Abstract
Recent public discussions have raised questions regarding judging standards and score distribution in international dressage. This article integrates professional reflection with quantitative data analysis provided by Daniel Göhlen (BlackHorseOne) to examine whether perceived changes in scoring reflect actual trends. The findings indicate that scoring levels have remained relatively stable over time, with only minor regional differences between Europe and North America. However, a clear shift is observed in judging emphasis, with increasing attention to welfare-related indicators such as contact quality, tension, and conflict behaviour. The article argues that modern dressage judging reflects an evolution toward welfare-oriented and training-based evaluation rather than inconsistency or undue strictness. It further highlights the shared responsibility among judges, riders, and trainers in shaping the future of the sport.
Introduction
In recent days, public discussion has emerged following posts on Social Media regarding judging standards and score distribution. The level of engagement reflects a strong collective commitment to the sport, which is both encouraging and necessary.
At the same time, it is essential that such discussions are grounded not only in perception, but also in data, professional context, and an understanding of broader developments affecting equestrian sport globally. Dressage, particularly at the international level, can at times operate within a relatively closed environment. It is therefore important to remain aware of external expectations, especially concerning animal welfare and transparency.
This article is written for dressage officials and reflects my analyses and opinions, with the aim of making the discussion more fact-based. It is not intended as evidence, but rather as an indication of the direction in which the sport is evolving.
Professional Responsibility and Communication
From the perspective of an FEI judge and IDOC member, it is important to emphasise that while open dialogue is fundamental, the context and manner of communication are equally critical.
Public commentary that may be perceived as endorsing criticism of specific judging panels risks undermining confidence in the officiating system. Judges operate within a framework that requires:
- Independence
- Consistency
- Accountability
- Collective professional responsibility
Maintaining trust in this system is essential for riders, owners, organisers, and the long-term credibility of the sport.
Scoring Trends: Evidence vs. Perception
Analysis of FEI results over time (Figure 1) demonstrates:
- Stable scoring levels across Grand Prix and Freestyle
- No clear evidence of systematic score inflation
- Minor fluctuations corresponding to performance variation rather than judging trends
This challenges the perception that judges are consistently marking lower or that standards have tightened arbitrarily.
Rather, the data suggests greater consistency and calibration in judging.
Analysis of FEI results shows relatively stable scoring without clear in- or deflation trends (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Average FEI results over time.
Regional Comparison
A frequent claim is that scoring differs significantly between Europe and North America. However, the data (Figure 2) indicates:
- Differences are relatively small
- Trends are parallel across regions
- Judging appears well harmonised at FEI level
Figure 2. Comparison of Europe vs North America.
Perceived discrepancies are therefore more likely linked to individual competitions, panels, or expectations, rather than systemic regional bias. If scores are correlated with the amount of Top10/20 riders in the region, the results are changing towards relatively higher overall scores in North America.
Shift Toward Welfare & Harmony-Oriented Evaluation
The most significant development is not found in score levels, but in what judges are increasingly prioritising.
Analysis of comment trends (Figures 3 and 4) shows a clear increase in:
- Mouth/contact-related issues
- Tension and rigidity
- Indicators linked to head and neck position
- General harmony
These findings align with:
- The Scale of Training (FEI Art. 401)
- Increased scientific understanding of equine biomechanics
- Growing societal expectations regarding animal welfare
Modern judging is therefore increasingly reflecting quality of training and welfare indicators, rather than solely technical execution.
There is a clear increase in welfare-related comments such as mouth/contact and tension (Figure 3).
Figure 4. Most common comment/remark categories.
Implications for Judging Practice
Judging today involves a multidimensional assessment, including (not prioritized):
- Technical correctness
- Quality of movement
- Harmony and relaxation
- Evidence of correct training
- Absence of conflict behaviour
This represents a refinement of evaluation criteria, not a restriction of scoring.
It is also important to emphasise that:
Scores must always be earned.
Using higher marks as a motivational tool risks undermining:
- Credibility
- Transparency
- Fair competition
Shared Responsibility in Sport Development
While communication from judges must improve, responsibility does not lie with judges alone.
Riders and trainers must also:
- Adapt training principles to the individual horse and situation (competition)
- Align goals with the combination’s level of development
- Prioritise long-term training over short-term results
The development of the sport happens primarily in daily training environments, not only in competition.
Discussion
The findings suggest that dressage is currently undergoing a structural and cultural transition.
Three key dynamics are shaping this evolution:
- Welfare Integration into Judging
Judging is increasingly aligned with welfare considerations, integrating behavioural and biomechanical indicators into scoring.
- Alignment with Societal Expectations
Public scrutiny of equestrian sport is increasing, particularly regarding:
- Ethical use of horses
- Transparency in judging
- Training practices
- Internal Tension Between Tradition and Adaptation
Dressage remains a tradition-based sport, which can slow adaptation. However, long-term sustainability requires responsiveness to change.
Limitations
This analysis should be interpreted within certain limitations:
- The dataset is limited to available FEI competition data and may not capture all regional nuances
- Comment analysis reflects recorded judging language, which may vary between judges and competitions
- Quantitative data does not fully capture contextual judging decisions, including panel dynamics and competition-specific factors
- Perception among riders and trainers is influenced by expectations and experience, which are not directly measurable
Despite these limitations, the consistency of trends across datasets supports the overall conclusions.
Conclusion
The available data does not support the notion of inconsistent or regionally biased judging. Instead, it indicates:
- Stable scoring levels
- High degree of international harmonisation
- A clear shift toward welfare-oriented and training-based evaluation
Dressage is evolving, and this evolution requires:
- Open dialogue
- Professional responsibility
- Willingness to adapt
Public comments that can be interpreted as endorsing criticism of fellow judges may unintentionally undermine confidence in the officiating system as a whole. Our role requires not only independence and integrity in our judging, but also a sense of collective responsibility toward the credibility and unity of our profession.
Constructive discussions about standards, trends, and interpretations are absolutely necessary. These conversations should continue to happen—ideally within professional and educational environments where context, nuance, and mutual respect are fully preserved.
Ultimately, the future of the sport depends on a shared commitment from judges, riders, trainers, and governing bodies.
References
- Göhlen, D. (BlackHorseOne). FEI Dressage Data Analysis (2016–2026)
- FEI Dressage Rules (latest edition)
- FEI Guidelines for Judging Dressage