Ah HA! I TOLD you so.....(Color Bias)

[Hot4Spots]

Now seriously, I've been opining that while there may have been color prejudice in dressage in the past (like 30-40 years ago), the vast majority of dressage judges today judge the ride in front of them and don't consider the color/breed of the horse. Maybe so for some/most (?), but..... did you see the blurb in the USDF Connection? They found a definite color bias, with spotted horses ( ) ranked lowest, then "block colored" horses (paints/pintos), then most favored: solid colored horses. Conclusion was there WAS a bias against colored horses. (Study may have been in the UK (I don't have mag in front of me) - but from Horse & Hound and other Brit magazines I've seen, they seem quite fond of "coloured" horses. *shrug*

[westisbest]

I am FB friends with Russell Guire, a biomechanics expert and clinician in the UK. He rec rides a big beautiful Knabstrupper and appears to do very well showing.

[Rosie B]

I don't think you can interpret this as a colour bias necessarily. I think breed would be a better predictor of scores than colour. If you consider all the breeds whose scores would be incorporated into the solid colour group versus those that would be included in the block and spotted colour groups, you would probably see much greater variety of breeds in the solid colour group.

It would also be illuminating to understand the standard deviation in scores over these groups. If I could guess I would say that the solid colour group would have a higher mean but would also have a higher standard deviation.

I'm a little leery of any study like this that doesn't explain how they arrived at their results because there are so many factors that should be considered.

In a nutshell, just because there appears to be a correlation, doesn't mean there is a bias.

[Hot4Spots]

Ah....but Knabs are considered WBs, spots or not. LOL (I wonder if the bias is waived for horses that are known to be Dutch Pinto or Knabs, per this:

True story. Acquaintance was showing very successfully at 2nd level on a mostly TB Paint. She needed only one more score to qualify for Regionals and Nationally, was schooling 3rd for following year. (This was about 3-4 years ago.) Found a show before the qualification deadline and saw that it was a judge that had scored her favorably in the past. Actually, she'd been doing VERY well and hadn't gotten undeservedly low scores from ANY judge. So. She goes to show. Horse really performs well. She is delighted. Goes to check her scores - 57%, 56%, 57%, 57.5%. She was very disappointed and felt the horse had performed the best he had that year (limited show season, hot weather state).

Then she ran into the scribe who was a friend of hers. She asked if the judge had said anything that wasn't on the test, since the remarks were complimentary, but the scores were low. Friend demurred. Rider insisted, promising she wouldn't act on whatever she was told. Scribe finally said, "Well, he said that he had thought your horse was a Dutch Pinto, but he had found out that it was ONLY a PAINT."

[Rosie B]

Yes, I know there are knaps and blocked coloured WBs, but they are quite rare in the grand scheme of things so wouldn't have much impact on the results.

The example you provide is pretty sad and it's a shame stuff like that happens. I'd like to believe that's an exception rather than the rule.

[Hot4Spots]

I don't think you can interpret this as a colour bias necessarily. I think breed would be a better predictor of scores than colour. If you consider all the breeds whose scores would be incorporated into the solid colour group versus those that would be included in the block and spotted colour groups, you would probably see much greater variety of breeds in the solid colour group.

It would also be illuminating to understand the standard deviation in scores over these groups. If I could guess I would say that the solid colour group would have a higher mean but would also have a higher standard deviation.

I'm a little leery of any study like this that doesn't explain how they arrived at their results because there are so many factors that should be considered.

In a nutshell, just because there appears to be a correlation, doesn't mean there is a bias.

Yes, I agree the study needs more detail and more explanation of the criteria used to determine the bias.

OTOH: I have had four Appies over the period 1977 to the present. None had stock horse conformation. Two were Foundation bred and primarily eventers/jumpers (including one that was 16.3 and conformationally looked like an Irish TB with spots and had some nice suspension in his gaits), one was 2nd Gen TB cross, and present horse is 16.2 half-Arab Appy that is quite a nice mover (he has received 8s on his gaits and his Arabian sire was one of the few Trakhener-approved Arabian stallions in the US). The present horse, though obviously Appaloosa, is also "conservatively" colored, compared to his predecessors. He has scored well (when he behaves!). While I was moderately successful in USDF All Breeds with the TB/App, I actually received tests were his breed was remarked on unfavorably (this is in the early to mid 1990s/early 2000s).

So, as I say, I think that while there was some prejudice in the past, regardless of a horse's performance, there is very little now, and I was surprised at the supposed results of this study. FWIW, Grays, palominos and duns/buckskins were also included as a separate category (grays as "spotted" (?) and the others as "dilutes'), and they were less favorably scored. Since there are quite a few grey WBs, that made me go, "Huh?" I would consider grey a "solid" color myself.

[musical comedy]

Dressage Connections is on line, so anyone wanting to read what it said can. I can't copy from it though.

The 'bias' in this study is misleading when it comes to judging.

First, the study was done in the UK over a period of 7 years. They surveyed 4000 equestrians and asked what their color preferences were. Is it any surprise that spotted horses were less desired?

The next part of the study showed that the scores for spotted horses were lower than those of solid colored horses. Again, why is this a surprise? It doesn't point to bias, but to the fact that most spotted horses are not warmbloods and warmbloods rule in the competition world these days.

That said, while there may be people that are color blind, breed blind, rider obesity blind, etc. when it comes to judging dressage, unconscious (and conscious) bias exits. For that reason, for me personally, I try fit into the mold so that I don't stand out as different in the show ring. Nobody is forced into buying a spotted horse or an uncommon breed.

[Ponichiwa]

USDF published a recap of a study from the Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports: http://www.usdf.org/EduDocs/Competition ... e_comp.pdf

Which showed a max 2.5% difference in average scores between the lowest scoring and highest scoring breeds. That's all scores across all levels, so there's potential for even more interesting trends.

I'd be extremely interested to see if that dataset shows other trends. For instance, it's my belief that a larger percentage of warmbloods are campaigned under professionals vs. quarter horses or paints or Appaloosas. And there really aren't that many colorful warmbloods, much to my chagrin.

I'm not saying all pros are heads and shoulders above amateurs, because that's patently untrue. However, as a population, pros generally have more experience showing more horses. I would expect that professionals' scores would be higher (on average) than amateurs given the same quality horse.

[Hot4Spots]

I would also throw out there that if the study was done in Britain, I would imagine that more of the "spotted" horses are Knabstruppers, i.e., warmbloods, rather than American-style Appaloosas (ugh....Quarterloosas). Most of the articles I've seen in the (yuck) Appaloosa Journal (I have to belong to ApHC in order to be eligible for USDF All Breeds) portray American-style Appaloosas in the UK as being shown western, while the TB and WB cross types are more popular for (field) hunters, jumping, eventing and dressage. I get Horse & Hound fairly regularly, and the spotted horses shown competing in dressage and hack and jumping classes are very typey sporthorses, not stock horses. So.... if there is a bias against spotted horses in dressage, and most of them are Knab/WB/TB-types.......color would seem to be a factor.

[HafDressage]

don't think you can interpret this as a colour bias necessarily. I think breed would be a better predictor of scores than colour. If you consider all the breeds whose scores would be incorporated into the solid colour group versus those that would be included in the block and spotted colour groups, you would probably see much greater variety of breeds in the solid colour group.

This is huge. Many paint horses are QH or QH crosses, which are not typically the fanciest dressage horses of all time. Now that being said, I think the current bias to huge movers over correct training could use some work as well.

I'd be extremely interested to see if that dataset shows other trends. For instance, it's my belief that a larger percentage of warmbloods are campaigned under professionals vs. quarter horses or paints or Appaloosas. And there really aren't that many colorful warmbloods, much to my chagrin.

This too. It's much more common to see an AA on a paint at a show than an prof.

Also, at times, very uneven markings can make horses look a little less even in movement. I'm not suggesting this plays a huge roll, but across all breeds, sometimes uneven leg markings can play tricks on your eyes that makes one horse appear more even or rhythmic than others. So, I've seen a good number of colored horses where this is the case.

Now all of that being said , I do think breed and color markings biases exist. I think in life we all have personal preferences and it's not surprising that some of those preferences might make it into the show ring (even for judges who are not overtly biased). I think the best remedy is always to present counter examples that help to change people's mind. So hang in there OP! I think more people are changing their mind about all types of show ring biases lately, so that is the good news for the color people and the non-traditional breeds people alike.

[Hot4Spots]

LOL. Uneven markings, indeed. My very first horse was a chestnut 7/8th TB Appendix QH mare, purchased for the munificent sum of $650 (1970). Those days, an "A" quality hunter eq horse cost $6,500. She was by Seven Bars (by Three Bars-TB) out of a TB mare that was a granddaughter of Triple Crown Winner Count Fleet. Needless to say, she was NOT a sprinter and was a failure on the track. She was about 15.2 h.h. and very TB in type but she had ONE hind sock. I SWEAR, people were always saying she looked a little "off." After the 3rd vet visit, the vet said, "No, miss, your horse is NOT lame. It's just that people stare at that one white pastern......."

[Chisamba]

i think there is a definite bias against perceived off breeds. easiest way to identify an off breed, sometimes, is color

[kcmel]

I have gotten scores that have surprised my trainer on my paint draft cross, and some judges score him consistently lower than others. But I think, if there is a bias, it is more because of his type than his color.

[Moutaineer]

I found this a bit surprising.

I showed my dearly beloved, loud as heck, leopard appy at the lower levels for years. On the whole we got scores that I felt were fair for the rides we put in. In fact, a lot of the time I felt we got "cute points." And this is from well respected judges. I'm picky about who I ride in front of.

So now, by various accidents of fate, and somewhat to my surprise, I have a very fancy warmblood. We showed at first level this season. Our scores felt pretty fair to me--certainly not inflated by warmblood fanciness. Our gaits scores are way better because his gaits are way better (he can canter, Walker's canter was a flailing disaster which took some serious over-riding to make it look respectable.) and so our scores are on the whole higher than mine were in previous years. However, I get an undercurrent of "you've got a damned nice horse, you'd better ride it well or we'll ding the crap out of you" in my scoring this year.

[capstone]

However, I get an undercurrent of "you've got a damned nice horse, you'd better ride it well or we'll ding the crap out of you" in my scoring this year.

This is what my trainer warns me about with Cartier. Who happens to be grey as well.