What does USEF & FEI provide to over 90% of amateur riders that they need? It appears to me that NSBA provides a great deal for less cost and a less-sticky floor.
Now, I have no interest in showing any longer and haven’t for years. If it returns, I get much pleasure out of local shows run by local clubs. So that skews my perspective.
I don’t think people have hate for people wanting their coach there. I think it is a two fold problem. 1. People are irritated that it causes massive delays that inconveniences everyone else. A lot of trainers do not do this, but enough of them do that it causes a problem.
2. Separate but related issue - Some trainers do not allow you to warm up or do absolutely anything on your own, and have basically convinced competent adults that they are totally dependent on them. It’s a little weird. NOT saying it’s a problem if that is what you WANT, no judgement there. But the hunter jumper land does seem to have a problem with this learned dependence/helplessness, which also ups the cost.
I agree with all of this as well. I don’t know if I was entirely clear at 2AM. My quality comment wasn’t just about finals, I think having too many of these non-competitive people in any class lessens the accomplishment. Now I don’t hold anything against those non-competitive pairs individually. I think it should absolutely be encouraged to do it if you are able no matter what the reason or what your goals are. However, I think if you have classes (qualifying classes or finals) that are becoming majority pairs that are not there to be competitive you have a class that somewhat lessens in its prestige and I understand seeing that as an issue.
But as you said that has absolutely nothing to do with money. If anything the qualifying fee will make the problem worse. I think we should make the derby program more accessible (more $10k derby at more shows) while simultaneously making the higher levels harder. Everyone who wants to try a $10k derby can try it, increased entries will help fund the regional program the task force wants to start. Bigger classes get harder and are held at bigger shows and the quality of entries will increase. Some people will opt to sit out of a $20k derby because they won’t be competitive but that’s fine because they have a $10k derby to enter next weekend. Making classes more accesible would ultimately increase the quality of animals in the bigger classes. There are many beautiful would-be derby horses sitting at barns all over the country that don’t do the derbies. If you want to increase the quality of derby horses you need to find a way to get those guys into the classes. You do that by making more classes, making them more affordable, and making them easier to get to.
Because I can’t imagine having any opposition to this model I can only assume they are purposefully excluding those with less money to burn at horse shows. Or they are entirely clueless about the entire Section of the population that makes less than 200k a year.
Being an old lady volunteer I can tell you that this exists in all aspects of showing. I know the eventing world likes to boast they are all independent kick and get it done riders but I promise you that is not what I see when volunteering.
I am all for wonderful independent riders who do not need coaching. That does not make those in the world who want coaching brain washed into thinking we must have our hand held or some how less adequate equestrians who should just buck up and deal.
Again, I do agree that ring holding is annoying. But blaming the riders is not how to get support for change here.
Then you read these posts differently than I do.
I really don’t blame the riders at all, personally. It’s a problem with both trainers and the shows. Trainers hold the ring, shows allow the hold. If the shows either had ride times or set a “last call” type thing of 10 minutes or so, the trainers could plan their day accordingly.
One factor might be that the NBA coach is only worrying about one team and game at a time. It’s not as if he is responsible for players in 10 different games in 10 different arenas all going on at once, which is what can happen at a horse show, resulting in delays and empty rings.
So people may be concerned about the practical logistics more than the idea that athletes should be more independent of their coaches.
Side note. In the USHJA Zoom call regarding the increased fee for the hunter derby, someone mentioned that in the last year or two, about 20% of the horses who did an international derby only showed in one or two classes per year. I found it incredible that they decided to add a fee that would probably eliminate nearly 20% of their participants, assuming that most of those people are unlikely to pay the additional fee.
Why does it lessen the accomplishment if a good part of the class is not-competitive filler?
I learned a long time ago that the size of the class means nothing. It is who is in it that measures the accomplishment, not the numbers. What difference does it make if there are a lot of here-for-the-ride people having their round?
Being able to show in the classes with the more demanding courses will motivate people to be better riders, and to do better in their horse’s training. Completion and better performance is their accomplishment. What is wrong with that?
Just out of curiosity to those who are currently showing (I’m not)–isn’t the trainer/groom dependency to some extent linked to the fact that shows (for even the upper-middle class person’s budget) are so expensive?
The death of B, C-rated, and local schooling show series means that when someone competes, so much is on the line. If people are going to a schooling or lower-rated, less expensive show, they might be more willing to make mistakes (even do their own braiding, for those who know how), and try being more autonomous. But if you’ve invested so much money to get to a higher-level show, are paying a large coaching fee, and only show very rarely because of the cost, there’s greater worry about perfecting every single moment of the experience, rather than “just learning.” Even for people with the means to show more frequently, there are fewer opportunities for lower-stakes competition to gain more autonomous skills to use in the show ring.
I would actually think they’d WANT a bunch of “filler” horses they can beat, since points totals are usually based on number of entries in the class. Unless derby qualifying points work differently than regular division/zone points.
Thank you for this! I think this is valuable to explore. However, other than a slightly higher annual membership fee for USEF, how much of a cost-savings is there when going with an NSBA-sanctioned event? Less sticky floor, noted 
This is me as well. I’m very comfortable with my local setup. I am curious to understand why these are not as valuable for others like me (the supposed 99% of amateurs that show 3’ or below). One suspicion as noted earlier was that it was geographic; maybe these options aren’t available everywhere.
I think this is spot on. This is how I am finding value in my equestrian journey. If I show up to a one or two-day show and my horse is overwhelmed, or I’m not doing my best by him, I go home. I’m out $200 and I try again in a few weeks. However, I don’t think this an approach that works for many amateurs.
One thought I’ve had in trying to understand why not, is that most of us live in a metropolitan area so that we can commute to jobs that pay for board. Most facilities that are available in a metropolitan area don’t make money off board, so they require a training program. This is fine for many of us, because sometimes we have long days at the office and need the pro to hop on to keep the horse fit. Feeling ready to show? Trainer only goes to rated shows where they can charger higher day fees to a large number of clients that all ship in at the same time and fit the “model.” Is this the trainer’s fault, for making these business decisions? Is it somehow USEF’s? Personally, I don’t think so.
I would guess part of it is - what is offered at a rated show versus the local show. Not only for classes but type of judging.
At a rated hunter show you know that the judge is going to be looking for what hunter people want in a hunter course. At an open show you don’t know what the judge is looking for. Are you getting a hunter judge or are you getting a breed show judge or…
In my experience the other issue is trainer time. If a trainer has a a group that wants to show and there are some that want to do the rated divisions that means the lower level people either come to the rated show and do the lower stuff or they do not show at all. Lots of the unrated shows do not have the 3’ and above divisions.
I’ve always thought that smaller and/or less competitive classes are less of an accomplishment, however I often find myself in the minority. On the extreme end, I once won a local 3’ medal final even though I completely pop chipped in the first round. Everyone else was worse. I don’t consider that much of an accomplishment.
I don’t see anything wrong with wanting to enter a derby with the goal of turning in a good round. I’ve done it! I’m very happy I got to do it I got some good pictures out of it and a fun night. Even so I don’t consider winning an International Derby with 10 top quality horses and 25 average horses as much as an accomplishment as winning a derby with 25 top quality horses and 10 average horses. I think that’s what Brawley was trying to say. You may disagree with that. Neither of us agree with Brawley’s solution.
So…as mentioned before, I’m a competitive distance runner. When I first started I just did my own thing, but eventually decided I needed to get serious so I joined a team with a coach. In non-Covid times I would do workouts 2-3 times a week at his direction and with him watching.
My first race with the coach was very awkward. I was expecting him to tell me when and how to warm-up. Eventually, I asked him if he had any instructions - what drills should I do, etc. He just looked at me shocked and labeled me “needy.” And I was. Because that was my expectation based on a lifetime in hunter/jumper land.
He was there to watch what of the race he could. But there was definitely not interaction like you see in riding. Maybe a few words during the race, but very limited. And it’s totally normal and routine for him to not show up at a race I am doing, even a major one (though he gets my splits texted to his phone, if they are available).
In running, the coaching definitely happens at home, with very little happening during races.
Winning an Olympic medal in any sport is considered impressive. But most of the competitors are filler from countries that aren’t competitive at the elite level. Getting to the Olympics and acquitting oneself well is a lifetime accomplishment for those athletes.
Does that “cheapen” the Olympics? Does it make winning an Olympic medal less special?
No, because there are rigorous selection processes to get invited to the Olympics. Every country brings their best riders and those compete against each other. Different model.
I know you don’t agree with me but I fully understand my position as I’ve held it for many years. I believe that winning a class that included 35 nice horses is more of an accomplishment than winning a class that included 10 nice horses. You won’t change my mind. I don’t think the presence of non-competitive entries “cheapens” the class at all - but I think an overwhelming number of them as compared to competitive types lessens the prestige. Maybe if there were giant classes with 80 horses and a big chunk were non-competitive I would feel differently, but that’s not what we see.
We’re both agreeing on the big picture. Money is dominating the industry and the result is if you’re rich you can go to derby finals (even if your horse isn’t nice) and if you’re not rich you can’t go to derby finals.
ETA: I feel like my initial argument is getting turned around. Here’s a (hopefully better) summary. It all started when I went on a 2AM little rant about my experience watching derby finals. There were too many rich people on “average” horses for my taste. I say average not as in average of all horses but average of what you see at AA shows. I think having a competition that’s supposed to be the best of the best but really making the qualifications about who can spend the most money to travel to the most places and enter the most derbies to be a symptom of a broken system. I think instead we need to make derbies in general more accessible and make the upper levels harder so anyone who wants to do a derby can and those at finals are truly the best horses that year. Those with “average” horses and above average pockets do not get to derby finals while those with amazing horses and average pockets do get a chance to go.
But who says these people are non-competitve just because they don’t want to try (or could afford) to compete for purposes of the finals? It’s still good prize money for the class. I did all the Big Eq. But I often did double duty with the eq on my hunter. So, if I had too many possible classes to do, I would usually skip the WIHS because it’s 2 jumping rounds and you have to really commit to make it to the finals versus at the time most of the others being X number of points or wins. I was competing at that height and difficulty and could have been competitive, but the finals were a reach without another horse (and also probably more money for shows and bigger shows to get more points). So if I do a handful of those classes maybe after I’ve qualified for other medals, and don’t kid myself about going to finals, I am somehow automatically not competitive in the class?
You don’t have to do all the high options to get a good score and placing in a derby. I watched Mindful win one while taking a total of 0 high options in the handy round because he was so far ahead after round 1 at that particular derby there was no need for more bonus points, and I assume it was a good decision to save his legs a bit. There are plenty of good 3’6” pairs out there to be competitive if they had access to a few classes. With potentially no finals goals.
When I say non-competitive I mean someone who doesn’t have much or any chance of placing in the class, they’re just there for to have a good round and a fun experience (like when I did a hunter derby on my equitation horse who did not jump like a hunter). You could compete in one class and be competitive in that class. You can compete in 20 and not be competitive.
I think that the trainer dependency thing is an issue in terms of what the rider feels prepared to do on their own. When a student showing in the jumpers (I can’t speak for the hunters) cannot walk their horse in the warm up ring without trainer input there is something dumb going on. I see plenty of riders warming up on the flat and then the trainer sets jumps, talks about the course, gives confidence, etc. before the rider goes in the show ring. After the round the trainer and student can discuss what was good, bad, and so on.
Cool, fine, all of that makes sense and when I have a trainer with me that is exactly what I use them for: help warming up over jumps and with the class itself. But when the rider is standing around waiting for their trainer who has a conflict in another ring, along with everyone else waiting for that class to end or the next one to begin, and when the trainer strolls up THEN the rider starts their flat warm up, well…
Connected to that is how many students wait for their trainer to warm them up and then they go and stand outside the ring and learn the course. WHY WEREN’T YOU LEARNING THE COURSE IN THE HOUR WE ALL HAD TO WAIT FOR YOUR TRAINER TO ARRIVE???
This is something that happens all the time. It’s infuriating for the other competitors who now have to wait even more while the trainer goes through an entire flat and jumping warm up with the client, and then listen to them tell the client the course, and it’s ridiculous. If you cannot warm up your horse so that you are ready for your trainer to coach you over jumps you shouldn’t be at a show jumping any sort of height. If your trainer won’t allow you to warm up your horse on the flat without their instruction, you should reevaluate the program you are in. If you won’t bother to learn the course before your trainer comes to tell it to you the rest of us have reason to be upset.
I don’t think expecting people to know how to get their horse ready to jump is unreasonable, but I see it at all levels, from .85m to 1.20m and up with juniors and ammys. It’s ridiculous.
ETA: There are plenty of eventers I see who could use the services of a trainer at events. DIY is only as good as the Y. On the other hand, most of my friends who event can warm themselves up without trainer input if necessary, when their trainer is at the other end of the venue in XC or whatever. There can be a balance between 24/7 handholding and being completely on one’s own!
I will say (again) that I hate trainers holding the ring and then acting like everyone should just be happy they are there now and continue to wait while they work in slow motion.
But… I can think of reasons for things that you are angry about.
For example, it does someone no good to warm up Dobbin and then stand and wait for 45 minutes, because they too probably do not know when their trainer is going to show up. So you might be seeing someone doing the same thing everyone else is doing, waiting for their trainer.
They might also already have ‘learned’ their course but are now going over it with their trainer to make sure they know the right course and so their trainer can remind them ‘remember the left lead is his hard one so make sure you balance after that line so he is sure to be ready for his lead change’.
Again, there should never be long times with no riders in the ring while we wait for trainers. It sucks.
I have had experiences volunteering at events where very capable riders were not willing to warm up until their trainer got there (conflict). Not a lower level rider the one time. I actually giggled thinking about all the threads here on COTH.
There is a difference between not tiring the horse when the rider doesn’t know how long the wait is, and being unwilling even to trot some circles without a trainer saying “trot a circle”.
It is one thing to review the course with a trainer - that’s what trainers are for. It’s another thing not to be able to read a course map. Or to be unwilling to read a course map.
That is two different perspectives on the dependency. One is willful on the rider’s part, the other is a lack of basic life skills on the rider’s part.
Why the rider makes that choice is the interesting question.
One thing that ride times do for an eventer or dressage rider is that you know when you must carry on in warm-up, with or without a trainer. Because the show does not run on trainer-time.
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
