I think I was a little flip about the OTTB comment, admittedly. I do think there’s unbeatable value to bringing along green horses–I’ve done it before and frankly, as someone who has never yet owned a horse and never had the funds to ride at “fancy” barns, found myself on horses of varying levels of “greenness” the majority of my riding life. I think my point was moreso that her harsh criticism of people who compete at the lower levels seems to imply that someone making a normal middle class salary and juggling the rest of life can just find a “cheap” horse and develop it to the point that it’s actually competitive at the those heights. That’s naive at best, and trying to “force” a return to those standards now would effectively remove a huge majority of people who still do show and put money (not staggering amounts individually, but collectively, it adds up) into the industry.
However, there are specific competitions set for these types of riders, e.g. Para-Olympics. And if one were to look at the demographics, I suspect the population under consideration is well under 5% of the total competing population. These can easily be accommodated in the the second tier shows, e.g. local/B rated. What happened to those? They died under the mileage rules. A shows don’t have to be all inclusive. They weren’t in the past.
Oh I certainly agree with her to some extent, in terms of losing the love for horses, in terms of too many people being polished for the big time before they have any foundation at all.
Where I disagree is that it’s the fault of the kids or the amateurs. I think some is due to changes in American society at large (not all bad, like that kids have more opportunities and more is expected from them academically), some is due to the natural evolution of an activity as it grows within that society, and some is due to choices professionals have made individually and collectively - like for example to offer and fill crossrail classes at the biggest shows in the nation, so that those shows could be places where everyone went to play with their horses, not just those already riding at a high level.
So here’s my question, for those who think the problem is the kids. Nearly every barn in the country has a cadre of hard-working, invaluable latino barnworkers. A significant percentage of those workers have kids. Why aren’t their kids out taking horse sport by storm? Is it because their kids don’t like horses or because they aren’t hard-working? Or is there some other reason we might want to investigate?
It is, and always has been, a sport for rich people. More so now, unfortunately. I am not rich, but I participate in the sport for the love of horses. It means I buy young horses and make them into what I want. I do the dirty work so somewhere down the road someone can have a nice horse. I’m okay with it. It’s gratifying. It’s gratifying to go out and have them perform well - even if they go out and do the 2’6"…
My trainers were/are tough, but more than that they care and that’s all I need. I’d love to go out and be super competitive, but at the same time I think I’ll just sit in the grass with a beer and my horses and let the rich, talent-less amateurs take over…
But honestly, as a DIY amateur, it’s so refreshing to hear a professional who’s been at the top make a statement about how our industry has shifted. I can appreciate fair, honest, knowledgeable, decent horse people. They’re hard to come by nowadays…
But I think the implication that young socialites didn’t do this in Katie’s day is ridiculous. Those hunt balls are not a recent innovation.
This needs to be repeated!
Reed, I doubt that people who are able bodied but terrified would constitute a para olympian.
Likewise I don’t believe a horse who is only cleared for a cross rail or below would somehow be considered worthy of the elite level of para sports.
There are a LOT of physical and mental restrictions that exist within able bodied people and animals. We would be wise to remember not to disparage their efforts just because their achievement levels are lower than our own.
Emily
Everything about this is ridiculous.
-
the “good old days” were when everyone’s hero George Morris beat the sh%t out of horses until they were bleeding and barely able to catch their breathe and it was perfectly acceptable. he still does it but usually when no one is watching (although not always i.e. a couple years ago in Lake Placid).
-
worldwide, the kids of billionaires dominate the show circuit, it’s not an exclusively American problem. it’s reality and it will never change. it was the same deal 30 years ago, people just like to gloss over that fact and be nostalgic.
-
most importantly, these BNT that gripe about the how expensive the sport is and how it’s all rich kids…YOU’RE THE PROBLEM!!! how much do you think Katie charges? $50/lesson? PUHLEEEEEESE. BNTs charge $5-15k++ a month per horse (not including shows) with an expectation you have at least three horses. They insist on training rides (they’d rather do that than teach you how to flat properly), insist they exclusively ride the young ones, you are expected to show year round non-stop, and they pad prices of horses. If you don’t have $300/k+ a year to spend on training and showing and millions of dollars to spend on horses, or you’re not the best junior rider in the country, guess what? No Katie, Beezie, or Kent for you, you sh%tty amateur!
There are a lot of really good riders out there but Katie and the rest don’t see them b/c they don’t go to the same shows or travel in the same circle, and don’t want to. Those really good riders have zero access to Katie and other BNTs.
Our narrow focus on juniors in a sport where you can be at the top of the GP circuit at least through your 50s is also ridiculous. Someone at 25, 35, 45 years old with incredible talent and work ethic could still have 20+ years of success. They only want juniors to help sell horses and attract more wealthy kids.
Yay for Katie for stating the what we shi#tty amateurs already know. But, f&ck that b/c she’s also the cause of the problem.
Ah! So, wouldn’t that be better accommodated at local shows where the environment is much less intense and the trainer could spend the time with the student/horse to overcome such issues? As noted previously, I think this is a trainer issue. They are looking out for themselves and not the student.
My statements are not disparaging. We had to go up through the local shows to get to the A shows back in the day. That was a very stable, effective, and valuable learning methodology. I would counter that a terrified horse or rider shouldn’t be at the A shows anyway.
I don’t disagree but what happens to a trainer who has students who should compete at the local level and others who are justified at being competing at the recognized level when without the mileage rule in play two shows in the area are the same weekend? There are only 4 weekends in a month and there’s only so much energy in a trainer.
Just saying it isn’t as simple as we would like to make it work out to be. Not to mention that if the student has the funds and wants to compete at a recognized show and they offer an appropriate class… who are we to say they shouldn’t?
Emily
I think you both have quite the romantic view of the EAP. The success stories coming out of the EAP of which I’m aware involved top level professionals identifying and hiring working students. To my knowledge, no one is standing along the fence at the EAP with a string of horses and a checkbook looking for someone to whom to hand over the reins.
As a 25-40yo, are you really ready to quit your existing life to take on a working student role?
While I do agree that pretty much any horse can get safely over 3’6, at least in the hunters, just any horse isn’t going to be competitive, so “expensive” is a legitimate argument. But that argument probably holds less weight in the jumpers (probably more her area of concern). Still, it is and has always been an expensive sport. But it is way more so these days. When I first started out in the workforce I had 5, count ‘em 5 equines - 3 horses, 2 ponies. Sure I was leasing my own stalls, doing all my own care and I was permanently po’, but it was do-able AND I did a decent amount of showing. Now I earn, oh, a shit ton more money. I have two horses, I lease my own place and take care of them myself. And I genuinely could not responsibly own 5 horses.
So I think some of her argument falls into the “git off mah lawn” category of railing about What Cannot Be Changed (and I’m right there with her), but a whole lot of the issues facing today’s young riders/future ULRs IS something that trainers DO have the ability to affect. You have a client with a lot of money and a not so perfect horse? And that rider has talent and desire? Hey, maybe help them learn to be the rider they could be rather than changing the horse to fit the rider they are first. And not everyone is here to be the next ULR, but you know the “potentials” when you see them. And even if a trainer caters to the talentless ammy (raises hand), IF they are teaching the talented future pro a little different, expecting a little more, I suspect that will rub off. Even talentless ammies have a finite amount of willingness to be shown up by the more talented among us, we will start pushing ourselves. And kids/new riders? I am utterly mystified why they aren’t learning horsemanship at the most basic level. That this aspect stopped being the badge of expertise that it was for mah generation (git off mah lawn, please) is perhaps the saddest part of all…
And that is called, “Being a good businessman.” I sometimes turn down high paying jobs to focus on something that is aligned with my philosophies. A trainer could coordinate or partner with other trainers to take students to one show while they go to another, they could simply skip the big show once a month to focus on developing a pipeline of clients for the future…
There are a myriad of ways to go. Again, Prudent lays the fault directly at the feet of the trainers, as it should be.
THANK YOU
Heaven forbid those of us that can’t afford a 3’6 and up horse still want to get the experience of showing. Those .80 meter riders know they aren’t going to the Olympics, but showing at that lower level doesn’t mean that we don’t have dedication and drive to be the best riders and horsemen we can be with what we have. The local and B and C shows are dying out, so A shows are what a lot of us have left. So sorry that seeing our 2’6 jumps is so triggering to you as you walk with your $300,000 junior hunter and client to the “worthy” ring. I guess we should just stay in the arena nose to tail for the rest of our lives since were obviously talentless and fearful.
This whole interview was pretty nasty. She had valid points about some of the issues currently in the industry but they were lost thanks to her delivery and insults.
This has been going on the whole time. I remember that it was notable that Francesca Mazella kept her equitation horse at home and trailered for lessons in the early 80s. That just wasn’t done. The horses coming out of programs were in programs with grooms back then and there is lots of evidence of George Morris preparing horses for juniors and amateurs in his own book.
It’s convenient to romanticize it but there were mini medals etc in the 80s. Maybe not 2’6" at an A show but there were lots of B and C shows we don’t have anymore where this was going on. Horses were cheaper if they were B or C circuit horses. Now that is gone.
Comments here seem to be aligning the poorer riders with the lower levels. While that is the case, that is not who Katie is referring to. Nor is she referring to people out getting experience. She is referring to good trainers with 2’6" adults who can barely make it around, but buy six figure horses and pay thousands a month to show at the A shows.
The greener riders and the greener horses used to go to local shows. They went with an assistant trainer, they paid less for those services, they paid less at the horse show. When there was a certain level of competency in both horse and rider, they moved up to the head trainer. The greener riders were learning on grade horses who would not be competitive at A shows, even if they were rich. Because most everyone rode TBs, there had to be a certain level of competency. With the advent of warmbloods and the 2’6" division at A shows, the head trainer could take everyone, cut costs and increase income. (Gross generalization re: TB/WB noted.)
This is not to say that shady practices weren’t happening then, because they were. But the wholesale creation of of quiet robotic horses so the poor riding amateur would win was not the point.
I also agree that cost is creating a lot of this. Aside from the loss of space and expense of horse keeping is the increase in show costs. Often the horse shows were run by volunteer organizations with volunteers manning the in gate and acting as jump crew. The show secretary was someone’s mom.A show ring was a rope strung around a field. There was no technical coordinator, no million dollar footing. There were very few professional horse show managers. I last showed over ten years ago and paid no one to do anything I could do myself. It was hard, but I managed. Now, the A shows are completely out of my price range.
People are also commenting about Katie’s own pricing structure not making her available to the less well off. Say we know she doesn’t cut a deal for anyone, since that is what everyone is assuming, we can all agree she is at the top of her sport and can charge accordingly. But low level trainers use this same type of business structure. It’s how they make money.
I think a lot of lower level amateurs really care about and love their horses and work extremely hard to even be able to own and sometimes show said horse. To say amateurs aren’t worthy of having these experiences is honestly cruel. Why would we not add more levels of classes to allow as many people as possible to enjoy competition. I think the whole thing is a bit arrogant and ignorant. If riders that came from nothing are that much better and we don’t have any up and coming ones, then go find them! I know of at least one amazing rider that is slowly working her way up that rode everything and anything. Its so much harder for that type of rider to be recognized with more and more money coming into the sport
Tori Colvin is showing a horse belonging to GM at GLEF. He also coaches her for free.
THIS.
I agree with some of the points raised, and yes it is easier and more common for that “talentless amateur” (with sufficient bankroll) to buy their way to the bigger divisions. But as others have mentioned, part of that is on how society has changed. We have that “need it now” attitude that does not always allow for the “make your own OTTB” or the slow, progressive development of horsemanship. And trainers want to get paid so they can EAT, so sure…we see a lot more shortcutting and less horsemanship. Been discussed a lot on this forum over the years. yawn
But what I find interesting is the disdain for the lower divisions at A shows. I don’t love the concept of lower divisions at A shows either, but if someone has the money to show at an A/AA show in an appropriate (lower) division, why can’t they? Are there talent police out there? If so, why have the lower divisions at A/AA shows at all? “If you build it, they will come…”
But with the big box shows, we’ve seen the decline of the C and B rated shows, and seen an impact on local, unrecognized showing as well. Maybe it’s me (and I have spent a few years away from showing, so please correct me if I’m wrong), but it feels like the H/J industry had been/is moving away from the grassroots level development. Moving away from those B/C rated shows and moving away from making the unrecognized shows a legitimate starting place. Seems like now lots more people want to just start in the 2’3" or 2’6" stuff at the A shows, because maybe that’s where their barn/social circle is showing. Seems like the wrong move, direction wise.
For your consideration…
Take ice hockey, for example. It’s my other sport. Hockey in the US is generally not considered popular, it’s seen as expensive, time consuming, and also more or less reserved for the rich or elite (sound familiar?). But in order to grow the sport across the US, and also in order to make us more competitive on the global stage in the long term, USA Hockey has developed and campaigned not only an official American Development Model of training, but also highly emphasized grassroots programs. There are also local rink-based programs targeting everyone from 4 years old to 80+ years old. These programs focus on learning, fun, and exercise. They have “Try Hockey For Free” days across the country, where parents can get their kids on the ice, in full gear, at absolutely no charge. It’s just a day, but between that and a lot of the new sponsorship programs for beginner leagues, hockey is becoming a little more accessible.
The idea is that you impact a large group of potential players, and out of that group, a handful will be truly elite prospects.
Sure, it’s still crazy expensive to have your kid in an elite level hockey program, on travel teams, getting individual coaching, etc. But those are generally kids that are looking to go all the way, or at least get picked up for a Junior career or college consideration. In that way, it’s not unlike the A/AA show barn world. The game of hockey is growing in popularity with USA Hockey’s approach. Combined with the expansion of NHL teams, we’ve seen Americans start topping the NHL Draft as #1 picks. We’re seeing more American players on the NHL and world stages. This slow expansion and focus on the grassroots level is paying off on the world stage. It’s slow. It’s not instant gratification. But it’s working.
And you know what? I can’t think of a single truly elite-level player that would turn their nose down at the “hapless amateur” who only skates once/twice a week and has no ambition to be ultra competitive. There are plenty of leagues out there for the new adult beginner, who cater to those who can barely skate, but still love the sport. Those adults who play once a week at lower or mid levels, but will never compete professionally, are the folks that support the NHL teams by buying tickets. No one is making fun of them. No one is insinuating that they are the problem. In fact, in any weeknight pick up game, you’ll see some truly talented, accomplished players happily passing the puck to the lesser skilled players, and setting them up to score goals. No one complains about that. If they do, they don’t stick around that group long. The hockey community is by far one of the most supportive I’ve ever been a part of.
I know Mr. Kessler at US Equestrian says they’re trying to shift that focus to a more grassroots approach, to make horses more accessible. I think if that initiative is successful, perhaps down the road we may see some folks come up through the ranks from the grassroots level and represent our country. But…with the barriers we’ve seen come up in recent years, mostly financial and now with the shift to the big shows, it will be interesting to see how that initiative works.
Personally, she sounds like a spoiled rich, whiny brat. What does she think about the route her own son, young and rich, is taking?
Never liked her, never will.
