Because I’m feeling masochistic today…
Why or Why not?
Amateur/ Pro status is defined by USEF,not USDF.
Shows can choose whether or not to offer separate classes.
4 Likes
Isn’t It nice to place the problem on somebody else??
One of the dumbest rules there is…
I think so, as there is no true and consistent leveling as is. There are full time riders that are amateurs. And, there are part time riders taking compensation for training, so they are pro’s.
3 Likes
I think I’m technically a pro. I care for a small private stable. I don’t ride my boss’ horses (I think he’d like me to eventually restart them), but I do a lot of groundwork with them which would be considered training.
Thinking of myself as a pro in the show world is absolutely hilarious! But I don’t show seriously enough to care.
1 Like
This is a rule which protects rich AAs against poor AAs plus Pros… it’s pretty hilarious…
2 Likes
Blah,blah, blah. It is what it is.
3 Likes
Well, it only took 6 posts for someone to get snotty.
congrats.
Blah Blah blah to you , too.
8 Likes
On one of the other threads you were kind enough to explain the process of who makes what rules. So in essence, it doesn’t matter which one I referenced because in this case, if you show you are a member of both.
As a long time participant, what are your views?
Do you see it as an anachronism, or do you think the distinction is valid?
Me personally?
I think it is an anachronism.
It was originally designed to protect wealthy clients from having to compete against their employees/trainers.
When I was a junior, the only people competing as Amateurs were
- college students over 18 but still supported by their parents
- housewives whose husbands supported their horse habit
it was never intended for people who worked for a living.
It would make far more sense to split classes (in ALL disciplines) by the highest level you have competed within N years.
12 Likes
Thank you!!
1 Like
That makes sense.
Thank you.
You know that’s why it exists, right?
The amateur rule was created to give h/j riders an avenue to compete their hunters and jumpers as adults without having to jump the pro size jumps. It used to be that once you aged out of the Juniors you were in the ranks of what we would now call high performance hunters or open jumpers. It kicked the working students into the pro ranks as well. It wasn’t ever meant for or designed to suit dressage.
3 Likes
I get your point, but one more reason to eliminate it for the dressage sector… but I know this is not going to happen…
I’m a card carrying amateur but have been and currently compete open. I see little difference/benefit of either status in all honesty. “My” breed doesn’t differentiate between amateurs and open when it comes to All-Breed awards and it’s not like I’m going to get paid to do anything for anyone ‘horsey’ wise other than perhaps vet work so…It seems to me it makes more work for the show management to divide and keep track of everything (buy more ribbons, etc). If the workload were decreased, would that lessen some of the show management costs and thus…?
Well, in SOME regions, it also lets us non-pros compete in a ring without the Olympians. So it is relevant for that division - especially when showing in Wellington and California. However… I have friends who teach up-down lessons and have never even competed at 3rd level, and it is just as ridiculous that THEY have to compete against the big names.
I like the idea of splitting it into multiple divisions for bigger shows, such as - Elite and Foundation. You are Elite if you meet one of more of these criteria:
-Showed more then 4 horses in the prior show year, or at the current show
-Shown at an internationally recognized competition (aka CDI)
-Shown PSG or above with at least 3 scores above 65% in the past 5 years
You could even add a 3rd division for bigger shows - Novice. You are Novice if:
-You haven’t shown above 2nd level
But who keeps track of that? USEF?
I do think the issue of making money is a silly dividing line - as I’ve said before, friends teaching up-down lessons. Friends who get paid to exercise horses when people are on vacation. I’ve even got a friend who does equine appraisals - turns out USEF feels that is the work of a pro (and she meets the criteria for Novice - she doesn’t even have 2nd level scores). There are a lot of people classified as pro that are grass roots riders. AND I know amateurs who ride 5 or 6 horses, and really should be in a higher division.
Plus - there are a LOT of people violating the amateur rule - and it is HARD to prove that someone is making money (or consideration of some kind). So - why not pick something that can be easily proven from existing show records?
But - any way you slice it, there will be issues. BTW, my criteria above are just examples - could easily be tweaked in many ways.
6 Likes
I agree with this separation.
Yes, while there are very wealthy AAs who have their horses in training with pros, I’m out there competing with them having to ride their own horse. They don’t always do a good job.
I shouldn’t have to ride against pros.
5 Likes
Ooh I like that idea a lot.
I show Open because I have a small boarding barn and I don’t want to limit myself to being unable to help a boarder with lunging or something when needed, and I occasionally take on a consignment horse. I have a full-time non-horse-related job that is my main source of income. I switched from hunters and jumpers to dressage with my mare almost three years ago. I always found it a bit silly that you have can’t be an Amateur in one discipline and Non-amateur in another. It’s fine, it doesn’t bother me to show Open against Pros, but I completely understand why it bothers others. I don’t consider myself a Pro at all, I just don’t qualify as an Amateur.
I think that, at minimum the rule should be updated to allow an Amateur to make a small bit of income from riding pursuits. Like maybe max 10% of their total income per year or something. But changing classes to be divided by experience makes far more sense.
2 Likes
The problem is, many of the “pros” aren’t professionals at dressage showing, they just make money having something (nearly anything) to do with horses. The 20-something giving Western lessons at my previous barn takes a fancy to dressage? She’d have to show against the pros, even though she knows absolutely nothing about it. And there’s a LOT of people who count as “pros” in the same boat. The current setup does nothing to encourage new people to come out and show, does nothing to encourage the idea of dressage being a sport accessible to anybody with any horse.
Being surrounded by Western stuff here in Texas, I have a crazy idea that there ought to be something to be gleaned from the barrel racing system. As I (imperfectly) understand it, everybody runs the same course and gets a time (score). Brackets are set based on the highest time (score). There are four brackets, regardless of if 20 horses ran or if 40 horses ran. first is the fastest, second is 0.5 to 1 s off, third is 1-2 sec off, 4 is more than 2 sec off that fastest time. Each is considered a division, and the top five horses in each division get prizes/payouts. So the kids and the ammies with their backyard heart horses and lousy setups have SOME chance coming home with a ribbon. Have some reachable goals to shoot for (placing within their division and moving up into the next). Have a reason to come back and compete again and earn points and maybe come home with a year end award if they keep at it and do the best they can with what they have. I’m sure there’s problems with the system, any system has its problems, but it really seems to help spread the joy and give people a reason to turn in entries and show up, who have no prayer of ever, in a million years, cracking the Top Ten of even an “amateur” competition.
3 Likes
If someone is competing in Wellington, why shouldn’t they have to ride against everyone? Show organizers may get more entries and $$ if they separate classes as people may not be intimidated, but is it about the placing or the riding experience? Not saying either is right, just 2 different considerations.
