I really don’t know the financial situation at Rebecca, but they seem to do fine with their regular events. Is there some other reason why the financials didn’t work for AEC? No idea.
1 Like
The AEC’s were almost 1 month after the regular event. Some of us weren’t in the mood to do 2000 miles of hauling again, not to mention the availability of local housing etc.
3 Likes
With relatively few events, even if everyone who qualifies enters, the math says that there can’t be that many qualified when you only allow 1st and 2nd.
Take all the divisions offered, multiply by 2, and that’s the maximum possible pool assuming everyone only gets a single qualification (which is not likely).
Then add in that there will be several competitors with multiple 1st and 2nd place finishes, and then that not everyone will attend (money, lameness, distance, other obligations).
It’s a better competition if there are more entrants, the exact opposite of ‘dumbing down.’
Because we have scores, if you were really concerned about it, you could allow any qualifying score to qualify, regardless of placement. Or make it an OR, ribbon better than X or score better than Y.
In general, getting more people to the AECs makes for a better competition, and if there’s the worry that too many qualify and want to come, that is a nice problem to have that could be solved with a ranking of the best scores.
5 Likes
Not quite, since in open divisions the top two amateurs can also qualify. In a division in which the first and second place finishers are professionals and at least two amateurs finish with qualifying results, then 4 people can qualify from a single division. And some shows make divisions really small (e.g. OM-A, OM-B, etc.,) each with <10 people per division. That can lead to, hypothetically, as many as 40 percent of competitors qualifying, though in practice it won’t be that high.
Scores aren’t comparable across competitions or even across judges within a competition, so while there are some merits to this idea, I can also see a lot of potential problems.
I think there is value to a championship competition for which riders have to earn their entry.
1 Like
Even if you drop the placing requirements to qualify more people, it seems there are other stipulations such as nobody wanting to get in their trailer and drive to another event at the same facility they showed at a month ago. It doesn’t line up with the people feeling left out because AEC isn’t often on the west coast.
2 Likes
There is a larger context that may be on the minds of the AECs organizing group …
In any sport, national championships are an incentive for members to be active in qualifying events, clinics, etc. preparation. Riding in the championships is a goal that adds purpose and focus to their activities in the sport.
Of course the incentive aspect isn’t there for riders in the West, where the AEC’s are considered inaccessible. Even if qualified, they have no expectations that they would go.
But – What it really comes down to is not the add to the West. If the AEC’s move west, even for a single year, then the ‘expectations’ script is flipped for the far larger base of competitors in the East. The riders in the East are now the ones who will not go, even if qualified. That particular goal disappears for the majority of the East.
Further to that are the junior riders. Time and years are short for junior competitors, as they are maturing, and before they age out. Every year can be a different story for a junior rider. Having even one AEC year drop off their schedule can affect their entire set of goals, focus and plans for those eligible years.
The West is not bereft of any opportunities at championships, since there are regional organizations with championships to provide goals and focus.
Is it wise to disincentive the far greater number of riders in the East, even for a year? Not even every other year, or some other routine? That has to be an important consideration for the AEC decision-makers. Equal to adding incentive to the West.
2 Likes
-
Yes, getting rid of the AECs and making it an Eastern Championship and a Western Championship would probably be better in terms of customer participation. We had this argument 20 years ago when the AECs were first proposed. Hence the 3 rotation and having them split between east and west.
-
Interesting question. If one looks at the rankings of top riders, we see plenty of West Coast folks. It is clear that the overall numbers of riders may not be the same as the East Coast but the quality is just as good.
6 Likes
I wonder if it was thought to do it like pony club does. They have east & west champs most years & then a centrally located full championship every so many years. I think that would be fun! But I don’t know, they may have proposed that at one time?
3 Likes
Not here on the west coast IMEX. At Modified level there’s only one division usually. Open. Maybe a Rider division occasionally. I’ve noticed this different in Southern California, and at Galway it looks like they seem to split up a lot.
3 Likes
I used that example specifically because someone else made this claim about west coast events, so I looked at the results and the claim turns out not to be true, at least for the event being discussed last time this came up: West coats AEC: splitting divisions, other classes
1 Like
Using one horse trial does not make the point. Look at the various areas, not just Area VI. Areas V, VII, IX, X, (and IV, depending)) which make up the majority of the west, just don’t have the numbers of competitions to qualify. I know of at least one competition in Area IV that is running because they need to have the opportunity to qualify riders.
This is the exact same thing we had to fight when MER requirements were proposed. It was going to take folks upwards of 2 years to gain what folks in Areas II and III could get in a summer.
4 Likes
Ranking the best scores doesn’t work. There are judges who are known to be softer scorers and ones that are know to be harder. Susie’s 31 may win under judge X and I win under Y with a 27 and Susie really had the better test.
2 Likes
Yeah, like I said above at Galway they do seem to split it up into tiny divisions. But at Ram Tap, Twin and Woodside they do not.
3 Likes
Well, the divisions at the most recent Ram Tap were pretty tiny without splitting: 5 in training, 10 in novice, and 12 in beginner novice (https://eventing.startboxscoring.com/eventsu/ramtap/sht0525/). Queeny Park (the next non-CA event I saw on Startbox in the areas RAyers mentioned) ran two training divisions, one with 8 and one with 10, and two novice, each with 9 (https://eventing.startboxscoring.com/eventsr/queeny/ht0525/).
If a group is having the same conversation for 20 years … it would seem that it is past time to act on it! 
At this point in time, what would it take to constructively move forward to East & West championships?
4 Likes
The Ram tap show was a schooling horse trials. So entries were low and there was really nothing to split. I don’t know the other venue mentioned, so it’s not in California.
Anyway, these are the exceptions that include the rule. In my experience, competing here for years, it’s very unusual to have many divisions within a level.
4 Likes
Ok, fine. Recognized at Ram Tap in March: https://eventing.startboxscoring.com/eventsr/ramtap/ht0325/ OM had 14. OT had 10. NR was split — A had 7, B had 5, and ON had 13. BNR was also split into two divisions of 9 and 8; OBN had 11. I just don’t see these huge divisions that you are claiming are the norm. Taking the top five in some cases allows the entire division to qualify. At Ram tap in March, even without the extra qualifications for amateurs, 50% of the training and 60% of the novice entries would qualify (assuming meeting other requirements for a qualifying score, which I didn’t check). Do you really think that is what the standard should be for qualifying for the AECs?
I mean… how does this hurt you or the competition? Getting around the course is still required. If that person who was 5th/5 goes and wins the whole thing at AEC is that bad? If they jump around the division and pay their fees and help make the event financially successful is that bad? It’s only a problem IMHO if their entry means someone else doesn’t get to play.
Whether or not the split is a good idea in the first place is a different question; curious that they split a division of 12 but ran 14 and 13. Maybe people scratched after they split. Some days just showing up and jumping around really is winning.
Plenty of ways to algorithm these things depending on your true goals, but I can’t say that I see the harm in expanding qualifications. In many cases, having more people from the same barn eligible makes the event more accessible to your division leaders, also.
9 Likes
Actually, let’s just do this show by show. Here’s the number of starters for each recognized event this year in Area 6 (https://useventing.com/events-competitions/calendar?area=6):
- Galway Downs Jan 2025: MR – 4; OM – 9; JTR – 6; OT – 11; STR – 8; JNR – 4; ON – 15; SNR – 14; BNR – 13; OBN – 9.
- Ram Tap Feb 2025: OM – 13; OT – 20; TR – 21; NR – 18; ONA – 13; ONB – 14; BNR – 19; OBN – 13.
- Twin Rivers Feb 2025: OM – 24; OT – 23; TR – 19; NR – 13; ON – 24; BNR – 17; OBN – 14.
- Ram Tap March 2025: OM – 14; OT – 10; TR – 11; NRA – 7; NRB – 5; ON – 15 (but 2 HC); BNRA – 9; BNRB – 8; OBN – 11.
- Galway March 2025: MRA – 6; MRB – 4; OM – 8; JTR – 7; OT – 16; STRA – 7; STRB – 7; TRAM – 10; TH – 8; JNR – 5; NAM – 11; NH – 15; ON – 16; SNRA – 8; SNRB – 8; BNAM – 5; BNH – 8; JBNR – 11; OBN – 12; SBNRA – 10; SBNRB – 8.
- Twin Rivers April 2025: MR – 13; OM – 14; JTR – 10; OT – 18; STR – 16; TRAM – 18; TH – 14; JNR – 9; NAM – 15; NH – 14; ON – 19; SNR – 19; JBNR – 15; OBNA – 15; OBNB – 16; SBNR – 18.
- Galway May 2025: MR – 6; OM – 7; JTR – 3; OT – 9; STR – 8; TH – 10; JHR – 5; NAM – 5; NH – 7; ON – 7; SNR – 9; BNH – 7; BNRA – 8; BNRB – 13; OBN – 7.
So, of the 7 recognized events so far this year, 4 of them either had low entries or, more commonly, split many of the lower levels such that divisions had 10 or fewer competitors. When that sort of thing is going on, I just do not see the case for expanding the qualifications to include first through fifth place, and I think USEA should step in with guidelines for organizers in order to insure some consistency in how divisions are divided for fairness in any qualifications or awards that are based on placings.
I think this is a fair question. In my view, it undermines the idea of having a championship show vs. just a big fancy competition. It cheapens the idea that qualifying and completing is an accomplishment in its own right – especially for those who qualified and completed in years with more stringent standards.
I’m all for promoting accessibility in the sport, but I don’t think that needs to come at the expense of rewarding excellence (at all levels) through something like a championship show with real qualifying standards such that qualifying is itself an achievement. And I think it sends a weird message about sports and competition to trend in the direction of “everyone’s a winner,” which is what happens with these tiny divisions.
