Marking systems in showing – their benefits, flaws and what the future may be
Some 30 years after the marks system hit mainstream showing, many are debating whether it still provides the transparency and consistency competitors seek. Bethan Simons investigates in this exclusive article for H&H subscribers
A casual conversation sparked a revolution in the show ring: the introduction of marks in the assessment of classes.
“It was 1994,” says pony breeder Tom Best. “At that time, there was only one section for ponies at the Horse of the Year Show [HOYS], which was judged using a marks system at the final; at local level, a marks system was already in use in working hunter pony classes.
“It was in discussion with the late Jim McTiffin – vice chairman of the BSPS [British Show Pony Society] at the time – about the number of complaints about judging at HOYS qualifiers that I simply asked if there were complaints about working hunter pony results. If not, why not use marks in flat classes, too?”
Tom later set the seed for a move to a marks system by proposing the idea at the BSPS Scotland AGM and the BSPS judges’ conference. In a subjective discipline rooted in tradition, his was a radical proposal: the allocation of two marks per competitor – one for performance or ride, and one for conformation. The animal with the greatest sum of marks at the end, wins.
Sound familiar? Radical or not, the system has stood the test of time. It remains used by HOYS for its finals and most of its ridden qualifiers, and marks form the basis for assessment in most major flat showing fixtures, including at London International (LIHS).
How marks are used in showing
At the simplest level, a 50/50 split between two judges provides a fair and fast way of establishing a winner, providing both judges mark with integrity and without agenda.
“Marks minimise the need for lengthy discussions between judges when making decisions,” says Emma Williams, event director at HOYS. “As HOYS is often a high-pressure environment for judges and competitors, it is essential that the timetable runs to schedule.
“The use of marks also enhances the transparency of the judging process, as judges commit to a score that is shared with competitors. This provides accountability, valuable feedback and offers clarity into the judge’s opinions.”
For those new to showing, marks can also be used as a training metric.
“In an ideal world, there would be a comment too,” says judge and trainer Mathew Lawrence, “so that competitors can really understand the thoughts behind the numbers.”
As it is, while it would be unwise and potentially misleading to track our own marks from show to show – one man’s 38 is another’s 42, and assessments may differ over a season – comparing your marks to, for example, the top three in the class helps to gauge what a judge is looking for.
Flaws in the system
But the system isn’t perfect and it has its skeptics. To begin with, there’s the arithmetic issue, where stewards are expected to negotiate scores of scores. Human error does occur, and that error can be at best disappointing for all parties involved. There’s also the matter of precedence when marks are tied. In the event of a tie in HOYS classes for ponies or coloureds, then the ride takes precedence.
“Many of these classes are predominantly for young riders. As a result, temperament, balance and overall suitability are essential in demonstrating the required qualities and therefore take precedence in these classes,” explains Emma.
“In contrast, the horse classes primarily place precedence on the conformation mark, with greater emphasis on the horse’s suitability for its specific purpose, how it moves, and its ability to carry weight in accordance with its type.”
So stewards need to be up to speed and, if switching between rings, on the ball.
BSPS’s recent introduction of Markmaster, a digital marking system, should eliminate human errors and bring showing in line with other disciplines where digital systems are more embedded in practice.
The Markmaster app was used successfully at LIHS, even in the Heritage supreme where there are four judges. Crucially, retrospective changes to marks are time-stamped and require judges and stewards to provide a signature and explanation, which can only be deemed a positive step towards true transparency.
How judges use their marks is also a bone of contention. One of the criticisms most regularly levelled at judges is a lack of range used.
BSPS chair Paul Cook recalls a cautionary tale: “I remember an instance when I was judging conformation. My co-judge had used a range of just five marks, whereas I had used a range of 20. This meant that a beautiful but green pony won over an outstanding performance from a lesser animal, simply because my co-judge had been reluctant to offend.”
When marks were first introduced, 60 marks were allocated to the ride in many classes, and 40 to conformation. A reversal to this is one popular suggestion among competitors in the hope that the added weighting on performance would eliminate instances where horses or ponies stand top with excellent conformation but lesser shows. But such a reversal would make no difference in instances such as the one above.
Then there’s the matter of bang for your buck. When a judge uses a very narrow range of marks, they inevitably create ties that force their co-judge to decide the final rankings. In such a case, are exhibitors and organisers paying entries and expenses getting their money’s worth? Perhaps the reluctance to denote a clear scale of preference indicates a lack of confidence in one’s own ability, revealing a fundamental gap in training.
To be on a panel, most judges will have to pass real-time assessment and a probationary period. To remain a panel judge, individuals must attend CPD-esque judges’ conferences where marks are regularly discussed. The BSPS also expects its first-year judges to practice using marks in non-qualifier classes. In contrast, judges who sit solely on horse panels do not use marks even in qualifying rounds, so often are not used to their allocation, meaning added pressure at the likes of HOYS when the stakes are extremely high.
However, Tom argues: “No judging criteria have been defined by any of the societies to assist judges and exhibitors, no formal guidance and no unified training on how to allocate marks. This is crucial since a single point often determines who qualifies for HOYS,” argues Tom.
In comparison, British Dressage judges undergo thorough training in the allocation of marks in the hope that, nationwide, a seven is a seven. The scales of training – rhythm, suppleness, contact, impulsion, straightness and collection – form the basis for assessment and, if these qualities are important in a show animal, too, perhaps such a scale could be conceived for show judges.
Such a scale would provide less confident judges a crux to justify decisions and could benefit competitors. It’s not difficult to imagine that a newcomer to showing could be nervous to dip a toe in the ring knowing nothing more than the basic format of the class and the fact they will be marked out of 50 for performing a show they won’t have practised.
Fear of a backlash – particularly on social media – must surely influence some judges into unjustifiably high marks and a narrow range, too, suggesting that competitors also need educating in the nuances of marks.
Emma agrees: “There is an ongoing need for education around judging so that judges can perform their role with confidence and always in the best interests of horse welfare. However, there must also be accountability and understanding from competitors receiving those marks. Not every judge will share the same opinion, and therefore marks will naturally vary.
“If judges are in constant fear of their decisions being criticised beyond reason, it raises the question of how we can expect to retain showing judges in the years to come.
Judging without marks
The Royal International (RIHS) finals are showing’s only major championships that are not judged with marks. Instead, classes are decided the “old-fashioned way” with judges conferring, pulling a line-up after the go-round, assessing each animal individually before reconvening to discuss their findings and decide upon a line-up that suits both parties.
The benefit? The winner is the winner, with no room for mathematics errors, and presumably, both judges are satisfied with the result. On the downside, there’s the danger that one judge will dominate proceedings.
The exceptions are the workers and the supremes. In the latter, three judges have up to 10 marks, held aloft for all to see in real time, so the maths is simple. In the event of a tie, which happens fairly regularly, judges – and spectators – are treated to a ride-off between the tied individuals.
Most would agree that the use of marks provides an aide memoire. Regular judge Stuart Hollings recalls: “I was judging the first riddens at Dublin and, going into the ring, I was looking forward to judging without having to think about marks. But nearly every pony made a mistake so it was a real test for my memory. The time I didn’t have marks was the time I really needed them!”
With so much for a judge to remember as a class unfolds we must consider their short-term memory. Researchers suggest it’s limited to between three and nine items. While the top and bottom of a class remain memorable, average entries in large classes often blend together. These “also-rans” risk being judged on vague recollections, making the difference between receiving a rosette and nothing a matter of memory.
Several showing societies advise the use of personal notes when judging without marks that are then discarded post-placings. This could be a better means of determining places than reliance on the real-time commentary of marks as who’s to say that a 43 at the beginning of a class of 30 animals is the same as a 43 further down the line?
No marks also means judges are forced to pull in – meaning after the initial go-round, exhibits are called into line in order of merit ahead of the formal judging. This can only be a positive for anyone assessing scores of bay show ponies with small girls in navy on board, or 30 grey Connemaras piloted by women in green tweed.
Tom insists on an initial pull-in when judging, and argues all societies should do the same: “As old-fashioned as it may be, it’s also good practice for both judges to go down behind the line for a brief overview of the class and a discussion about the appropriate range of the marks used. The pull-in ensures that this phase is taken into account and misbehaviour in the go-round is reflected in the performance marks.”
The future of marking systems
At The Showing Register (TSR) Amateur of the Year Championships, judges were encouraged to use a new system, formalising a system tried and tested by several individuals while judging without marks.
Each judge scored the ponies between A and C, using plus and minus signs at their discretion. They then also had the option of adding a comment. Then, stewards collated the marks into an A/A, A/B, A/C, B/B, B/C and C/C table. Where there were three or four competitors tied on a score, both judges then conferred in order to agree how to rank those exhibits.
To sufficiently rank larger qualifying rounds there’s perhaps a need to expand to an A–E system, for example, but overall the system worked well.
“I really enjoyed it,” says Michaela Bowling, who has also judged multiple finals at HOYS and RIHS. “It gave us the best of both worlds. The final discussion of ponies who were on A/A or A/B allowed us to reevaluate and be more subjective at that point. We ended up with really pleasing line-ups.”
In this instance, the grades were not made available to competitors meaning feedback was given only verbally when requested – politely – by competitors.
But there is no reason why they could not be in future years.
The looser categorisation may also, contradictingly, allow for both more guidelines and freedom to exercise subjectivity. Where two ponies could score an A for their performance, the final discussion between the judges allows for a judge to indicate personal preference due to type or that essential je ne sais quoi that makes a great show horse special.
So 30 years on, is it time for a review? Having brought the marks system to the table three decades ago, perhaps the last word should lie with Tom: “A marks system has stood the test of time. But to take it into the future, it’s critical that a review takes place involving societies, judges, exhibitors, stewards and organisers alike. It could provide endorsement for the existing system or an alternative with tweaks, something better or new.”
We’d love to hear your thoughts. What do you think about the current marks systems in showing? Write in and share your views at hhletters@futurenet.com, including your name, nearest town and county, for the chance to have your response published in a future issue of Horse & Hound.
- To stay up to date with all the breaking news from major shows throughout the year, subscribe to the Horse & Hound website
You might also be interested in:
‘We have to move with the times’: BSPS reveals new digital marking system in time for London International
‘25/50 is an average show’: showing judges reminded to use a full range of marks when judging qualifiers
I’ve picked my showing highlights of the year, plus a low I’d like to leave behind in 2025
A competitor’s guide to the 2026 HOYS showing qualifiers
Subscribe to Horse & Hound magazine today – and enjoy unlimited website access all year round
Bethan joined Horse & Hound as showing editor in January 2025, after spending two years as Editor for Showing World. Having adored ponies since childhood, she started showing as a teenager and has enjoyed wins at major shows up and down the country, including Royal Highland, New Forest, and the Royal Welsh, as well as HOYS, RIHS and London. She is particularly passionate about Welsh breeds and is also a Welsh language commentator.