Chuck Mangan
Gary Dearth

why?

Hey Del, what did these men do that would make you want to run from them?

Mr. Mangan has been known to "dump" horses and be way OFF base from his fellow judges...Such as a card that read 2-2-9 in our case, with him being the 9 in a 9 horse class.

Mr Dearth just spent an entire week at Region 4 being 20+ points lower than his counterparts on the SAME horse in the same class . He seems to do a fine job at performance classes but was very far off of his counterparts in all halter classes.

Thank you for sharing, Del. I know that the halter classes are quite controversial right now and I really believe we need judges that are educated in halter and do it on a fair playing field. Not all judges are on that field right now. Time will tell and maybe some big changes in how AHA deals with these types of problems with our judges.

Mary S.

Could it be that Gary Dearth had a different interpretation of how to use the score card than the other judges? Was he just using a broader range on the 20 scale, or was it that his opinions were entirely different?

Irrelevent. He did not judge the same horse the same way as his counterparts. One horse, One card, One standard. Folks need to start figuring this out.

Absolutely agree with you Del! This has to be addressed or they need more education before they judge another show.

Mary S.

I think in this day and age, unfortunately, all the educaiton in the world won't matter because politics will always play a part. If it's a trainer, he's going to judge another trainer with more leniancy because s/he expects the same from them! So unfair but I've encountered it all the many years I've shown as I haven't been with a "big name" since I was about 12!

Gordon Potts!
He judged Region 15, never giving any of the halter horses anything higher than a 94. He judged the entire yearling filly class of 16 (?-Not sure of the number, there were a bunch) within 4 points of eachother- and none scored over a 94. Basically he was saying that they were all average.
The other two judges in the class my horse was in gave a composite score of 101 and 98. Gordon gave a composite score of 84.
And BTW, why would they ask a person who has no clue about halter to judge a halter class?

nicnaq you have just asked the MILLION dollar question.

Hey guys, if a judge scores consistently lower throughout a class, it shouldn't matter. It doesn't affect the class at all. If the first place horse gets a 110, 105, and 84 and the second place gets a 104, 100, and 80, respectively, IT DOESN'T MATTER. And if they didn't know what they were doing, they wouldn't have their card. I had this conversation with a large R judge that has had 40923456 years of experience, and is well respected within the industry. A low score is not necessarily a bad score. Remember that.

I guess as an Ammy, (and coming from showing dogs which is identical) I want to know which judges look past "the faces" and judge horses. I know that some judges look to give professionals an advantage, for the payback of more judging assignments, stud services, purchases, etc.

What I want to know is, which judges give equal opportunity to us Ammys and which are pleasant to show to.

Since I am doing this for fun, I want to go home having had a great time with my friend in a pleasant ring.

Austin,

I understand what you're saying about consistency. But what about accuracy? If two judges give a horse 15's for legs and the third give it a 6, there's a 9 point spread. The third judge may be consistent but I think the accuracy is questionable. I would expect horses scoring 15 on legs to show good alignment without any major faults. Perhaps a horse with a 15 for legs could use more bone or slightly better angulation of the pasterns. A horse scoring a 6 for legs would have some major faults - calf knees, club feet, etc. If I was judging a horse with good alignment and placing of the legs and it had good bone and angulation, I'd say that's a 18 or 19.

I used to show warmbloods in hand. When I bred my Dutch mare, I paid a lot of attention to the stallion's scores for legs and movement. My point is that the scoring system is not just a means of placing a class. Rather, it should provide useful breeding information to aid breeders in improving the breed. When a stallion has a enough offspring being evaluated, the collective scores for whatever criteria should give a mare owner some idea as to the predictability that stallion for improving legs, producing a good jumper or dressage horse, etc. The collecitve scores are only as good as the accuracy.

I don't know if we'll ever get to the point of using scores to make breeding decisions and I certainly wouldn't rely on scores alone. But the scoring system should be more valuable than the old comparative system. Anyway, that's my experience with scoring systems outside of our breed.

Dave

I just finally pulled this topic up to read it. I had been avoiding it to some extent. I try very hard to simply not say anything at all if I disagree with a judge's placings. Having held a 4-H judge's card for many years, I understand some of the difficulties a judge faces in pinning a class. And I'm am sure those are only greatly compounded in the rated Arab ring where a lot more is at stake (though 4-H mommies aren't people you want to mess with either!).

I am interested in reading everyone's opinion of the halter scoring system however. And some interesting points are brought up here.

I guess the way I look at it...even though a number is attached...it is still a subjective opinion. One person's 8 is another person's 10. And, I have to agree with Austin, so long as the individual consistently uses the SAME number for their scoring, I don't see why it matters. Say three horses were placed. Horse A scored 110 under the first judge and 90 under the second judge. Horse B scored 108 under the first judge and 89 under the second judge. Horse C scored 100 under the first judge and 88 under the second judge. On both judges cards the placing will be the same: A, B, C. Now...if they flipped these horses that would be an issue. But the number is a subjective thing. It's the exact same way in SHIH. Now if we measured cannon bone circumference and length and the angles of the joints and used that to calculate a feet and leg score--THAT would be objective. And we'd be arguing about the geometric configuration of a 'perfect' leg instead.

I see the point about accuracy. But...we would have to have a VERY specific definition of each number on the score sheet (more than there is now) to determine whether a person's scoring is accurate.

Just look at the Body Condition Scoring system as an example--another numberic, yet subjective scale. Take 10 people and give them 10 horses to look at and ask them to score out their condition (ie weight) on a 5 or 9 point scale (which ever is your favorite)...with or without half points (which ever you choose). Heck--give them the guidelines to look at while they do it (which are fairly specific). And you'll end up with a variety of answers for each horse. A single horse will have a variety of scores. Yet...if there is a severely underweight horse...and a severely overweight horse in the group...the individuals scoring them will be able to pick those horses out--even though those horse's may not all have shared the same BCS number on everyone's sheets. This is where some personal experience comes into play--in my profession I personally have seen some VERY skinny and VERY fat horses. I have a very clear picture of the limits of my scale. Someone who hasn't seen such skinny or fat horses will have a much different idea of the limits of their scale.

How about this scenario. Two mare classes in two different states under two seperate sets of judges.

Washington show....Winning mare 125, 5th place mare 102.
Florida show....Winning mare 102, 5th place horse 80.

Which mare is national quality? The winner in FL or the last place horse in Washington.

If the scores MEAN ANYTHING at all, should the winning owner in FL invest the money to go to nationals when they know the 5 horses in WA were better breeding stock?

Which mare is worth more in the market place...The winner in FL or the last place horse in WA? If the scores were uniform would the horses not be worth about the same?

Are the 5 place horse in WA and the 5th place horse in FL about the same quality?

I think the score needs to mean something besides a placing. Placing 5th in a DEEP class where the winner is worth a 120 and you recieve a 102 is VASTLY better than winning a class with an 80, which has been seen under this card.

A breeding class is about identifying the most appropriate breeding animals. Being the 5th most appropriate animal in a DEEP class CAN, and SHOULD mean something.

I tend to think like Dave does, that scores do need to have a value and a meaning as they do in an evaluation of WB breeding stock. However, our Arabian judges are not used to evaluating horses based on scores, at least not in North America. Some are heavily resisting the system, which is and has resulted in gaming the card.

One thing which really needs to be determined is whether the scores are based on only horses at a specific show, only Arabian show horses or the entire population of Arabian horses nationwide.

Just wanted to add this one:

Debbie Cain

Reason- She judged one of our shows and although my horse was 2nd based on the points on the card, she went back and placed him last. Changing the card after all the horses had been presented and right before the announcer announced the class. Only three horses in the class. How do I know this happened? Two of our members were working in the center ring tallying points and distributing ribbons. When she heard the placings being told over the walkie talkie she said that's not right and changed her card. Kinda defeats the purpose of the score cards if you ask me.