Leveling the Adult Amateur Playing Field

[coffeehag]

This year’s debut of the Adult Amateur Hunter Championships is something I think is very exciting and much-needed in this industry. But it’s also sparked a lot of conversations among my friends that I thought would be interesting to bring to COTH.

As most of us know, adult amateurs in the hunter world are a varied group, from those who are boot-strapped and DIY as much as they can to those with six-figure horses who only ride a few times a month. It can sometimes make the adult amateur divisions interesting. For example, there were several horses at this past weekend’s International Hunter Derby that also competed in Adult Amateur divisions with their ammy owner.

I’m not here to debate if that’s fair or not, but simply for the sake of discussion it does make me (an adult amateur who works a corporate 9-5 with no financial help from anyone and with a $2.5K OTTB) wonder how the playing field could be evened out. Others have sparked this conversation previously, proposing a financial division (see below for a recent, divisive post on TPH):

What I’d like to propose/discuss is this:

What if, to qualify for the Championships, adult amateurs’ mounts were restricted to competing exclusively at the height they wished to qualify for during the USEF show year?

My logic:

• This would still allow for pro rides throughout the year as necessary, but only at the qualifying height

• It limits the number of those who can qualify but still allows for leasers

• I’d argue it makes for a more competitive group

I’m curious what others would think and would love to have a (kind, respectful) discussion around it!

[Madison]

Horse show schedules and available options vary, I don’t think you can take away the flexibility for a trainer to choose what is best for the horse. If all that’s available or all that a horse needs to be ready for 3’ adult amateurs is to cruise around a 2’9 class that’s going in our ring, why should that horse have to jump the 3’ or 3’3 just to stay eligible for championships? If my horse does the 3’3 performance, is he still eligible for the 3’ championships? What if I have a bad show and need to drop down to low adults for a week or two to regroup, am I no longer eligible? The path with horses (and for adults too!) is not linear, so I don’t think it would be beneficial to the horses to tie people’s hands like that. I also am not sure I see how it would level the playing field, ultimately.

[HJdaydream]

@coffeehag

What if, to qualify for the Championships, adult amateurs’ mounts were restricted to competing exclusively at the height they wished to qualify for during the USEF show year?

As a working adult ammy who qualified for the championships this year (but unfortunately will not be able to attend) I’d be perfectly fine with this rule. My horse does get a pro ride or 2 at shows, in a 3’ warm-up class, and I show in the 3’ AAs. He can absolutely jump much bigger but I don’t see the point, I’d prefer to save his legs.

I’m not really sure how this would achieve anything though? I don’t really think a horse jumping in a bigger division with a pro really does anything to help the ammy perform better, but maybe I’m missing something?

[Amberley]

The bottom line is that you cannot level the playing field in the hunters because it is judged on the horse, specifically on type so it’s always possible to simply buy a more type-y horse. Also it’s trendy so a horse that wins at age 6 might be out of style by age 12. And finally the judging is subjective.

There are things you can do that make far more sense than the owner restriction: using height bands to limit where a horse can show, grading horses on overall lifetime points and scoring each division separately; having non-pro, novice, open etc that have been implemented elsewhere but there are so few people in the higher classes would that even work?

I think encouraging the 3’ adult equitation and introducing a 3’6" eq division someday, making it more prestigious would be more fruitful in the long run to encourage the make-it-not-buy-it crowd who don’t want to do the jumpers. Or make a 50/50 class where both the horse and rider are scored and pinned separately, that would be fun.

[coffeehag]

I would adamantly disagree. Located here in the show draught area of Texas, I have yet to see a single [rated] show where a 2’9 division is available but not a true 3’ Adult Amateur. Furthermore, you can’t qualify for these championships by doing the 2’9. If your argument is that there isn’t always an open 3’ class where the Adult Amateurs are offered, I have also yet to see that but I would then argue that that’s what your warm up class is for.

I think that it’s fair to ask about dropping down but I think the reverse is true – I (personally) think it’s out of pocket that a horse can do the International Derby and still do the Adult Amateurs. I think there’s an argument to be made about still being able to do a division below what you want to qualify for though, for the reason you mentioned.

[Madison]

@HJdaydream

As a working adult ammy who qualified for the championships this year (but unfortunately will not be able to attend) I’d be perfectly fine with this rule. My horse does get a pro ride or 2 at shows, in a 3’ warm-up class, and I show in the 3’ AAs. He can absolutely jump much bigger but I don’t see the point, I’d prefer to save his legs.

Just using your language as an example - at Blowing Rock, they only have two show rings. The only class my trainer could take my horse in was the 3’3 performance. There were no open 3’ classes. So do I have to give up eligibility for the championships or do I have to give up the ability to get the schooling my horse might need in a strange venue? That’s the kind of choice a rule like this would set up, because not all of the show schedules are the same.

[coffeehag]

Yes, as I mentioned at the top of the post – it’s a subjective discipline. But USEF has made moves to “level it” – if only by offering Amateur Owner classes.

I think encouraging the 3’ adult equitation and introducing a 3’6" eq division someday, making it more prestigious would be more fruitful in the long run to encourage the make-it-not-buy-it crowd who don’t want to do the jumpers. Or make a 50/50 class where both the horse and rider are scored and pinned separately, that would be fun.

I would argue that having higher classes is not actually what the sport needs.

[Madison]

@coffeehag

If your argument is that there isn’t always an open 3’ class where the Adult Amateurs are offered, I have also yet to see that but I would then argue that that’s what your warm up class is for.

Just because you have yet to see it doesn’t mean the scenario doesn’t exist (and there are plenty of shows that don’t offer a warmup trip, fyi - even the local show I did this weekend didn’t!). Which honestly is really my point - there are too many scenarios to account for, and I don’t think taking flexibility away from adult amateurs is really the answer. Nor do I think this rule would really level the playing field. I think it is an interesting conversation, but I’m not sure there is an answer that actually levels the playing field.

[coffeehag]

No, I think you’re right – it’s a really great point. I don’t generally count local shows in these conversations because you can’t qualify for this event by attending local shows and, by nature, tend to struggle with hosting and filling higher classes. Or, at least, our local shows do.

I totally see your point about it taking away the flexibility but at the same time, I wish there wasn’t so much flexibility at present.

[outside_leg]

So I’m an amateur that imports, rides, and sells a variety of horses each year. I hate the restrictions on classes that limit me from showing in the Low Adults with our 5 year old hunter just because I’m doing the 1.20m with one of our jumpers. I firmly believe these class height restrictions should be done by horse/rider combo. Yes, I can do the Baby Greens or the USHJA with our young Hunter—I don’t really care about showing with pros or not—but those classes go during the week while the Amateur Jumper classics are on Sunday. So now I’ve got to take more time off work, hire a farm sitter for longer, spend more money on a hotel, etc. for a very stupid reason.

I would firmly be against restricting a rider from showing at a higher height all year just to do a championship. Believe me, my baby horse is not going to be more competitive at the 2’6” just because I can also ride 1.20-1.30m. It’s about what we can do as a pair. If you wanted to put restrictions in there about the combination and not just the rider…maybe. But that would also discourage people from trying out new classes or taking a step forward, just to realize they still have homework to do.

[Catherine_Cullen]

I don’t think USEF will make anyone happy with the amateur rules until they more clearly articulate what it’s for. If we have an amateur designation and restricted classes, then…what good things result? If USEF had a clear answer, it would he easier to figure out if the rule and the championship are “working.”

[coffeehag]

@outside_leg

I would firmly be against restricting a rider from showing at a higher height all year just to do a championship. Believe me, my baby horse is not going to be more competitive at the 2’6” just because I can also ride 1.20-1.30m. It’s about what we can do as a pair. If you wanted to put restrictions in there about the combination and not just the rider…maybe.

To be clear, what I’m proposing would be against the horse, not the rider. I don’t necessarily think that there’s an advantage if a rider competes on a 3’6 horse in one class and a 2’6 horse on the other, but as it stands, an amateur has to qualify on the horse they want to ride in the championships. So if the horse is restricted for a show season to a single division/height, it means that you’re not competing against a horse that’s doing a 3’6 class on one day and then handily qualifying for the Champions in the 3’ or 2’6 another.

Does that make sense? I might be explaining this poorly, apologies!

[coffeehag]

The most true statement in this thread! Unfortunately the bald truth is that there’s always going to be a significant disparity among the amateurs; this is truly just meant as an open conversation on if it’s even possible to reasonably level the field.

[outside_leg]

That makes more sense. I think I’m fine with that, maybe with a leeway of 3”. I’m thinking particularly about preserving a horse’s green status, making sure they don’t compete at 3’, but what if they do a 2’9” Modified Adult division because it works better for your schedule than the Low Adults? The difference in fence heights is pretty negligible, but again preserves flexibility for a working adult amateur.

[TWilson]

@coffeehag

Yes, as I mentioned at the top of the post – it’s a subjective discipline. But USEF has made moves to “level it” – if only by offering Amateur Owner classes.

The AO division was around long before the adult division, and certainly before USEF was a thing, so no, the AO division is not USEF’s way of leveling the playing field for the adult division.

This whole thing sounds like there are a lot of adults out there who just want a participation ribbon, so why not do what Devon does for the leadline kids: get all participants in the ring, pin the class, then give everyone else a pretty light blue ribbon and a huge colorful lollipop and let them do a victory lap to show off their prizes before exiting the ring.

[2bayboys]

@TWilson

This whole thing sounds like there are a lot of adults out there who just want a participation ribbon, so why not do what Devon does for the leadline kids: get all participants in the ring, pin the class, then give everyone else a pretty light blue ribbon and a huge colorful lollipop and let them do a victory lap to show off their prizes before exiting the ring.

Ummm. Ok.

[coffeehag]

I’m genuinely impressed by your ability to miss the point. But go off I guess??

[Catherine_Cullen]

Sure but if the answer is “if we have an amateur designation and restricted division(s), then people would have a chance to compete against people and horses of similar ability which will make them happy and happily doing horse sports” then you could certainly write a rule to do that. I think other disciplines have. And within the pro division the derbies are doing something similar (not suggesting it’s ability-based) with the tiers and everyone seems to like it.

You could use prize money won, etc etc.

[Foitin]

This is a great discussion. I have no solution at all. Unfortunately, the sport is about as far from being a meritocracy as possible so the post quoted by OP from TPH doesn’t make any practical sense to me, though I like the idea OP proposes about the heights.

I have come to appreciate the variety in the adult hunter division and I am fortunate to have found adult ammy friends that do too, we make fun of ourselves by the ring and annoy our trainers, we do want to win, but its on the DL or simply impossible. There is a lady in my area who shows about 600k worth of horses in the older adults, including a winner in the 3’3 greens. That’s the hot ticket cross-over division in my view. But there is another lady whose green horse is even greener, and he is her only horse, and I’m always happy when she does well. There are other riders riding 19 year old oldies but goodies, other folks who must canter from the start. My horse is 14 and does it with his eyes closed in pretty jumping style, but looks like he otherwise pulls a cart. I have friends with whom I used to show in the A/Os, but our horses are older now, we are older now, and can’t get any ribbons in that division anymore. See the above point about the 3’3 green horses. Other riders are riding horses that look stressed, are not at all quiet, or that also go in the jumpers. Its a mixed bag! One lady never gets anything over fences, but always wins the hack. Its super expensive to travel to the championships, I’d never do it, though the idea is nice.

[Janet]

@TWilson

The AO division was around long before the adult division, and certainly before USEF was a thing, so no, the AO division is not USEF’s way of leveling the playing field for the adult division.

@Catherine_Cullen

I don’t think USEF will make anyone happy with the amateur rules until they more clearly articulate what it’s for.

My POV-
I am an Amateur
I am old
I am primarily an Eventer, but when i was a Junior the only competitions (besides Pony Club Rallies) were Hunter Jumper shows, so that is where I competed. I still compete in Connemara Hunter classes, and have HOTY ribbon to show for it. I have also competed (this century) in Adult Amateur Jumpers, as part of my Eventing cross-training.

A little history

The Amateur Owner division was created by the AHSA, which was the predecessor to USEF, approximately 65 years ago. It was very clear “what it was for”. It was so wealthy owners (and their recently-aged-out children) didn’t have to compete against their trainers. It would be very humiliating if an owner were beaten by an employee… In the 60s, the only people I saw in the AO classes were

• Wealthy businessmen who did not have to go to the office every day
• Stay at home wives
• College (or college-aged) riders

There were practcally NO AO riders with full time jobs, and no intention to create a “fair” playing field for other (economic) classes of riders.

The rules based changes started about 1970 when the AHSA introduced the “Childrens Hunter” division at 3’. The objective was to have an alternative to the Junior Hunters for riding school students, who (typically) didn’t own their own horse, and were riding school horses.

This worked reasonaby well for about 2 years. My sister had a (very nice) quarter horse, Meadow Lark, she used for giving lessons. I don’t think Meadow ever pinned well in the Junior Hunters, but she won several championships in the Childrens Hunters.

Then, for a variety of reasons, riders (with financial backing) who would otherwise have competed in the Junior Hunters started entering their show horses in the Childrens Hunters. Very soon, the price of a horse that could win in the Childrens Hunters shot up, and the riding schools and their students were priced out of the division.

They introduced the Adult Amateur Hunters, for similar reasons, and with similar results.

In terms of making things “fair” I don’t think that is possible. A couple of decades ago, the Eventing community attempted to create their own, Eventing-specific defnition of Amateur. (This lasted a couple of years, but proved unworkable, and they reverted to the overall USEF definition. In many parts of the country, there are very few Amateur “classes”, but there is an Amateur Leaderboard.)

In this exercise it became clear that anyone who considered themselves an Amateur wanted the definition to be “just above” their situation, and people who considerd themselves professionals (especially Packy McGaughan, who was one of the leaders of the effort) wanted the definition to be “just below” their situation.

It is my personal opinion that any attempt to create a “fair” definition (and associated division rules) for “Amateur” is destined for failure.

It is also my personal opinion that the definition of Amateur, and the specifications for classes restricted to Amateurs, should be ONLY based on the rider, not the horse.