I’m curious what other people think, but I do like some of his points. Particularly if you were able to do away with ratings for shows and the mileage rule together. Why does USEF need to mandate certain standards like score boards or if there’s someone serving a hot lunch? What a waste of resources.
Let people choose to go to those shows that offer the amenities they care about. If you get rid of the mileage rule, you let people vote with their wallets in rewarding shows who offer good value for money across the spectrum of high end to more local events.
I agree that the only thing USEF should be ensuring is safety and standards of the competition itself.
Personally, I wish USEF cared as much about rating instructors and professionals that they do shows.
Excellent, common sense orientated, well presented. It will never happen.
No one can/will really vote with their wallets on which show to attend because they just go to the shows their trainer/barn wants to do.
The horse show world is too far gone off the big money deep end to change. If a global pandemic didn’t change it, nothing will. It would take a global apocalypse mass extinction event to change it. As we all crawl out of the nuclear winter ashes, recatch and gentle the surviving horses, in a few generations or so eventually we’ll want to gather and see who can jump the highest/run the fastest and horse showing will get back to it’s roots. Not until.
Thanks. I needed that.
Depends on your barn. If this is truly the case, you need to a) do your own research on the shows you want to attend, b) find a new barn. Maybe both.
I’m sitting out several weeks of a well-known show this year (rhymes with SHITS Hogerties) because I have other ways I want to spend my money. My head trainer will still take some clients and a few of his horses but I literally sent my assistant trainer a list of local shows I want to go instead during that time and there were sign-up sheets posted within the hour. Not to say they’d do this for every client, but trainers know me well enough to know that I like the shows I like for a reason and want to go to places that feel “special” and offer a quality exhibitor experience. (And to be clear, I’m a “one-horse” client and not a particularly big spender or anything. They just know I’ve been doing this a long-ass time.)
Just read the whole article, which also addresses the mileage and amateur rules, in the magazine.
It makes sense to me to have points be show agnostic, though IMHO they should keep the idea of awarding more points if there are more horses in the division. So you’d get more points for winning a ten-horse division at a three-day show and a nice but not over-the-top facility than for winning a five-horse class at a fancier show with a jumbotron and hot food. Exhibitors would sort into the shows with the amenities that are important to them. A well-run show with good footing, nice jumps would tend to attract more people. Win for the show. Win for the people chasing points.
Dressage shows kind of operate like this in the sense that it doesn’t matter how fancy the show is. Awards and qualifications are based on scores. All USEF shows are created equal. One year a friend joked that she’d won a national USDF high score award by going to “shows with chickens.”
My barn will listen to clients’ requests to go to various shows or circuits.
I’m not sure I have ever eaten a hot lunch at a horse show, unless you count a chili dog, taco, or breakfast burrito as a hot lunch. I suppose those are, or should be, hot and can be eaten for lunch. Mostly I bring my own food. I truly don’t care if there is a jumbotron, especially as it’s doubtful to make an appearance in any ring I am likely to grace. Things I care about include good footing in lunging areas, warmup rings, and competition rings, safe stabling, suitable courses, and competent staff. I’ve written this before, but I have a horse still on layup, almost two years after stepping on a rock at a “premier” competition that had so many rocks strewn about that one trainer said she’d picked up 50+ of them in the warmup rings. I still kick myself for taking him to the show given that the facility had a prior reputation for rocks. But the show did have VIP, shaded grandstand seating, and parties. And, yes, I did file a report with USEF and they did ultimately get back to me. And, no, I will never go back.
IMO he’s made excellent points so far in parts one and two.
I’ve always thought they were kind of weird, the requirements for AAA, A, B shows, what have you. What does the number of bathrooms or food availability have to do with the classes and competition? But of course, I assume it goes back to money as it always does. The nicer facilities have more money to give USEF to get that higher rating.
Most importantly all around, is REMOVING the mileage rule, and IMO removing the amateur rule as well, not just changing it. Divisions should be based on experience and skill at various levels, as Mr Wee says, not on how you make your money.
I agree that the base-points calculation should remain the way it is–points for the placing + number of horses in the class. Just do away with the mulitplier for A/B/C.
Last week I went to a recognized dressage show with my 4YO. It was basically a C hunter show–I didn’t even notice if there was hot food, and there was definitely no jumbotron. But the footing was good and it was well run, and I will show there again. If I were trying for something like All Breeds, those scores would count just the same as if I’d gotten them at Dressage at Devon, because all they’re looking at is a % not a placing. Which makes it a little more difficult to convert into hunterland, but perhaps we could also reconsider the way we get qualified for things like Indoors and HOTY.
The milage rule needs to go, but it needs to go in combination with a removal of some of the requirements for things like jumbotrons and VIP hospitality. Then smaller venues that are actually more competitor friendly might have a chance over the big box shows.
This is probably the hardest part of this entire issue.
For the entire idea of affordable shows and consumer-choice of venues to be reasonable, feasible, and to actually work, there’s multiple rules that need changed/removed all at once, it’s not a matter of just one rule to change, not even as a way to “just get started.” It will fail if all of the issues aren’t addressed at one time.
I feel like we get this article every year. The powers that be aren’t listening. As long as the wef crowd supports big circuit shows things will never change. They don’t care about the little amateur horse owner.
I really enjoyed his points about the amateur/pro distinction around skill, not how one makes money. As a junior, I enjoyed the maiden/novice/limit equitation classes and thought they were a great playing field for those who wanted to do some eq without competing against the rest of the world.
I would love if some adult hunter classes were like this but it’s hard to say exactly how -for example, if you’re a particularly strong riding amateur and you’ve won champion with your very quality animal 10 times, why should you have to step up to a higher classification just because you ride your horse well? It’s a tricky thing with hunter scoring being so subjective. Great points but unfortunately I don’t think the status quo will ever change.
Because that’s literally the point, so that you compete against riders of a similar skill level.
Right - I can see both sides of the argument- even with the “skills” based division of adults, you still end up putting the good riding weekend warriors in the same division as the shamateurs who really should be pros, who ride 4 every day and catch ride constantly at shows… and is that really fair? But to the not good riding weekend warrior, it may seem more fair than the current system. I think it’s too tricky to actually do without someone getting angry about fairness.
I think it would have more likelihood of that scenario not happening than the current Amateur rules, though. Because even if their riding skill level is the same, the weekend warrior showing their one horse once a month won’t accrue the same amount of points to move up in the rankings as the shamateur showing five horses each week.
I too think this is the way to go - award more points for larger classes.
I think the intent of the rules that morphed into the current ruleset requiring fancy amenities was meant to be a proxy for this - you choose the big, fancy show, that means the competition will be stiffer and larger, and hey, maybe the classes aren’t that large but that’s not your fault the peons didn’t come to fill it, and you should be able to predict when you enter what the points will be worth.
Whether that was good or ill intended hardly matters, because it has just ended up skewing everything badly.
Not all the restrictions and expectations are purely bad - like if you’re going to have a big show where you expect a lot of entries, yes you really need adequate bathrooms. But there are other ways to express this, simply by requiring disclosure in the premium book. One thing I enjoyed about eventing was that facility information was always part of the omnibus listing.
But whoever put in the jumbotron requirement, that’s just ridiculous.
You don’t 100% know what the points will be worth now since there is already an increment for the number of horses. Might be a bit more of a guessing game if all shows base points are leveled, but people will figure it out.
I once got way more USEF points (triple maybe?) for three very non-primary-color ribbons at a premier show than I had the month prior at a B or C show where I was champion and had won at least one class. But there were definitely more people (at least triple) at the premiere show.
At dog shows you don’t necessarily know what your points will be or whether there will be enough dogs for a major, unless things have changed in the twenty or so years that have passed since the book series(*) I’ve been listening to was published.
(*) It’s the Melanie Travis series by Laurien Berensen (a Chronicle poster!) and they’re “free” with an Audible subscription. Just the right amount of engagement for SoCal traffic.
I agree that clients should be able to impact what shows their barns go to: this has been the case at 2 of the 3 barns I’ve ridden at. After all, they are trying to make money and have a big group at whatever shows they go to. There are a number of barns north and south that go to Venice, FL for their B circuit because their customers want to go to the beach and it is generally a fun, low-key time. I would like to see more adult equitation divisions as others have said, at various increments in the 2 foot range, as well as 3’. That might actually be somewhat more “accessible.” It is patently absurd to apply the word “accessible” to hunters of any sort (even at Venice) at 3ft and above, and at some places, 2’6’’.
I dont understand how changes to the shows approval based upon the mileage rule is going to make shows more accessible? Where we are located there are loads of sanctioned HJ shows within 100-250 miles. Maybe two dozen annually.
In other zone locations there are maybe a handful of sanctioned shows that may be located 500+ miles away in a different state. Or even 1000+ miles several states away. The mileage rule is really a mute point. No mileage rule is going to bring a bunch of big HJ circuits to those areas.
As far as changing the amateur rule? Do away with it entirely? To something like Pro and non Pro? How is that changing the cost of a horse show? I don’t see that impacting the cost of judges, or staff, or stabling or the maintenance of a show grounds facility?
For the cost of one sanctioned show people here can go to a half dozen local unsanctioned shows. Those local HJ circuits where it doesn’t cost $400-$700+ just to unload your horse.
I think it’s stupid ridiculous that people import a horse from Europe, pay to ship it over 1,000 miles to an AA Premier HJ show for 2’ divisions BUT they DO.
Laurien is a poster on COTH. She has some lovely thoroughbreds. @LaurieB
I’ve been reading her books as long as I’ve also owned black Standard poodles! (15 years now)
(My only whinge is that the new narrator on Audible is nowhere near as good as Jessica Almacey was)