I thought it was disgusting that when several young riders’ names were mentioned, she implied that they aren’t really all that great because they’ve never ridden anything except the best horses that money can buy. For how long was she Reed’s trainer? If that statement is true for Reed, she has no one but herself to blame. She had some good points but as others have said she and her peers are a huge part of how the problem started and why it continues to snowball. Katie needs to step away from the podcasts and take a good hard look in the mirror.
9 Likes
You missed my point; horse showing has always been a white people sport, which means it’s always been a sport of privilege. The class/money separation factor might be getting by starker now, but there’s a reason you don’t/didn’t see many POC riders in dressage, H/J or eventing versus say, racing.
Any sport where here you wear a top hat is a white person sport!
5 Likes
It used to be you had to figure out how to jump around at least 3’6" to get to go to the A show. And it was a big deal. And there were local and B and C shows to help you figure out how to get there. Then the A shows exploded with the 3’ C-level classes like the Ch/AA hunters and the Ch/AA jumpers at 3’6". These were good stepping stone divisions from the other shows that tended to top out at this height. But then it became where we needed MORE stepping stone divisions like the modifieds and the pre’s. And then below that and below that and below that to where, coupled with the mileage rule, there were no more practice or stepping stone horse shows. Which are important because from the horse’s perspective, there’s a big change from jumping around at home to jumping around off-property to jumping around at the zoo of one of the mega circuits. And the courses and jumps may get more technical, more fill, wider oxers, more “setting to spec” than you may find lower down.
The only problem I have with this evolution is that it has priced out a lot of riders of all levels and talent. Add to that that the moneyed riders in the lower divisions (with or without talent) now feel the need for 6-figure horses for the pre-adults because they want to fit in on the mega circuit. Those with talent will move up and not really be much of an issue other than to keep pricing everyone out of all of the divisions. But what does the less moneyed but hardworking horseperson *(of any level) who has saved up to take their horse to 2 A shows a year have to compete against? Those less moneyed riders have smaller show records and less exposure to the big trainers who used to go to a variety of types of shows. What’s really the point in giving your green rider or green horse a rated show record when they are in the baby divisions? If anything, that could hurt them if they, you know, act green. Then you get to the pressure to be perfect at all levels and what it takes to be perfect.
Doping/cheating scandals have been around for forever. The mega rich have been around for forever. But do we want to promote a “sport” that is all about these people? I honestly believe that the grassroots structure of past decades did help to develop top riders because it gave them a place to compete while spending a little less money and maybe having a horse that was a little rough in some way but still have the chance to be successful on an appropriate level.
I don’t really fault a trainer who takes money being freely offered because it’s hard enough to make a living in horses anyway, but I have an issue with it when that’s prioritized to the detriment of other hardworking, talented clients and horses. And it is creating a culture of laziness that my 26-40yo self (who did a lot of my own work, groomed for BNTs and couldn’t afford to keep going and try to pursue a career that can almost afford a non-showing horse) finds kind of disgusting. It’s not just laziness among the $$ clients but some of the younger trainers, too.
4 Likes
The increase in 3’ & under divisions at rated shows correlates to the decrease in entries at local shows which led to their subsequent demise. So, it’s a struggle to see arguments in favor of Access for All! and cries that It’s Too Expensive! all given in the same breath.
We run 8+/- ring circuses too accommodate all those lower levels that make up the new “base”, and they cost a fortune to run. Somehow, over time, a “weekend of horse showing” turned into an 80 hour work week for professionals. Trying to manage a gamut of nervous riders and 1000LB prey animals that are increasingly more and more and more pent up in tents. Corners are cut because no one’s really sure how to keep this whole facade going. Rinse and repeat 35+ weeks a year.
I think if the pros, Katie included, had known where this path would end they would have put a stop to it years ago. But most pros I know are too busy keeping their horses happy & sound, their heads above water, and their sanity on straight.
In the meantime, despite all this holla about grassroots & costs, millions are being spent to develop 8+ ring mega horse parks all over the country, Amy Amateur is rubbing elbows with Olympians in the food line, and it costs $80,000 to even get a second glance from the judges in that 50 horse 3’ hunter class.
How cost prohibitive would grass roots hockey be if their games were held at the United Center?
All I mean to say is…
It’s fantastic that there is a level for everyone now.
But…
Did we do it right? Was this really the only way? Can the balance be brought back?
12 Likes
There is a Noelle Floyd “day in the life” video of Jessica Springsteen where she says “I’m ready to go to the airport now” literally as she is walking away from the show ring. (I could be misquoting but it was something along those lines). There’s a similar scene in the Georgina Bloomberg one if I remember right.
If I’m going to interpret Katie’s remarks charitably, what she’s saying is, imagine how amazing an already GOOD, TALENTED rider like Jessica Springsteen would be if she DIDN’T immediately hop on a plane after leaving the ring.
Overall Katie’s comments are hit and miss for me but I kinda appreciate that she named names among that set. They are not kids. They are not weak. They are talented young riders from immense privilege and they ARE the future of the sport, like it or not.
4 Likes
To be accurate, Katie did not mention any of the young riders’ names - those were called out specifically by the interviewer. And Katie did not call any of them out by name in her answer to the question. The only names she specifically brought up were those of riders that she admires and about whom she had only good things to say (who all belong to the generation between hers and the spoiled rich kids, some of whom she has trained). She might be rude and insulting and ignorant, but she’s clearly not an idiot.
4 Likes
I think Katie’s remarks went in a lot of different directions, but this part rang true: the sport is not about riding and learning about training horses now. It’s about SHOWING. These younger riders, for the most part, are being trained to be competitors: they know how to SHOW. The trainers are not teaching riding as much as SHOWING. Why is this? because the riders want that. Why do they want that? She’s putting some of this back on the trainers. Instead of making this about an animal and a sport, the trainers push the showing aspect. The $ part is kind of irrelevant - it’s expensive to have a horse, period, and to have quality training, period again, regardless of the focus. And yes, if your client wants to show at top shows, and win, then yes, you as a trainer don’t have a lot of options. You find horses and shows. This does not allow much room for any trainer to be working with riders who don’t want to show so much or so fast.
Reference the collegiate riding edition. The articles described how the student focus shifted from riding, and learning about different types of riding, to showing, so the whole model changed. The colleges developed competitions in order to accommodate showing.
I agree that many of Katie’s remarks were too critical and thoughtless. But I agree with her point that there is too much focus on showing and not enough on riding as a sport, or on learning how to train a horse. Pity, since to me, that’s where all the fun is! I’m not the majority of the clients these days, that is for sure.
5 Likes
I don’t think se’s saying that the LL ammies don’t deserve to show–more that an A how isn’t the appropriate venue.
But, as Midge said so well, the old structure has gone, and it’s either go with the “elite” group from the barn to the massive franchise A shows, or don’t show at all.
2 Likes
This.
6 Likes
Does Katie take on poor working students and let them ride and show all the sales horses?
6 Likes
I do not doubt she would do everything she could for a hard-working young talent, but someone has to get them to a legitimate level. You can’t honestly expect her to evaluate an ocean of 3’ riders and “pick one” to bank her business on. She, herself, probably owns very few of those sale horses… you can’t just go putting kids on client horses.
Many a trainer has put heart and - do not doubt - finances, into a talented child that ends up neglecting their horse when they get a car, a boy, a hormone. It can sour one quickly. When you start seeing that horse sitting in his stall day after day… they told you they were coming… this is how Full Service started. For the horse’s good.
It may not seem like it matters that the pipeline is no longer producing horsemen, but the great majority of y’all agree you need trainers. Trainers that are horsemen. Trainers that know how to produce results without lunge lines and needles.
You may not care if the US ever wins another gold medal, but these people are going to be teaching your children, and their naughty little ponies.
There is a big difference between the adult ammies who work 50+ hour weeks at their desk jobs in order to afford their horses and the juniors who are going to eventually become pros and ride at the top of our sport. If someone works all week, rides on the weekends, and wants to enjoy showing at two AA shows a year in the 2’6" division why does that concern the Katies and the “superstars” of the sport? There is a big difference between the adult ammy with a career vs those that are going to ride on international teams. It makes no sense to say our sport is turning into a sport of “weak amateurs” when those were never the people who were going to be riding at the international levels in the first place.
And there is the whole other issue of the money needed to be recognized as a junior in order to actually campaign at the highest levels. Of course there is the one off working student who gets lucky, works hard, and is in the right place at the right time but those are few and far in between. Frankly the top levels of our sport cost money. A lot of money. The type of horse needed to step into the junior jumper ring is far above the salary of even those in the upper middle class. Kids can’t get noticed when they are on their OTTB in the 3’ ring even if they are riding their pants off. Of course their are exceptions but those are exceptions not the norm.
10 Likes
I don’t understand why you think that Katie Prudent would be happy to help a hard-working poor kid learn to ride when she apparently wasn’t interested in helping a rich kid learn to ride. How many years did she have to put Reed Kessler on crappy horses that would teach her to really ride like a really good rider, but instead she allowed that “rich” kid to ride only the best horses that money (her parents) can buy and took that “spoiled” rich kid all the way to the Olympics, and in the process was able to put her own name back in the forefront of the industry, and now she’s talking down to the whole system that she used to produce that 18 year old Olympic phenom in 2012 that is the only reason anyone even remembers her name today. She’s deluded and ungrateful.
24 Likes
Exactly. Offended by people showing over 2’6" jumps? Don’t walk by that ring then.
A quote from the interview:
"Stafford: What about that next tier down; I’m thinking of Reed Kessler, Jessica Springsteen, Katie Dinan. There’s a whole tier of these younger girls, some of whom have gone through your hands as well.
Prudent: They all have great basics. They’re all very good riders. But they have all, the ones you’ve named, only ridden the best horses money can buy. In their lives, from the time they were little children, they have only ridden the best horses that money can buy.
That’s how you can’t compare them to a McLain or a Kent or a Beezie. You can’t compare them."
From an article on Reed Kessler in the Chronicle in 2013
“I’ve been training with Katie for basically my whole life—seriously for seven years—and felt that it was a natural progression,” Kessler said of her decision to build a new partnership with Ehning.
“I’m so thankful to Katie and Henri [Prudent] for everything they’ve done for me. I never would have made it to this point in my career without them,” she said.
Kessler said she’ll maintain a friendly relationship with the Prudents. “Katie told me that anytime I need her, I can call her right up,” Kessler said.
Why did Reed’s trainer for many of her junior years give her such a big hole in her training by never having her ride a horse that wasn’t the best that money can buy? What would Katie say if Reed calls her, “go ride a crappy sales horse, that will teach you how to ride”?
And doesn’t Prudent’s family make a ton of money selling expensive horses. Why is she so offended amateurs might buy them?
Here is my favorite quote from the article:
“The sport makes me sick nowadays.”
Katie Prudent has made a living off of many of the things that have lead to this sport making her sick - her husband and son deal very expensive horses, she trained Reed Kessler for years and now disparages the breadth of her experience. Hypocrisy like that is what makes me sick.
And seriously, everyone who knocks people showing over lower fences, don’t you people have better things to do, like schooling your horses and polishing your skills over 4’ courses, than to knock people who are enjoying themselves and their horses at the level where they, or their horses, are comfortable? What does it take away from you? You do know it adds a great deal to your experiences - lower level riders paying entry fees, paying coaches, paying vets and farriers, buying tack and show clothes keep this business running. Would the local tack store be in business if it were only patronized by people who jump at least 4’? Take eventing for example. Would there be as nice of courses and as many events if they only offered Preliminary and up? How high would the entry fees be to support the building and maintenance of those courses if only the upper level riders were paying to compete? Seriously, appreciate the lower level riders for what they do.
And SO WHAT if a groom walks a horse back to the stables after a class? The horse is being well cared for and you don’t know how much that rider does when you’re not looking.
27 Likes
I think it’s been the case for a long time that the top echelons of the sport have featured primarily (1) pros’ kids, and (2) the very wealthy, with (3) the occasional freak talent with a very wealthy benefactor (like Sallie Jones Sexton for KMP and Betsee Parker for Tori). I would not underestimate how hard the pros’ kids have to work, and the variety of horses and ponies they have to get on, including the very green. I think from a talent perspective, that is always going to give them a leg up over the wealthy technicians who have only ever ridden made horses and basically spent a lot of time honing their position and their eye (with KMP and GM sharing a lot of responsibility for that emphasis, IMO). I personally have no problem with the democratization of horse showing to include horses and riders of varying abilities. What DOES bother me is the number of younger trainers out their, (and their disciples), who think that so long as they can set jumps for a made, imported horse that already has its changes, etc., and deck out their riders in the trendy tack and clothes of the moment, and “prepare” the horse for the ring with all the longeing, ear stuffing, Perfect-prepping, and more that we see today–they must be sophisticated trainers, showing at the highest levels. In my area, you see 2’6" riders on unbraided horses showing in shadbellies and Parlanti boots, and there is just a level of arrogance/social climbing to the whole thing that can be obnoxious. A little humility, and know-what-you-don’t know, would go a long way. All of the trappings, none of the fundamentals…And I also totally agree that no one is going to acquire the fundamentals by simply staying immersed in this show scene. As I have said before, people (and most importantly, their horses) would be well served by getting out of the ring, trying another discipline from time to time, starting a young horse, taking care of their own horses in some meaningful way, and turning their horses out to freshen them from that whole show scene routine. I also think that not having to ride TBs anymore was bad for the overall quality of riding–and I think the move away from them was more about trainer commissions and making the trainers’ jobs easier than anything else (certainly not the exchange rate). It enabled a generation or two of trainers who can’t actually start a young horse and get it show ring ready to hang out their shingle (or show curtains).
6 Likes
How does someone showing 2’6" at an A show, or BN at a recognized event, take away from your accomplishments?
Why do you care what level other people are showing? Isn’t what you do rewarding and fun and keeping you occupied and happy enough to ignore other people?
Guess what - A couple of years ago I showed 2’9" at an A show, and gasp even did the 2’6" hunter derby class! It was fun! And it had absolutely no impact on anyone showing at a higher level, other than supporting the show through the fees I paid.The 2’6" class was last in the day, so anyone who did not want to witness such an atrocity could have left after the higher classes and had a nice dinner with their other upper level friends. I even had my horse shipped to the show Monday and drove down Thursday after work, because I had meetings that week I couldn’t miss. So I paid for a groom AND a braider! Even though I am capable, and have done, both those jobs in the past! And my trainer rode him Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday morning, even though I am capable of riding my own horse but I wasn’t there! Does that offend you? If it does offend you, well, why?
Seriously, WHY DO YOU CARE WHAT I DO? I’m honestly curious.
19 Likes
This is my favorite comment on this thread!
I actually quite enjoyed the interview, though I didn’t necessarily agree with everything she said.
In the US horses are an expensive sport, and unfortunately there is no correlation between how much drive/dedication a kid has and how much money that same kid has.
Katie talks a lot about wealthy people. But, at the other end of the spectrum, I also see really dedicated and hard working kids without financial backing languish and find themselves unable to move up due to being stuck with unsound or unsafe horses (dirty stoppers, chronic spookers) or horses with very limited ability. This to me is more sad than wealthy children and amateurs being stuck at the 2’6" level on their six figure horses.
Just as it isn’t enough to ride a string of perfectly trained fancy horses under the constant supervision of a BNT to learn how to really ride, it’s also very difficult to learn how to ride well from only riding very green or difficult horses. It’s very hard to learn to ride well without access to good instructors. Working hard, even incredibly hard, is not enough for developing real riding skill. Many of these kids come to realize at some point what a huge factor money is when it comes to horse sports. Some of them find another way to enjoy horses (being content with low level or pleasure riding), and some take a hiatus from riding to develop a career where they can earn the money they need to get to ride better horses. I wish there were more opportunities for these young riders, though I understand the reasons there aren’t.
As an aside, this entire conversation ignores the existence of pony club. At pony club competitions, the competitors have to do all their own grooming and horse care during the competition–no grooms. Trainers can only coach, they can’t get on and tune up a horse. Horse care, “stable management” and sportsmanship are judged along with the riding. Kids are in the barn all day–there’s no strolling off to get a manicure. It’s interesting to me that while it seems in every issue of the Chronicle there is a fun story about a winning rider who “just showed up to show” (of course described in a flattering way) the Chronicle doesn’t bother to cover stuff like pony club competitions. I think it reflects that at the end of the day, despite what people are saying on this thread, many people don’t actually have the respect they say they do for young people that invest in learning horsemanship alongside their riding.
7 Likes
The popularity of Noelle Floyd…ugh. That website/e-magazine, whatever it is, and its lickarse fawning over the “young and beautiful big money name riders” certainly promotes horse SHOWiNG over horsemanship. Fashion and makeup tips and who is wearing what $$$$ brand.
11 Likes
is this her son ?? By the way I did not search out a bad video of him. This was the 3rd one that popped up. I know a parent isn’t 100% responsible for the actions of their children, especially when they’re adults, but wow. I wouldn’t be critiquing up and coming riders and making judgments on other trainers when my own son rides like this:
8 Likes
