oral reasons - wordpress.com · 2016. 4. 2. · 5. presentation: oral reasons should be presented...
Post on 09-Oct-2020
4 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
P a g e | 1
© 2005-2015 William C. Golden & Kristopher R Wilson, All Rights Reserved
Oral Reasons
1 PHILOSOPHY AND OBJECTIVES FOR GIVING REASONS
While a major emphasis in horse judging training programs is placed on students learning to evaluate
horses objectively, equal importance is placed on students learning to discuss and defend judgments
rendered in the process of placing a class of horses. The combined process of placing horses, then
defending those placing, teaches students to be objective, honest, and fair in their approach to
evaluating horses. Further, the process of giving reasons discourages student judges from rendering
opinions which may be based on personal likes and dislikes, and encourages them to render defensible
judgments in regard to current standards in the horse industry.
Another major purpose for giving reasons in judging contests is that it offers an opportunity for students
to learn how to think, organize thoughts and speak about those thoughts in a refereed environment.
Students who master those skills find them useful in many ways for the rest of their lives. Many leaders
in agriculture, business, and industry have judging team experience, and they frequently point to the
reasons process as significant in developing leadership abilities.
Giving reasons should be a positive and pleasant learning experience for students. Students should be
encouraged, not discouraged, when giving reasons, and they should gain confidence in themselves
through practice. Performance in the reasons room by students who are prepared should be evaluated
from a positive view, rather than a negative view, giving every advantage possible to students who do a
good job. Reasons judges should never use a negative, penalizing, “fault out” system for scoring
reasons. Reasons judges should be positive. Their actions toward students and their scoring method
should reflect a positive approach.
1.1 CHARACTERISTICS OF GOOD REASONS
1. Organization: Styles of reasons will vary with individual personalities and coaching methods, but all reasons should be well-organized and systematic. Within that framework, judges should score well organized reasons similarly, with no preference given to individual style. The basic approach is the comparison of animals in three pairs: the top pair, the middle pair and the bottom pair. Other additions will be included and are perfectly acceptable as long as the basic organization is followed. However, reasons should not consist of a simple description of each animal. The focus should be on why one animal in a pair was placed over the other animal in that pair.
2. Relevancy: Reasons should reflect the actual differences in the pair and consist primarily of those points of comparison that were significant in the placing of the pair. Use of comparative or descriptive reasons that are irrelevant or unimportant in the placing of the pair are discouraged and should be scored lower. Judges should be alert to the so-called
P a g e | 2
© 2005-2015 William C. Golden & Kristopher R Wilson, All Rights Reserved
“canned” or pre-prepared reasons that may sound good, but in fact do not fit the particular points.
3. Accuracy: Truth is the primary consideration in scoring reasons. Students should be credited for accurate statements regardless of how the horses may be placed. Redundancy in terminology describing similar points of discussion between separate pairs of horses should be avoided. Errors of omission are to be considered when the student leaves out something important, but inaccurate statements are considered the major fault in a set of reasons. A complete and accurate set of reasons should receive a high score, even when placings differ from official placings. Official judges are cautioned to listen carefully for accuracy and should not penalize the reasons score simply because the student’s placing is different from the official placing. It is entirely possible for a student to receive a high reasons score with a low placing score.
4. Terminology: Some emphasis should be placed on use of terms commonly used to discuss horses or performances. Terminology will vary among students, but it should reflect terminology commonly used among horsemen. Major emphasis should be placed on comparative rather than descriptive terminology. However, descriptive terminology can be used to a limited extent in the opening statements and to describe faults.
5. Presentation: Oral reasons should be presented in a poised, confident, convincing manner, but they should never convey arrogance. Loud, boisterous, arrogant delivery is not desirable and should be penalized. Likewise, shy, timid, unconvincing presentations should not receive the highest scores. Reasons should be presented in a relaxed, conversational manner. The presentation should not contain lengthy pauses and must be delivered within two minutes. In most cases a complete set of reasons should be no longer than 1 minute and 30 seconds in length. Speaking manner will vary, but all students should use correct English. Oral reasons should be grammatically correct with proper pronunciation and enunciation of words and syllables. While good presentation is important, reasons judges are cautioned that this is not a contest of oratory at the expense of accuracy, relevancy, organization and terminology used in discussing a particular class of horses.
1.2 GRADING AND SCORING REASONS
Reasons scores are to be reflective of organization, relevancy, accuracy, terminology and
presentation of reasons, regardless of the student’s placing of the class. A poor placing must not
automatically result in a low reasons score. If students see the differences in the horses and reflect
those differences accurately in their reasons, they must not be penalized on the reason’s score because
their emphasis for placing the horses was different than that of the official judges. Reading reasons
from notes should be strongly discouraged at judging contests. It is recommended to inform students
that they will receive a zero score if they read their reasons verbatim. This is designed to encourage
students to practice and give reasons without notes, as it will make the process of learning to give
reasons more expedient.
P a g e | 3
© 2005-2015 William C. Golden & Kristopher R Wilson, All Rights Reserved
Reasons should be graded, then scored as per the following outline:
REASONS PERFORMANCE GRADE SCORE RANGE
Good to Excellent A 46-50
Above Average to Good B 41-45
Average C 36-40
Below Average D 31-35
Poor E 30 and below
A contestant who is reasonably well prepared and gets through a complete set of reasons should never
receive a score less than 25.
Reasons judges should mark the contestant’s reasons score on the individual cards provided for each
participant. The cards will have only the contestant’s number for identification, and care must be taken
to ensure contestants and cards are in the proper order and agree when the score is recorded. It is also
advised to keep a master sheet of scores for contestants in case a card is lost or score questioned.
1.3 ETIQUETTE IN THE REASONS ROOM: OFFICIAL JUDGES
Reasons judges must be continually aware that their actions and mannerisms can be stimulation or
distracting to the student presenting reasons. Judges should be polite and encouraging to the student
and should never present a harsh, critical attitude. Judges must be aware that any personal action can
have either positive or negative influences on the students as they prepare for the next set of reasons or
future contests. Emphasis should be on a positive attitude, not on excess criticism.
There is no need for judges to attempt to educate contestants individually during the reasons session.
Teaching is the responsibility of the coaches. Judges should focus their attention on the accuracy and
quality of reasons performances, irrespective of the class placing. Remember, contestants have already
been awarded points for their class placings. Also, reasons judges should never tell contestants the
correct placing of a class.
It is particularly important that judges avoid any mannerisms which may be distracting to students.
Eating, drinking, smoking, chewing, etc. must be avoided while students are presenting reasons. Also,
judges must not stand, move around, use excessive eye and head movements, yawn, etc. while students
are presenting reasons. Judges must be aware the student who is presenting reasons is trying very hard
to concentrate on the class of horses, and mannerisms or actions of the reason judge must not cause a
break in their concentration.
P a g e | 4
© 2005-2015 William C. Golden & Kristopher R Wilson, All Rights Reserved
1.4 ETIQUETTE IN THE REASONS ROOM: STUDENTS
Before entering the reasons room, the student should be focused and ready to deliver their reasons.
The student should not be chewing gum and may not use any sort of written notes.
Upon entering the room, the student should greet the reasons taker in a friendly manner. This is
necessary to test acoustics/echo of the room so the student can conclude an appropriate volume. The
student should stand about five to six feet from the judge or at the appropriate conversational distance.
One should place their feet shoulder width apart, keeping their feet and hands stationary with their eyes
fixed at the judge’s forehead or eyes. Students may begin their reasons upon the judge’s
acknowledgement.
2 REASONS FORMAT
The opening statement of a student’s reasons should include the class name, the placing, and the most
obvious, unarguable good or bad statement about the class. Reasons are comparative between each
pair. Each pair should cover two or three main points.
Simply format your reasons by comparing your top, middle and bottom pairs. Each pair should include a
grant. For example, you placed horse 1 over 2 and discussed why throughout your top pair. Before
moving to your middle pair, however, you should grant something that 2 did or had better than 1.
Include these grants in all your pairs.
Close your reasons explaining why you placed the final horse last. Finally, restate the class name and
your placings.
Over the next few sections we will break down each portion of a set of reasons, giving you good and
poor examples of each.
2.1 OPENING STATEMENT
Making an accurate and unique opening statement is extremely desirable because it makes a good first
impression with the reasons judge. If one should give a poor opening statement or lie it makes it
difficult to gain respect from the official and receive a high score. That is why being honest is the most
important part of the opening statement as well as any other part of reasons. With more experience,
opening statements can become more creative and flashy. An opening statement should include your
placing for the class followed by an overall explanation of the class as well as a sentence leading into the
top pair. The opening statement should be short and to the point as well as accurate.
P a g e | 5
© 2005-2015 William C. Golden & Kristopher R Wilson, All Rights Reserved
Always try to avoid cutting the class for the reason’s judge. It is their job to cut the class. You just need
to make an accurate statement in your opening sentence that no one can argue with.
2.2 COMPARISON BOX:
There are three comparisons (first, middle and last pair) in every set of reasons. At the
beginning of each comparison you should state the placing of the pair and then proceed to why one
horse is placed over the other. The reasoning should be presented in an organized matter with the most
important facts stated at the beginning of the comparison. For example if one horse is easily heavier
muscled than the next that should be the first thing you talk about in the pair. A good reasons giver will
explain exactly where the horse is heavier muscled and then move on to the next most important
difference between the two individuals. When comparing two animals it’s good to use comparative
terms such as “er” and “more” terms; like heavier muscled or more fluid mover. Remember, at this
stage you are comparing one animal to another, so you should avoid superlative terms such as “est” or
“most.” The comparison box is also a good time to use transition words like “furthermore” and “also”.
Using a specific transition term for each pair will help you smoothly move through your comparison box
and allow you to talk about different facts while worrying less about the specific structure of your
reasons.
Good Examples:
I placed the Aged Geldings 1, 2, 3 and 4, finding an obvious winner in 1, the palomino, who
combined quality, balance and muscling to the highest degree.
I placed the reining 1, 2, 3 and 4, easily using 1 over 2 as 1 was the most athletic performer in
today’s class, staying the lowest in the spins and showing the most speed variation in its
circles.
Poor Examples:
Sir, I placed the Aged Geldings 1, 2, 3, and 4. Finding this to be a two pair class.
Sir, I placed the Aged Mares 1, 2, 3, and 4. 4 is the heaviest muscled horse in the class who is
nicely balanced.
P a g e | 6
© 2005-2015 William C. Golden & Kristopher R Wilson, All Rights Reserved
2.3 BUZZ WORDS/JUDGING CRITERIA:
Buzz words, or judging criteria, can be used to capitalize on an important point. Stating specific
judging criteria can help to prioritize your reason and may make them easier for the reasons taker to
follow.
Good Example:
In the middle pair balance alone placed 2 over 3. 2 divided more evenly into thirds, with a
shorter back and a longer reaching underline, whereas 3 was long in the back and short over
the croup. Just as impressively 2 was a higher quality individual, with a more refined muzzle
and cleaner throat latch, compared to 3 who was course about the head and neck.
Moreover, 2 was more structurally correct, standing on a straighter column of bone,
allowing 2 to step out with a truer stride.
Note the use of “balanced placed 2 over 3.” You should avoid “I preferred” or “I believe.”
Here, your buzz word “balance” places the pair for you. This is a good opening.
Poor Example:
In the bottom pair I prefer 3 over 4. 3 is an eye appealing horse who is heavy muscled and
well balanced. 4 is also heavy muscled but is the least desirable to look at on the profile.
This example uses descriptive terms exclusively when the reasons giver should be comparing
horses instead. It is also too general and lacks specific details in the comparison of the two
animals.
1.1.1 Examples:
Balance alone placed 1 over 2……………………
Quality of movement clearly placed 3 over 4……………………..
Quality and structural correctness easily sorted 2 over 3……………………….
Controlled athleticism and accuracy of pattern placed 2 over 1…………………….
P a g e | 7
© 2005-2015 William C. Golden & Kristopher R Wilson, All Rights Reserved
2.4 GRANTS:
Grants give you a chance to credit horses that are placed second within the pair. There are
three grants given through the course of a set of reasons. Once after the 1st pair, again after the second
pair and finally a grant will be is given for the last place animal. Grants may be obvious or very slight
depending on how close the pair was. Generally your grants should be short and to the point. The main
goal, as always, is to be honest and accurate; this shows the reason taker that you saw the class
correctly and will help you to earn a higher score.
Terms to use when granting:
I realize
I concede
I recognize
I appreciate
I respect
I am aware
It was obvious
It was apparent
Clearly
Obviously
There is no doubt
Certainly
Good Examples:
There’s no doubt that 2, the bay, is a higher quality individual, especially in her head and
throat latch. Unfortunately……………………………
Clearly 2 is a more athletic mover, driving with power and impulsion out of the hind quarters,
however………………………..
Note in these examples that there is a grant followed by “unfortunately” or “however.” This
is to allow a transition from the grant into a criticism of the same animal. This is sometimes
referred to as the grant-fault method. You can also simply grant a horse and move to the
next pair if you wish. If it’s appropriate, you may also want to add, “and it is this advantage
that places 2 over 3 in the middle pair” after your grant.
Poor Example:
2 is well balanced, but lacks…………………………………
This grant lacks the level of detail needed to earn a high score.
P a g e | 8
© 2005-2015 William C. Golden & Kristopher R Wilson, All Rights Reserved
2.5 CRITICISMS:
After you have granted a horse you may then critique it to explain why it placed where it did.
Criticizing is a lot like granting back to a horse. You should only say a few things and make sure that
you’re honest. If there is obvious problem with the horse then let the reasons taker know it was easy
for you to see that problem. Always be careful to not be too critical or say too many negative things, as
reasons should be mostly positive. If a horse is really awful, just give a generalized statement, there is
no need to list every problem with an animal when everyone else can see the same things.
2.6 TRANSITIONS:
Transitions are simply a way of moving smoothly from one section of your reasons to another.
This should be done as simply as possible while still maintaining a smooth transition. Transitions can be
a good place to be creative. You can use unique and original terms that will set you apart from the
competition. Many of these phrases will also work as grants.
Directing your attention
In addition
I admire
I understand
Surprisingly
But in reality
But after this
Without a doubt
On the other hand
However
Plus
Besides this
Furthermore
Although
Even so
There was a definite Advantage
Good Examples:
However, 3 was the poorest quality individual being the most common in the head and
deepest in the neck. Still, it is 3 over 4 in the bottom pair…..
In reality 3, was the worst balanced in the class, being long in the back and short through the
croup. Nevertheless, 3’s advantages in muscling still place it 4 in the final pair…..
Poor Examples:
3 was somewhat light muscled and was slightly lower quality than 4.
3 was the lightest muscled horse who was also poor balanced and had the worst structure as
well as lacking shape and expression to its muscle shape and was toed in.
P a g e | 9
© 2005-2015 William C. Golden & Kristopher R Wilson, All Rights Reserved
This table contains some examples of terminology to use when
transitioning through pairs.
Opening for Pairs Continuing Terms
for Pairs
Grants Criticism Closing
Beginning
Opening
Moving to
Continuing with
Coming to
Concerning the
In analyzing
In discussing
Closing with
Culminating with
Concluding with
Further
Furthermore
In addition
Additionally
Moreover
Beyond this
Coupled by
Complimented by
Also
Granted
I grant
I realize
None the less
I appreciate that
Undoubtedly
I recognize that
I did recognize
I concede
I contrast
Conversely
I acknowledge
However
I readily admit
I criticize
I fault
However
Nevertheless
Unfortunately
Thus
Therefore
In closing
Culminating with
Reaching a final
placing
To transition between pairs, a student should use smooth transitions to help the judge follow
the reasons from pair to pair without confusion. The best transition terms may not always come from a
list or a book; some of the best terms can be learned from your fellow students.
P a g e | 10
© 2005-2015 William C. Golden & Kristopher R Wilson, All Rights Reserved
2.7 CLOSING STATEMENT:
A closing statement should be brief and to the point. You should summarize why you placed the
last horse you should make a simple statement such as “Thank you” to inform the judge that you have
finished your set. In the past students have been encouraged to restate their placing, but this is not
necessary as you’ve already made your placing clear to the judge at the beginning of your reasons.
2.8 COMBINING GRANTS AND CRITICISMS:
With more experience you may want to try combining your grants and criticisms. This will give your
reasons a smoother, more conversational flow, and can help to make them more interesting to listen to.
This is another good area to use “whereas.”
Examples:
The grant-transition method:
I readily grant that 2 was more correctly balanced than 1 and it is this balance that places 2 over 3 in
the middle pair….
The grant-fault method:
I admit that 2 was more correctly balanced than 1. However, 2 was poorly structured, standing with
too much set in the hock when viewed from the side. Now, moving to the middle pair…..
The grant-fault-grant method
I concede that 2 was more correctly balanced than 1. However, 2 was poorly structured, standing too
straight through the hock when viewed from the side. Nevertheless, it is still 2’s advantages in balance
that places 2 over 3 in the middle pair….
The fault-grant method
(In a class placed 1-2-3-4) I must fault 1, as his neck ties in deep at the shoulder, and I grant that 2 is
cleaner tying.
(Beginning the middle pair) This advantage in quality, coupled with balance, helps to place 2 over 3
in .the middle pair….
Example:
Three is the least functionally correct and acquired the most penalty points thus placing at
the bottom of the class. Thank you.
P a g e | 11
© 2005-2015 William C. Golden & Kristopher R Wilson, All Rights Reserved
3 TAKING NOTES:
Use following format for organizing your reasons. You must have the class placed correctly first. Once
you have the class placed, following format below should make it easier to organize your notes for your
reasons.
Opening Statement
1/2 Compare 1 over 2
Grant 2 over 1
Criticize 2, transition to middle pair
2/3 Compare 2 over 3
Grant 3 over 2
Criticize 3, transition to final pair
3/4 Compare 3 over 4
Grant 4 over 3
Criticize 4, closing statement (Thank you)
P a g e | 12
© 2005-2015 William C. Golden & Kristopher R Wilson, All Rights Reserved
Example Reasons
Aged Mares
I placed the aged mares 1, 2, 3, and 4, finding a commanding winner in 1 who best combined quality,
balance and structural correctness.
1 obviously exhibited a higher quality and more feminine head and neck, being more refined in her
muzzle with a larger, brighter eye. She was tighter through the throat latch and had a thinner neck,
where 2 was coarse in her throat and tied in deep at the base of the neck. Just as impressively 1 divided
more equally into thirds, being shorter and stronger in the back with a longer more athletic appearing
underline. As a bonus, 1 stood on a straighter column of bone.
I admire the fact that 2, the blue roan, was a more massive individual who was deeper barreled. And it’s
this power and substance that placed 2 over 3 in my intermediate pair.
2 simply spread more muscle over her frame, and she was more prominently V-ed in the pectoral
region. She was more muscular out of her hip and showed more true muscle shape over her croup. She
also carried the most bulge and expression around the forearms and gaskins.
Now, there’s no question that 3 was more feminine. But, to go along with 3’s femininity, 3 was also the
lightest muscled and narrowest based horse of the class. Despite this, quality still placed 3 over 4 in my
concluding duo.
3 was smaller about the muzzle and had less distance from her eye to her muzzle, while also being
cleaner through the throat latch. Furthermore 3 was more balanced, as she was a longer profiling, more
modern appearing mare, with a more sloping shoulder, forward reaching underline and a longer, more
level hip.
4 was undeniably heavier muscled, but after this she was the lowest quality worst balanced individual of
the class.
Thank you.
P a g e | 13
© 2005-2015 William C. Golden & Kristopher R Wilson, All Rights Reserved
4 REASONS REMINDERS
Descriptive terms, words that end in “-est” (smoothest, biggest, etc.), should only be used in
opening and closing statements. Reasons should be comparative, so use words that both describe and
compare, such as those ending in “-er” (smother, bigger, etc.) throughout the body of your set. It is your
job as a contestant to describe the class in detail to the judge.
Speak in the same tense. For example, if you start your reasons in the past tense, you should
maintain the past tense throughout your reasons. Performance reasons should always be given in the
past tense, as you are speaking about something that has already happened. Halter reasons may be
given in either the past or present tense, as long as you are consistent throughout the set.
5 TIPS FOR PRACTICING REASONS
DO NOT MEMORIZE YOUR REASONS. The judge will be able to tell if you have memorized or
“canned” your reasons. Each time you practice your reasons, say them differently, using a new term for
describing the pair, so if you do stumble on your words in the reasons room you can think of a term
more easily. You will be less likely to have your reasons memorized and lose your place in your reasons.
That being said, it is recommended that you memorize a format, or skeleton of transition phrases to fill
in with specific terms for each class. This will cut down on the time needed to prepare a set for a
specific class, and will provide you with a set of mental markers to guide you through your reasons if you
get lost.
The best way to get good at giving reasons is just to give them over and over and over. Say your
reasons out loud with your eyes focus on a stationary object or person; you can even practice in front of
the mirror or video tape yourself to measure your progress and improvement over time. Complete your
reasons every time you give them. Don’t stop and start over just because you got lost or stumbled on
your words. If you do get lost, simply take a deep breath and continue; do not make the judge aware of
your mistake.
P a g e | 14
© 2005-2015 William C. Golden & Kristopher R Wilson, All Rights Reserved
6 CUTS
1
Horses are extremely similar; no obvious reason why one should be placed over the
other; or, both horses have numerous faults and none supersedes the others; placing
is strictly a matter of personal preference; placing varies among official judges.
2
Horses are very close, but one horse has one or two qualitative or quantitative
advantages; the majority of official judges would not switch the pair, but half the
contestants could logically switch the pair.
3
Horses are of unequal quality and there is a logical placing in favor of one horse;
either one horse has several faults or several advantages; all official judges would
agree on the placing; no more than one third of contestants would be expected to
switch the pair.
4
Horses are not of similar quality; one horse has several decided advantages based on
many points; all experts would quickly see the placing; no guesswork or personal
preference required to make placing; no more than 10 percent of contestants would
be expected to switch the pair.
5
Large number of extreme differences between the horses; placing is obvious to
everyone on first quick observation; careful study not required for the placing; pair
consists of an inferior horse vs. a consistent winner; only very inexperienced,
uninformed contestants would switch the pair.
6
Horse not even comparable; differences reflective of a champion quality horse or
performance vs. a horse or performance that is not of show quality.
7
Largest cut; differences reflective of a world-class halter horse vs. an extremely poor
quality or lame horse; or a world-class performance vs. a disqualified performance
top related