I find it odd you are arguing this when anything above prelim is, if you go clean at Intermediate or Advanced twice, you are qualified That’s was how I qualified for both of my AECs (At Lamplight) almost 20 years ago. Prelim is 1st-5th.
Who cares how one is qualified? On any given day anybody can win if they are up to the challenge. Sometimes I was able to beat WC and Olympic riders when they make the mistake and I didn’t. And some days, like last week when Tammie Smith had 2 in my division, I pull up and go home when it’s clear it isn’t going our way.
There’s a lot more opportunity on the east coast - almost one within driving distance each weekend, maybe even more, actually? Shows on the west coast tend to take more travel time and more show time - harder to attend, costlier. Should we normalize things somehow? Weight the scores of those in 1st and 2nd on the east coast? How we do adjust things to be equal? Or should we drop it and be happy more people will have the opportunity to go eventing at a big fun show? You don’t have to attend it you don’t think the competition is up to your standards.
I would also point out that events earlier in the year in California tend to have lower entries. We don’t have a ton of indoor or covered arenas so a lot of us don’t ride as much in the winter when it’s wet and/or windy. Things really pick up in May. I can report back on division size at Woodside this weekend after I jump judge.
Things being equal is very complicated (and close to impossible, IMO).
Adjust the qualification standards proportionally. The West has fewer events, further travel etc so they are lowering the threshold because the East has more opportunities. (is this the first time AECs has done this? )
Someone suggested a way to reward quality performances, not just placements- a point type system. This also helps filter out cases where someone places high due to a small field, versus someone with stronger performance in a large, competitive division. This gets complicated (our local org does this with a formula). Again- there is some bias if you are going on the dressage score, for example.
Travel stipends, lower entry fees for coming more than X miles. Not ideal or fair to the venue etc just spit balling.
Every attempt to “level the playing field” runs into an endless swirl of factors—geography, climate, population density, travel costs, venue quality, horse health, volunteer depth, even stray weather on competition day—that simply can’t be standardized. One coast will always host more events, another will always face longer hauls; some riders enjoy year‑round footing, others slog through mud season (helllooooo Mid West ) .
You can tweak qualification rules or hand out a few wildcard slots - whatever-, but each fix just pushes the imbalance somewhere else.
USEA prob has to settle for “close‑enough.” They watch the numbers, adjust thresholds, and hope the inevitable rough edges don’t cut too deeply. Riders, owners, and organizers know the score: with this many moving parts, absolute fairness isn’t on the table—only a shifting compromise that keeps the sport running. I have always thought East and West and call it something else.
Look I think we all want AEC’s to be the competition where those who earned top resutls come to compete in one championship and all riders who earned it can logistically attend. Thats just not an option.
At KY this fills the entry to the point of a wait list. Now, does this mean that some of those on the furthest corners can’t logistically make it, yes.
So you have to make a tough decision-> Do you a) keep the competition where it is so that the most riders can come and still have a break-even scenario or b) move the championship to the west coast periodically so some of the deserving riders have a chance to compete.
USEA, I think has rightly made the decision, as it’s meant to be an organization for its members, to periodically provide an opportunity for those riders.
When it does this, it cant eat the cost of the low entries. So you’re looking at a) move back to KY or b) open of the qualifications so that the show can fund itself on those times it’s moved to the west coast.
We’re trying to pick the best option of what’s available to provide a great competition.
I can tell you that other shows that rotated east/west eventually gave up and picked one location that was as central as possible. Arabian Sport Horse Nationals used to rotate every other year. They experienced a lot of issues with finding a facility that was fine with a every other year contract, and finding a facility that had the appropriate rings/stalls/camping/hotels. Everybody always wants a National show in their backyard but many locations were either entirely unsuitable, never placed a bid, or refused an every other year contract. One location had a regular freight train near the dressage rings. Another the facility had nobody there to pick up manure, drag rings, etc. Others had not enough warm up rings, poor footing, not enough stalls, not enough hotels for competitors and staff. West coast entries were always significantly lower than east coast, and there really are ZERO facilities in “central” US. In the end SHN settled on WEC Ohio as a permanent location. People seem to be incredibly happy, except the west coast people. People can and do make the drive.
It does seem that that last time AEC came west people “didn’t enter because there was another show at the same facility and they didn’t want to make the drive.” AEC in KY has literally the same thing happen, and while some people indeed did not want to run “the same courses for a higher price” there were enough people that did that there was a wait list. So enough people supported the AEC at that location. Now we have west coast lowering qualifications so I certainly hope they have a wait list, otherwise doesn’t that take away the right to complain?
The tiny divisions are not about “everyone’s a winner” syndrome. Its about ammys vs professionals.
It REALLY sucks in the west when 5 ammys/kids on a mix of ranch horses, mustangs, OTTBs that work and train hard and ride properly are beat by a 1 or 2 pros with multiple rides on imported greenies. It can be so bad that you do not bother entering a recognized show in spring and early summer. You know that you are throwing away entry and gas money and vacation days (10 hours of driving one way and a 4 day weekend.) So you do schooling and unrecognized in April, May and early June. Then start competing for real because the divisions are finally big enough/split to be meaningful.
I don’t know if it’s the same out west but in the east, I see a lot of pressure put on show organizers to make smaller divisions - from competitors and their parents, mostly. I’ve even witnessed riders complain about it when classes are 15-strong.
So the numbers for each divisions at AECs based on the shows that have run in CA (not other areas nearby) so far this year are:
Maximum (if every show in CA had different ppl in 1st or 2nd place, so the max possible # of people qualified for AEC) - 172 riders.
Maximum (if every show in CA had different ppl in 1st thru 5th place, so the max possible # of people qualified for AEC) - 430 riders.
So you can see that if we stuck to 1st and 2nd, entries for AEC would be pretty slim, if my math is correct. That’s not a viable business model, so the show organizer would probably decline to host.
(Note that Galway is one of the places consistently splitting classes into small sizes, and also the place hosting AEC, so their motivation for welcoming as many people to the event is strong and I don’t blame them!)
One can be as much of a purist about what constitutes a championship in your mind as you like, but at the end of the day acting that way would cause the event to fail. Because East coasters dislike traveling across the country just as much as West coasters do.
No pressure out west because of the lower numbers. We just don’t have the numbers. And this is where the issue, to me, exists. The quality of horse and rider is just as good as anywhere else. And the best courses can put any east coast course to the test.
This is absolutely the case in my area, which is in the middle of the country. Organizers talk about it.
Years ago one organizer was going to stand up to the crowd and make larger divisions at N and BN, where the numbers are strongest. Promote the idea that ‘to finish is to win’. Promote the values of eventing over the ribbons.
That lasted one season. For that one season only, she had 25 to 30 per division at N and BN – much larger than the usual in this area. So, with only a few larger divisions, fewer riders went home with satin than they were accustomed to in this area.
That did not meet community expectations for that area. The riders, moms & dads said they weren’t coming back if the larger divisions were to be the case going forward. They meant it.
The organizer caved, if reluctantly. It was about survival for her. Otherwise there wouldn’t be enough entries to make it worth doing. After that, the division numbers followed the routine for the area of a max of about 15.
It is sort of like the way that many people have their own favorite genre of music and don’t listen to anything else. When competitors become accustomed to a particular way things work, they have expectations – such as division numbers. Their perception of a quality experience is about meeting those expectations. It is very hard to sell them on change.
I used to board with someone who lived and competed in Area IV and went to Florida to compete for the winter for a few years. Her opinion was that an Area IV BN course was equivalent to a Novice Florida course in difficulty.
I know a study has been done about competitors who start to lose motivation (and quit trying completely) when they realize they cannot win. And how winning, just occasionally, or coming within reach of that, helps motivate people to keep trying. So I think that splitting divisions helps people stay invested in the sport, which is good for the sport overall. I am sure there is a point in everyone’s mind though where the win becomes less meaningful if the division is very small.
Dressage is cleverly getting around the emphasis on the placing order with the medal system. Based on scores, not placings.
I know several people who compete in dressage. Rarely do they mention a ribbon or class placing. They talk about scores and medals.
That also removes the significance of who (rider & horse) and how many were in the class. Primary determinants of where an individual placing will land. And two things that the competitor does not control, regardless of the quality of their own performance.
That’s funny because around here, after dressage people post how they were high point etc. in a division of 1 or 2 if you look it up. And always post their ribbons.
If they have a ribbon, I understand the enjoyment of showing it off. Even if it was sort of a participation ribbon because they were the only one in the class.
If someone is going to brag about their horse to people outside the sport, it helps to have a ribbon to hang on a wall. A score sheet just does not have the same impact.
Three weeks ago a friend shared on Facebook how pleased she was with her horse and their scores at her show that weekend. It wasn’t until a few days ago when another friend shared that the first friend had actually won her class. There were other riders in the class, I don’t know how many total though. But this set of friends talks about scores and medals, rather than ribbons.
I have never really understood all of the sub-dividing of classes in eventing. I loved the fact that I could go in and compete against the pros. what other sport can you do that in? And really, where’s the glory of beating someone like me? I
When I first started eventing there were just the basic divisions and they rarely got split. When the splits started happening, I always entered the open divisions. I figured it was as level a playing field as you could get and get the chance to compete against a olympians, etc. I figured someday, we might put it all together and beat someone like Boyd and then see him and that horse in the Worlds or Olympics down the road. That would be better bragging rights than beating me.
And there was absolutely no pressure because no one expected us to win.
While I understand that perspective and it IS sweet if you beat a pro, splitting can ensure that amateurs have the chance to measure their progress against others in similar situations. It’s incredibly disheartening to put in months of work only to finish behind someone who rides 8 horses a day for a living.
The ribbon, while seemingly small, is symbolic. It represents the late nights, early mornings, lessons squeezed in after work, and the commitment it takes to get to a competition at all. When amateurs compete on a level playing field -as level as you can get with other factors bc we all know it will never e level- , that ribbon means something real—it acknowledges growth, determination, and achievement in context .
Splitting classes isn’t about diminishing the sport—it’s about strengthening it by making space for everyone to be seen and have a shot. (I am against “participation” trophies, for the record).
) .
A score sheet just does not have the same impact. 
