Leveling the Adult Amateur Playing Field

[dags]

@awaywego

It’s not the showing earlier in the week that is creating the advantage as much as the quality of the horses are less equal.

But it’s hunters. That’s literally the game, whether junior, amateur or pro. Even if no one’s currently showing the horse at 3’6", you’ll still have someone buying last year’s junior hunter finals winner so they can be Rusty Stirrup circuit champ at WEF.

Saying “that horse is too nice to be in this class” is completely at odds with the point of hunter sport.

[awaywego]

Of course. That’s always going to be true. There will be horses in 2’6" who are stepping down from years of winning at 3’6" against horses who are in their first year of showing at 2’6" ever.

We can’t let perfect be the enemy of the good with every proposal.

[findeight]

One of my biggest issues with showing in the AA Hunters was the classes were scheduled Friday and Saturday, sometimes with a Classic on Sunday meaning I had to be there Thursday afternoon if i wanted to hack and maybe hop a fence or two to prepare myself. Always thought if they really wanted to help AAs, they could schedule their classes on traditional days off for most Ammy riders. I remember one show series that even had the AAs Thursday and Friday, thanks alot for that Ammy friendly move. NOT.

It has been well explained so far but would like to point out an Ammy horse shipping in on Monday or Tuesday with the owner arriving days later cannot stand for 3 days and needs a meaningful ride or two and a few jumps and that would fall to a paid Pro rider. My good mare was a very easy prep but not going to stand for 3 days then go jump 16-18 fences.

[enjoytheride]

It does sting a bit to compete against pros on imports in the 2 foot beginner ring full of aged beginner amateurs and kids though.

Especially when there are 3 other hunter rings

[Pennywell_Bay]

@findeight

It has been well explained so far but would like to point out an Ammy horse shipping in on Monday or Tuesday with the owner arriving days later cannot stand for 3 days and needs a meaningful ride or two and a few jumps and that would fall to a paid Pro rider. My good mare was a very easy prep but not going to stand for 3 days then go jump 16-18 fences.

Agree. Mine would lose his mind. No reason at qualifying shows the horse maybe should be limited to what classes they can do with the pro or at all. It isn’t going to happen. They may limit the actual champ to what they have done in the past mentioned above. Pros will fight it because it is their bread and butter, ammies who are in that kind of program will fight it, ammies who AREN’T in that type of program will be annoyed and people like me who had nice hunters in the past but are sick of it (and have the ability to do the custom program but chose not to) will migrate to other disciplines (not a bad thing at all) .

I just want to add, as an amateur, this shouldn’t turn into Ammy in a Program vs. Ammy Not . The bigger picture is that this is a USEF/USHJA money grab — another way to get people showing more and paying more (just wait, if this is a hit it’ll turn into a pay-to-play for the honor). They don’t actually care if a pro shows the horse or not, and they certainly don’t prioritize amateurs (just look at how our classes are scheduled). What they do care about are their mid–six figure salaries. My only ask is that we not take our frustrations out on each other, but instead direct them where they belong — at the powers that be.

[lintesia]

@dags

But it’s hunters. That’s literally the game, whether junior, amateur or pro. Even if no one’s currently showing the horse at 3’6", you’ll still have someone buying last year’s junior hunter finals winner so they can be Rusty Stirrup circuit champ at WEF.

Saying “that horse is too nice to be in this class” is completely at odds with the point of hunter sport.

Well, I was at a show where they actually had a $1000 Classic for the 2’6" Low Child/Adult Hunters and a $1000 Classic for the 2’9" Modified Child/Adult Hunters. Guess who won BOTH Classics? An international derby horse ridden by a trainer’s big eq kid (who strategically was brought in to ONLY ride in the Classics and therefore didn’t break any of the “rules”).

Call me jaded, but in this sport folks are going to look for any loopholes to add to their blue ribbon collection and grab any “easy” money offerings.

[findeight]

Thought we were talking 3’ AAs at rateds?

Have seen the non rated 2’6” and under restricted to riders who had never jumped 3’6” or higher ( a waiver for rider age was added to that for senior riders who had not jumped 3’6” in the last decade or so) never seen any horses kept out because of past achievements, still have to ride it and they get old too. That might vary locally in non rated divisions and non rated shows.

Hate to say it but Pros do not belong in some of these very low classes, IMO, but many of those classes are restricted and there are typically plenty of open low classes for Pros

[dags]

Yes, this is a situation where Limit/Maiden/Novice makes way more sense.

[coffeehag]

@Pennywell_Bay

Allowing a horse to compete with a professional at a higher height earlier in the same show week, then step down for an amateur rider at a lower height to earn points toward an amateur-only championship , undermines the spirit of the division.

Amateur Divisions are Meant to Be a Level Playing Field. (as much as one can) The intent of amateur-only championships is to recognize riders who present (not necessarily bring along bc I think that is an important distinction because we all can’t produce our own for various reasons) their own horses without the competitive advantage of professional show rounds. When a horse has already gone in the same ring, often over a similar course, under the guidance of a pro, it enters the amateur classes at a clear advantage over horses who have not had that luxury.

• It Shifts the Competition Toward Who Has a Pro, Not Who Rides Best. An amateur whose horse was tuned by a professional the day before is not competing on the same terms as an amateur who walks in on their own. Points toward an amateur championship should reflect the rider’s ability to produce their horse in that moment , not the residual polish of a professional’s ride.
• It Dilutes the Meaning of “Amateur Achievement.” The prestige of a year-end amateur title should come from amateurs showing they can compete their horses themselves. If horses are essentially “prepped” in the division above, the amateur’s ride becomes more of a showcase of a pro’s work rather than their own.
• It Creates an Unequal Barrier. Again- never gonna be equal. But we are talking Championship. Not every amateur has access to a professional willing (or financially feasible) to show their horse in multiple divisions. That means the system disproportionately favors wealthier riders and further separates “have” vs “have not” competitors, which contradicts the goal of keeping amateur championships accessible and fair.

If a horse shows with a pro at a higher height in the same competition week, maybe it should be ineligible to accrue points toward amateur-only year-end championships. This preserves the integrity of the amateur championship and ensures that the results reflect the skills and partnership of the amateur rider , not the advantages of professional preparation.

You’ve said it so much better than I – this is precisely what I mean. And as @AwayWeGo says, too, the quality is substantially different – thus my initial suggestion of restricting the horse to showing at the qualifying height for the show year if the rider would like to qualify for these specific championships.

Sure, @dags, in theory it all comes out in the wash at the championship but it sure makes it significantly more difficult to qualify if you’re in a particularly cutthroat neck of the woods which, again, is why I’d thrown out maybe a show year restriction of some sort solely for those looking to qualify.

You’re right, everyone’s right, hunters (and horse showing) will never truly be fair.

The scenario @lintesia mentions is one I have also seen time and time again. And as we’ve all said repeatedly, it’s hunters, it’s not objective. Which is why specifically for the case of an amateur championship, I think it’s worth spitballing ways to look at it with a smidge more equality.

[Mounted]

@Pennywell_Bay

Allowing a horse to compete with a professional at a higher height earlier in the same show week, then step down for an amateur rider at a lower height to earn points toward an amateur-only championship , undermines the spirit of the division.

Amateur Divisions are Meant to Be a Level Playing Field. (as much as one can) The intent of amateur-only championships is to recognize riders who present (not necessarily bring along bc I think that is an important distinction because we all can’t produce our own for various reasons) their own horses without the competitive advantage of professional show rounds. When a horse has already gone in the same ring, often over a similar course, under the guidance of a pro, it enters the amateur classes at a clear advantage over horses who have not had that luxury.

• It Shifts the Competition Toward Who Has a Pro, Not Who Rides Best. An amateur whose horse was tuned by a professional the day before is not competing on the same terms as an amateur who walks in on their own. Points toward an amateur championship should reflect the rider’s ability to produce their horse in that moment , not the residual polish of a professional’s ride.
• It Dilutes the Meaning of “Amateur Achievement.” The prestige of a year-end amateur title should come from amateurs showing they can compete their horses themselves. If horses are essentially “prepped” in the division above, the amateur’s ride becomes more of a showcase of a pro’s work rather than their own.
• It Creates an Unequal Barrier. Again- never gonna be equal. But we are talking Championship. Not every amateur has access to a professional willing (or financially feasible) to show their horse in multiple divisions. That means the system disproportionately favors wealthier riders and further separates “have” vs “have not” competitors, which contradicts the goal of keeping amateur championships accessible and fair.

If a horse shows with a pro at a higher height in the same competition week, maybe it should be ineligible to accrue points toward amateur-only year-end championships. This preserves the integrity of the amateur championship and ensures that the results reflect the skills and partnership of the amateur rider , not the advantages of professional preparation.

I don’t see how any of these points are specific to a horse showing with a pro at a higher height.. These all seem to be points that apply to a pro showing the horse at the same height, too – so why is the solution a prohibition on the horse showing at a higher height?

I’m also not sure that there’s general agreement that amateur divisions are meant to be a level playing field – at least not across all dimensions. They are only meant to be level in terms of whether or not one earns income from riding or training horses. And I don’t think that the point of any hunter class is to recognize riders – they are all about recognizing and rewarding horses.

[Rel6]

@Janet

The AEC run for 5 days, Wed - Sun. So, if your friemd had been trailering in with a trainer, who had clients in other levels/divisions, she WOULD have been trailering in on Tuesday, and leaing Monday.

That is my whole point. My eventer friend only had that issue at AECs - the national championships. I have that issue at every single h/j show.

I also event, so I’m familiar with the restrictions. And I’m sure its regional (I’m in the northeast) but eventing in general just seems so much more friendly for an amateur who works Monday-Friday.

[hrlo_1722]

Agreed. I’m still confused. In my experience and from what I’ve seen from shows, pros are schooling ammy horses in the height they’re jumping at that week, unless they’re doing the performance/working classes, which I feel like is a very seperate and much smaller venn diagram.

My trainer sometimes does my horse in the 2’6" because it’s good for him to do a little higher for me to do the 2’ on him, but I don’t see that as an “advantage” - it’s more work for him at the end of the day.

[Pennywell_Bay]

@Mounted

don’t see how any of these points are specific to a horse showing with a pro at a higher height. . These all seem to be points that apply to a pro showing the horse at the same height, too – so why is the solution a prohibition on the horse showing at a higher height?

I was directing the comment about higher heights. It applies to a pro showing the horse at all, IMO. I just pointed out the whys of pros taking them in higher heights, besides availability of those classes. And why it pertains to “leveling the playing field”. As I stated before- no skin in the hunter game anymore. Just a hunter from way back until relatively recently when I realized jumpers and my low level eventing were freeing “for me”.

[TWilson]

I just don’t understand all this angst about who has more saddle time, more money, fancier horses, etc. When I was showing, I just rode my mediocre, well-loved horse to the best of my ability with the goal of improving against myself in each subsequent class. Somebody is always going to be better - instead of trying to find ways to keep those people from entering your classes, maybe try to find ways to enjoy your time in the show ring with your horse without worrying so much about everyone else?

[Pennywell_Bay]

Your points I agree with but the OP wanted conversation on leveling the playing field and that is what people are contributing to. I switched disciplines at 53 to just enjoy the horse I have. It’s been an amazing journey and one I wouldn’t switch. Everyone has different goals, hence the discussions.

[coffeehag]

Hey, this might be a crazy thought – but you can do both. I don’t know why so many individuals are so set on viewing competition as black and white.

I can and do ride my beloved OTTB to the best of my ability, competing against myself, and leaving every single show proud of every single victory, no matter how small. My best show memory is leaving the ring at a local show, beaming ear to ear, because it was the best round my horse and I have ever done – even though we chipped into the majority of the fences. We didn’t even pin.

I can also want to have a chance to show at an event that’s meant for riders like me: amateurs.

In my opinion, comments in this thread that insinuate that riders just want a participation ribbon or that riders should just enjoy competing against themselves are illogical. In this sport, many of the same voices that argue riders should just work harder to pursue something they want no matter the barriers are the ones also saying that it’s a fruitless endeavor because only the wealthy will ever win.

While I don’t think anyone is entitled to compete, it’s not unreasonable to want to have a mere conversation about what it could like so that riders who do pull themselves up by their bootstraps and work their asses off at least have a chance to compete on a “more even” field in a specific competition organized for amateurs.

[TWilson]

@coffeehag

can also want to have a chance to show at an event that’s meant for riders like me: amateurs.

Isn’t that what you are doing? There are lots of riders out there with tons of money, top dollar trainers, and six figure horses; lots of them are amateurs, showing in the amateur divisions. If you are an amateur showing at rated shows, you are going to have to compete with them. Maybe find some unrated/backyard type shows to go to?

[coffeehag]

Thank you for explaining to me what the competition is and who amateurs are competing against. I clearly had no idea. I’ll be sure to give your advice the consideration it deserves 🫶🏻

[TWilson]

@coffeehag

Thank you for explaining to me what the competition is and who amateurs are competing against. I clearly had no idea. I’ll be sure to give your advice the consideration it deserves 🫶🏻

You’re welcome.

[blondewithchrome]

In all seriousness, this is the hard truth of the matter. The amateur division IS the leveled playing field so amateurs don’t have to compete against pros. Full stop.

Any time we try and police the amateurs division to protect the working hard, scrappy, 9-5 corporate warriors against the Rich People™️ there never is a clear answer. And…(put on flame suit) I don’t think there will slash should be. The point of the Amateur classes is to allow non-professionals to compete against other non-professionals, but the “level the playing field” argument always seems to be against those with unlimited funds and multiple horses and perhaps no slash limited time restraints, not necessarily an argument about skill and height of fence appropriateness. That means that we will always have a trainer showing a wealthy owners horse in the pro classes so Owner can show it on the weekend. It doesn’t matter if that horse shows with a pro in the 3’9”s if you can’t find a jump to save your life and 3 leg off the ground in every trip.

But until show managers request tax returns and make divisions mirror the US Tax brackets well, I think we kind of have to live in the system we have. It’s hard for many of us to keep up but, that’s showbiz baby