closing the gap between scores. Originally, Prince Philip and Sir John Miller, in line with ridden eventing at the time, thought the ratio between the competitions should be 3 for Dressage, 10 for Marathon and 1 for Cones. By making changes to Competitions B and C, but leaving the scoring system for Competition A untouched, at the present time the ratio is nearer 5 for Dressage, 3 for Marathon and 2 for Cones. If percentage scoring was adopted, I suggest we would be competing at roughly 5 : 6 : 4 and perhaps Pratoni wouldn't have been all over by Friday. Jeff | ||
| Mike Hodgson |
having percentages drops the dressage score by roughly about 20 penalties, doesn't this then give the marathon more wieghting than the other phases. would changing the co-efficient not make the 3 phases more balanced. | ||
| Vic Kusin |
Just worked out the percentage scores for Erddig. They are at: http://www.horsedrivingtrials.co.uk/reference/percentages_erddig_2010.pdf Again, only a few placing changes as a result of the lower dressage marks. However, interesting to note that in the Open Pony class, Naomi Harbach, who was fourth in the dressage but had an excellent marathon and double clear in the cones, would have won the class if the percentages dressage scores were being used. Similarly, in Open Horse, Philip Reeves was 11th in the dressage, which put him in 3rd place overall, despite his excellent marathon. In the percentage totals he would have won. When I have time, I'll do some more events and will also have a go at the scores from Pratoni once the final results are in. Ian Bertram had a very good marathon, so it will be interesting to see where he would have ended up if percentages were used for the dressage. If anyone wants to play at these thenselves, the formula is: PERCENTAGE PENALTY SCORE = 100-((160-PEN)*0.625) where PEN is the original dressage penalty score. The formula removes the 160 marks element and the co-efficient "fiddle factor" that is normally applied. Vic. | ||
| Janet Pilling |
Thanks Vic! That is really interesting. | ||
| Vic Kusin |
Just to make this long discussion thread even longer, I thought I would do a little bit of number-crunching, having the detailed event results at my disposal. I took the results from Sandringham 2010 and did the calculations to see how the placings would be affected if we used the percentage system for dressage scoring. I have put the dressage scores and the final results into Excel and calculated the percentages, based on the judges' marks and the number of movements in the test. From a purely mathematical point of view, the percentage scoring system is the more obvious one to use - the judges, after all, mark each movement as a percentage (marks out of 10) so why not then have the final mark reflecting that ? The Excel sheet is at: www.horsedrivingtrials.co.uk/reference/percentages_sandringham_2010.xls and there is also a PDF version at: www.horsedrivingtrials.co.uk/reference/percentages_sandringham_2010.pdf The Excel file has two sheets. The dressage score sheet, which has extra columns on the right hand side, showing the percentage score and the percentage penalty marks (the percentage score subtracted from 100) and the new placing. On the overall score sheet, the two beige coloured columns on the right show the final scores and placings with the percentage dressage marks applied. The placings in red are the ones that have changed as a result of the percentage dressage scores being used. You will see that there are surprisingly few place changes. Although everyone's dressage penalty scores are much lower when using the percentages, thus giving less emphasis to the dressage scores in the overall total, this only has an effect when the placings are really close - i.e. within one or to penalty points. Most placings in most classes remain unaffected. The dressage marks all come out much lower than before by about 40% (an "old" 50 mark becomes around 30 on the percentage scale). This means the final scores are also correspondingly lower. I will let everyone examine the results and draw their own conclusions. If you think this comparison is useful and would like me to do the sums for results from other events, please let me know. Vic. | ||
| Julia Liles |
Chris, I don't think anything has been written in stone. The governing bodies don't want to dictate how the sport should be run, their remit is to implement the wishes of their members. All the changes within the sport have been member lead, but as when anything evolves there is cause and effect. At one time cones was little more than a procession, having little if no effect on results, so it was made harder, then the 5 penalty knockdown, that occurs in a split second, looked out of kilter with how long it takes you to improve your dressage by 5 penalties, so it was reduced to 3. Now with the style of courses being designed the times may have to be re-assessed, and so on. Whilst Competitions B and C have changed considerably, Competition A has not. I think this has skewed the whole competition and that percentage scoring would help re-balance the competition. If enough agree, at Conference we must ask our representatives to approach the FEI for debate. Nothing can be done unilaterally, so they in turn will have to contact the BHDTAs European counterparts for a process to begin. Ultimately the competitors choose in what direction their sport moves. In the meantime, perhaps we could ask the BHDTA to have the Judges percentage score alongside the Dressage mark on the scoreboards at competitions. I think it would give us all a better insight to our relative performances and probably increase the tally of Christmas cards that Judges receive. Jeff | ||
| Ginny White |
Ginny Whites husband posting... I am not an active competitor but have sat on the back a couple of times for Ginny. I don't know much about the sport apart from the fact that my wife thoroughly enjoys it and we have a pony that is quite good. The one comment that I made to Ginny early on was that she should try to improve her dressage as that is where the competition is won or lost. To win you have a better chance if you do well in the dressage. The scoring system is heavily weighted in favour of differences in dressage scores. It is much more difficult to win with differences in times in the obstacles. What does the governing body for the sport think about this? Do they have a weighting system such as 40:30:30 for the phases or are they supposed to all count equally? Why do they score the phases as they do currently, there must be some explanation somewhere as to the importance of each phase. If they are all supposed to count equally then why not adopt something like the F1 scoring system. i.e. points for your position in the phase. If you come first you get 10 points down to 10th, (not that you ever get that many competitors,) 1 point. Add the points up to get a winner at the end from the 3 phases. Just a thought. You can still present rosettes for individual phases if you want and still score them the same to evaluate how you did in a particular phase. Just my thoughts as a sideliner / backstepper. Chris White. Ginny's other half for 25 years! | ||
| Julia Liles |
I actually believe percentage scoring will lift the quality of dressage. Tighter scoring, closer competition always raises standards. Sadly, Julie's thoughts have been borne out by some of this years results. In the smaller Advanced classes, where a comfortable lead has been achieved in the dressage phase, the marathon scores are no better than the scores stimulated by some right old ding-dongs in the Open classes. 'Advanced Class' was never meant to be translated to 'Dressage Specialists', was it? Jeff | ||
| Julie Hoskyns |
This is an excellent topic with some well thought out arguments. For what it is worth, I think it's worth looking at percentages and here is why..... We see all too often at the top end of the sport in particular, amazing dressage scores, not everyone aspires to be on a team but my guess is that just about everyone (with the odd exception) who is competing in advanced classes dreams of selection. We have seen in the past drivers being so far ahead after the dressage that they can, in effect coast the marathon. Once teams are selected and we are up against the opposition the cracks start to show, those fantastic dressage drivers very often perform a mediocre marathon or woe betide should they have a problem their score doesn't count anyway. Is it right that the dressage is such an influence in it’s present state given my comment earlier (which should have come before Emma’s ) that it is the only subjective phase? It wasn’t so long ago that the cones had too much weighting so it was looked at and changed, what is different now? It is time we looked at the alternatives so we return to being all round performers with no individual phase carrying more influence than another. Just to pick up the point James made. I suspect that most people competing in national classes put in hours of dressage practice, some have more time than others due to work or home commitments and some are more fortunate than others when it comes to training facilities but, I would take a guess that everyone thinks it is an important part of our sport.. I do not believe Jeff is trying to get the dressage dumbed down, just to be a more accurate representation of it’s true worth.. BE seems to have it sorted, at the end of day two of a comp, the scores at the top are so close that the final phase is a nail biter, not a foregone conclusion, they are the ultimate all round athletes (equestrian). Maybe, as Carole suggested, it should go to the vote. In fact maybe it is time to add a page to this forum,. Topics such as this, open for 21 days with only full members taking a vote on the issues at the end, it would then be up to the council to implement those changes. Julie | ||
| Carole Redgrave |
I spend nearly ALL my time at home practising dressage!!! I still would even if it were not so influential. I agree it helps to improve times in the cones and obstacles- we hardly ever see a cone or obstacle in between competitions. By reducing the weighting dressage has on the scores wouldn't mean horses were less well schooled- people would try just as hard to acheive a good Test- it would just mean they were more fairly scored. | ||
| James Broome |
With regard to the weighting on dressage, I would argue that it's far better for equines that we all spend our time at home practicing dressage than it is practicing charging around obstacles. Good dressage improves marathon and cones scores anyway. Personally, I think that the weighting is about right for the general direction of the sport, with the long term athletic development of the equines in mind. Here's an interesting thought, I bet that without the galloping in and out, the average speed in cones is quicker than the average speed in obstacles. The biggest question is are we using the right vehicles for cones? Eventers don't have to show jump in their dressage saddles! | ||
| Carole Redgrave |
I wonder what the result would be if it was put to the vote? I am only a club competitor but the scoring system is still the same ie the dressage seems too influential. I think Jeff illustrated it perfectly with the Tobias Bucker/Karl Wanstrath example. People are winning by number crunching not by how the judges judged them. I for one would definitely be in favour of true percentages and, yes, it will make a difference as to whether I for one, stay in the sport. My horse is (just about) capable of an average dressage test but he thrives in the cones and marathons as he is a bold, forward-going, ground-covering but dead- honest chap and were there still five stage marathons he would probably beat the pants off the "correct" dressage winners. The way things stand at the moment, we get quite disillusioned and you can only take so much disillusionment before you think " should we give up". The adrenalin rush we get from the marathon is what keeps us in the sport. | ||
| Julia Liles |
Emma, although you may be right in thinking the percentage v. co-efficient argument will not solve the collapse of entries in our sport, the British Eventing Association and FEI thought it important enough to debate the argument and have had co-efficients dropped from the dressage phase of their sport in favour of percentages and you tell me their entries are increasing. Basically we must ask ourselves, disregarding any percentages or margins of scores, if Competitor A beats Competitor B in the dressage and Competitor B beats Competitor A on the marathon and they dead heat in cones, who should get the red rosette? If as I believe in the nature of what the sport should be testing, that Competitor B should win, our present scoring system is incorrect. Jeff | ||
| Julie Hoskyns |
Well said. The dressage phase is the only subjective phase yet it carries the most influence. | ||
| Emma Burton |
Carriage driving isn't comparable to other horse sports cost wise due to the extras involved, not only for at least one carriage/transport for such, but for the overnight accomodation which is required and the time off work to go to events. Eventing has increased their entries in general, it is something the average rider can do and they have lowered the heights at entry level to accomodate these first timers. There are countless magazines to read and get info from, the events are countrywide, and you can probably compete in the kit you have. As James quite rightly said, unless you know someone doing it, driving trials don't exist. We get a small amount of coverage in general magazines, and those that specialise don't get noticed. Indoor competitions are growing. You only need the kit not stabling etc, it's all done in a day and it's fun to compete in. I'd think some of these who enjoy it will move forward to outdoors, but most will not. I don't think it has anything to do with dressage scoring or percentages. Equine minority sports are struggling across the board, in team chasing we have asked and asked what people want and how they feel the sport can progress without losing it's original feel. Events run at several levels, the top one is as the sport was intended, but at most events that class has only a handful of teams. Much the same as horse fours. The events can only run due to the competitors in the lower classes, their money provides the income to run the show, the open class is the crowd puller. Some will move upwards, some will stay at novice. And some drivers will move up to nationals, others will stay at club and are quite happy. Most will not even notice the percentages v co-efficient argument. I think the waning entries do need to be addressed, but I feel the cause isn't the dressage stage being marked wrongly. The world cup event is a showcase, a crowd pleaser, and is quick and good to watch. Paying public might not bother if they had to sit through hours of trotting in circles. Eventers can do pure dressage for practice, we don't have that option and only get in the arena at trials. And whilst i'd love to do a few dressage only events I don't think there are enough people to justify it, and if there were, could we justify the fuel/time to go? They would be unlikely to be local. Ginny, you are a prime example of driving being fun for all! By telling people, getting the odd page in the horse press and showing folk what you do we might get a few others hooked to the sport. | ||
| Julia Liles |
James, I must have explained myself badly, but the last paragraph of my previous post referred to driving competitions. The largest growth area of driving is the Indoor Competitions and they have dramatically lessened the influence of the dressage test. And, ironically the most glamourous innovation in driving, showcasing the sport, the Global World Cup, that boasts the most well schooled horses in the driving world, doesn't even have a dressage phase. Whilst applauding any way to encourage newcomers into the sport we must first discover why so many competitors are leaving and that support and sponsorship have waned so considerably. Perhaps the sport increasingly moving towards a dressage test with appendages can take some responsibility. A different form of scoring need not reduce standards but redress the balance of the competitions. Jeff | ||
| Ginny White |
I am a mum competing my daughters out grown pony, i consider myself an experienced rider/competitor and have been driving competitively, for fun,and to win!.My pony is not a dressage pony, but we have done very well due to his speed and enthusiasm in the other sections. However the speed of the cones at national events seems daunting if not a bit ridiculous ( i think) at Brighton with a very small entery the cream of the sport in canter struggled to make the time and it seems the same country wide. I asked someone why it is now so fast they said becuase they do it like this in Europe. I only have one old vechicle and do my driving on a budget,(no lamps!) i am not intemidated by the presentation but with only one marathon type carriage a lot of cleaning goes on at an event, and some people who may like to have a go and swell the enteries, are not sure wether they are good enough or will be accepted. Having gone up to open at club level this year i will do a qaulifier, but with a more difficult dressage test, i may just have to be faster!. But fun and safety should be paramount on the list. Ginny White | ||
| James Broome |
There is a ridden version, it's called Dressage. There are FAR more people that compete in ridden dressage that Team Chase, which is the closest thing that I can come up with that represent a single phase Cross Country Event. Anyway, to the newcomer, the fact that dressage is scored out of 160 rather than 100 will really not make any difference to them. A newcomer will have a few years before that becomes any sort of an issue. The whole argument about the barriers to enter a sport, I believe, is flawed. Evidence of this is that there are thousands of people out there that compete in Show Jumping, Eventing and Dressage and they are all very expensive to compete in, relative to going fishing or salsa dancing. So why are there so many people that compete on horseback? People do it because they want to and just find a way to fund it. The biggest challenge to Driving Trials is that most folk don't even know about us. To get more people involved is down to each and every member of the BHDTA spreading the gospel to as many people as possible. Some will fall on stony ground and be a waste of breath, but some will fall on good ground, and that’s how we’ll get some more members to carry the sport onwards. | ||
| Julia Liles |
Is it progress if the sport is shrinking? The much publicised purchases of enormously expensive ex-dressage horses and ponies at the top of the sport indicates that the scoring in Competition A is over influential or surely the well-heeled would be buying the bravery and stamina of ex-eventers for the cross country stage. In fact it is the reverse, we have seen sections in Competition B being lost and shortened to protect these large investments. The sport has always been driven from the top, but is it damaging its own foundations? Event organisers now have to beg entries, when not so long ago they were balloting out. The bulk of the sport is the Single classes. No non-international event could run financially with only Multiples. Have we made the sport seem less accessible to the outgrown childs pony or the abandoned college bound teenagers horse that has become available to Mum and Dad, and used to proliferate the sport? I suggest the Dressage phase is thought to be a daunting hurdle to the would be newcomers contemplating whether to have a go at trialling. Would percentage scoring make the arbiters and Competition A seem friendlier? Competition C already has a version as a stand alone sport. I think Competition B could make a popular exciting sport. Does anyone believe 'fun-filled' Competition A could last the length of a test? Jeff | ||
| Carole Redgrave |
I like James' sentence " Tradition should never stand in the way of progress" Just imagine if it had, us women would still be sporting long frocks and riding side-saddle everywhere!!!! | ||
| James Broome |
The concept of percentages is a good concept although it does overlook the pattern of distributions. If someone does 10% better in dressage, they are not necessarily 10% better. For instance, let's say that 50% of the driving population could achieve a 50% or better. Only 30% will achieve a 60% or better and probably only 10% will ever get a 70% or better. In terms of the differences between the classes, there is usually quite a small spread of overall results in the Advance Single Pony Marathon. There also tends to be quite a small spread in the Cones. Therefore, relatively speaking, this class has a much higher weighting on the dressage than the multiple classes because the range of scores on marathon and cones tends to be higher as the number of ponies driven increases. This means, that pony 4s actually have a lower weighting on dressage than the singles do. With regard to cones vehicles, I do believe that it is only a matter of time before a brave driver welds a couple of lamp brackets onto a scurry vehicle and uses that for dressage and cones. Traditionalists will despise it, but tradition should never stand in the way of progress and if this idea is something that will improve equine performance, then it is probably inevitable, just a matter of time. With the FEI considering removing Presentation scores from dressage, perhaps the time is getting closer. Go on folks, I dare you! The Geek from Chepstow | ||
| Julia Liles |
Percentages are the scores in ridden dressage and increasingly in driving trials on the continent being registered on the scoreboard next to the converted dressage score. At Giethmen in Holland, last month, the scoreboard in Pony Fours read thus: Tobias Bucker. 72.4% = 44.16 pens (Comp A), 99.58 (Comp B), 3.00 (Comp C), Total 146.74 Karl Wanstrath 62.7% = 59.65 pens (Comp A), 87.51 (Comp B), 3.00 (Comp C), Total 150.16 Karl-Heinz had beaten Tobias by 12% on the Marathon whereas Tobias had only beaten Karl-Heinz by just under 10% in the Dressage, but after converting the dressage scores out of 160, Tobias secured the win. Would it have been more reflective of the Judges marks and the relative performances if the scoreboard had read?: Tobias Bucker. 72.4% = 27.6 pens (Comp A), 99.58 (Comp B), 3.00 (Comp C), Total 130.18 Karl Wanstrath 62.7% = 37.3 pens (Comp A), 87.51 (Comp B), 3.00 (Comp C), Total 127.81 Was Karl-Heinz beaten by Tobias or a mathematical calculation? Jeff | ||
| Emma Burton |
Saying I don't think significance should be put on a single phase doesn't really say i'd like parity. I don't think each phase should be scored equally, that would be parity? I'm not from the old times so don't recall how the sport has changed, I can only say i've seen classes won from behind after the dressage, so the current scoring system doesn't handicap those not so good performers to a degree they are defeated. I'm enjoying reading your views, as I believe the only way to learn is to see another point of view! Besides, i'm sat at home supposed to be resting, I class typing as rest. Its funny how we all see things differently, i've not noticed people becoming disheartened by the scoring system. I have heard people coming away from nationals due to costs and justification during what are rough times for many. Has the idea of percentages been addressed before in driving? Joe: Pre novice cones are 210 m/min. Novice: 220 m/min Inter: 230 m/min Open: 240 m/min Advanced: 250 m/min According to the reference section of this site. | ||
| Julia Liles |
Emma, interesting that you think the three phases should have parity. It shows how far the sport has moved from its origins. However, my very point is, we don't have parity whilst the Dressage competition is valued out of 160. The figure was adopted to create a fair ratio between the penalties accrued in each competition, but because the standards throughout the phases have improved so much, it now causes an imbalance favouring Competition A. If we disregarded the co-efficients and used the judges actual percentage score it would be far closer to the parity you favour. As for Mr. Sufficient, he would be encouraged that the judges gave him 50%, rather than the miserable 80 penalties after using the co-efficient and not only try to improve but stay in the sport. Jeff | ||
| Joe Hodgson |
What time do pre-novices get to do the cones? | ||
| Emma Burton |
A couple of Intermediate competitors made the time before it was adjusted, at least one in a presentation carriage. I've never been round a cones course that fast, it was fun but I wouldn't want to do it every time. It's a three phase competition, I don't feel any one phase should carry more significance. A good test doesn't guarantee you the win, but a good score is reward for work and training. If Mr Sufficient knows he won't be far behind after the dressage, does that not encourage him to concentrate on being fast across country instead of becoming Mr Fairly Good? | ||
| Phillip Reeves |
I think that competitor A should not have more of an advantage than B after dressage why should they,do they at FEI or three day eventing.? I also think it is a Great idea to be able to use a different carriage in cones and dressage if cones is to be a scurry comp. Are 3 day eventers expected to do showjumping in a dressage saddle.Phill | ||
| Phillip Reeves |
At catton they got the time that far out at lunch they altered the time.eg open horse and pony in the morning had 175 secs Advanced in the afternoon had185 secs. I cantered the coarse and still had 11 time faults. | ||
| Julia Liles |
No, the sport doesn't need to be made any more elitist. If it is thought that the Cones competition needs to be a 'speed class', the simplest solution is to drop the ruling that the same carriage must be driven in Dressage and Cones, and let us all use marathon vehicles. The sport has made huge strides to become safer but scurrying in presentation carriages is reversing the trend. Fortunately, the Horse classes are not being asked to go relatively as fast as the Pony classes or within a nano-second we would be seeing the introduction of lightweight, low gravity presentation vehicles being used in the two competitions at the very top of the sport. Now that we have Presentation 'on the move' and have reduced its importance to 20% of its original worth, the loss of a little elegance in the Dressage competition will be far outweighed by the points gained in the Cones arena. However, I would still like to know whether you think Competitor A, who won the Dressage by 10% or Competitor B, who won the Marathon by 10% should be in the lead at the start of Cones, regardless of what carriage they are using. Jeff | ||
| Sandra Ormerod |
I agree with many of the points raised, but are you surgeting that the use of 3 phase vehicles should not be allowed at nationl competions or at any competion where another competitor is fortunate enough to own a presentation carriage and choose to use it, or should there be a seperate class for those who only have one 3 phase vehicle or even different times allowed ? | ||
| Phillip Reeves |
What a very good article I totaly agree with you on all points.At catton if you were in a marathon carriage you had a unfair advantage because the time was to tight.Most of the fastest times were on marathon carriages. | ||
| Julia Liles |
If Competitor A beats Competitor B by 10% in the Dressage phase and then Competitor B beats Competitor A by 10% on the Marathon, who should be in the lead at the start of Cones? With our present scoring system, in the slower Multiple classes, Competitor A would have at least a one cone advantage and in the speedier Single classes, more than two. The reason for this is that the sport has stuck rigidly to scoring Dressage, with the help of co-efficients, out of 160. In doing so, the Marathon (which is generally in the region of less than 100 penalties) has been undervalued, but more importantly the Dressage judges have been misrepresented. If a judge thinks Competitor A, 'fairly good', and gives 7s throughout the test, Competitor A will have a final penalty score of 48. If the same judge marks Competitor B, 'satisfactory', and gives 6s throughout the test, Competitor B will have a penalty score of 64. The judge had actually given Competitor A 70% and Competitor B 60%, judging there only being 10% between them, but because the test is then calculated to be out of 160 the margins have widened vastly. Would it not be fairer, and more in line with the judges opinion if Competitor A got a penalty score of 30 and Competitor B 40, the percentage they failed to achieve? The competition would become closer and Fridays scoreboard less miserable for most. In the majority of cases final placings would not change as generally most competitors are equally as good throughout the phases. And importantly, it would bring the sport a little closer to how it was scored at its conception when roughly speaking the relative value of each phase was 0.5 for presentation, 3 for dressage, 10 for marathon and 1 for the cones. Little wonder that the seniors in our ranks walk around todays cones courses fuming. Undoubtably, the standard of Dressage needed to be improved within the sport and by achieving this has improved the control and obedience to make obstacle times faster, but this actually compounds the imbalance in the scoring system. At the very top of the sport it has long been recognised that with each penalty being increased to 1.6 in the Dressage competition, what an advantage it is to train Dressage horses to Event. I wonder, however, if, at the grass roots end of the sport, the scoring system has not discouraged newcomers, when Mr. Sufficient on a penalty score of 80 is 32 points behind Miss Fairly Good on 48 when the judges thought there was only 20% between them. Barring disaster, 32 penalties is pretty unassailable but 20 gives hope. Of course, it is totally impossible to factor in everything to make a three phase competition fair, but it could be made fairer. We wouldn't make the Cones into a speed class and then allow marathon vehicles to compete against best carriages.......Doh! Jeff Liles |