And thus why "dressage as training" is available to anyone who owns a horse and wants to improve their horsemanship.
The “dressage as competition” is what USDF and USEF are focused on…to the USDF’s loss.
And the two are not necessarily the same…nor do they attract the same people…or have the same goals.
I wonder if a large part of the problem is that our governing organization tries to be both the developer or the elite, Olympic level horses and riders AND the provider of a wide-reaching correct yet accessible show experience for the lower levels. Perhaps splitting into two groups at the governing level (under the big umbrella) would better address the differing needs. The the “participatory” group could address creating tests, judging criteria and even shows that better address the riders who want to show and have their training and riding evaluated with less attention to the “quality” of their horse. I would think that TPTB could trial some tests using the IHSA idea even if only offered to schooling shows to start. Of course the judges heave to be willing and able to score differently.
Doesnt address the cost issues at recognized shows, but at least it might provide a more positive and instructive experience.
I think that is an intriguing and thought provoking idea! But I predict TPTB would reject it if it meant the $ from membership went to the peer group you associate with. The vast majority of members are not elite riders - and we basically support the elite riders. It would mean a major re-allocation of funds from the elite riders back to the “regular” riders.
However, I really do like the idea - it is worth discussion!
The problem is that all this is related to SHOWING.
What if you have an interest in developing your knowledge of dressage as a training discipline…and have no desire to to show?
The USDF was originally founded as a vehicle to provide education about dressage to a country that knew fox hunting and the saddle seat disciplines.
I have never considered “showing” as any way to get feedback. Going to a show is going to a COMPETITION…a contest against the other competitors. A show is not a tutorial on my riding. A show is a judgement about my riding/training.
For the amount of effort and expense it takes to take a horse to a show, you can have a trainer, you can clinic, or you can pay that same judge that judged the test to come and give you a lesson.
Contracting to bring a judge for a “test riding clinic” is a much better way to get feedback on one’s riding. I have ridden with high level trainers/judges like Jessica Ransehousen, George Williams, Armando Gabriel…all at private farms for far less than what it cost to haul to a show.
In my opinion, Cowgirl nailed it…all of this bears repeating.
and you nailed the real problem again… The cost of showing… You reject showing not because you don’t like competition or feed back but because you can get the same thing by going to a clinic cheaper…
Just imagine a show which is affordable… maybe even cheaper than a lesson…
this thread is showing that everybody has problems with the affordability but somehow is denying it and looking for other reasons…
This topic has appeared from time to time in the hunter/jumper and eventing forums, but the responses were much more on topic. On this thread people are dancing around the original questions and deflecting the discussion to things like judging. It’s kind of annoying, so I’ll bite.
I’m aware of how good GMO’s operate, but unfortunately my local GMO is run by a bunch of cliquey old ladies. The only reason it survives is because we are in prime eventing country, and eventers need to practice riding in a dressage ring somewhere. They make little effort to bring education to its members. There are a couple of good chapters within the organization, but I’ve seen enough bratty behavior from organizers and volunteers at horse shows that I’ve never actually become a member. I also make my living in the horse industry, so I don’t want to get involved for fear the my true feelings might show and I might alienate some of my client base.
Mondo and someone else have already said: dressage is hard. And that’s why there aren’t many dressage lesson horses. A good dressage horse is sensitive and does best being ridden a certain way. It depends on things like previous riders and trainers,and the horse’s personality. I found taking lessons on true school masters tough, because I’d spend the first few rides figuring the horse out. So when someone tries dressage to see if they like it, they almost always feel like they suck at the start, I know I felt that way. And I don’t fault anyone else for feeling that way and not sticking with it. My father in law started riding at age 63. He wanted to do dressage because that’s what my partner and I do and it looks like the safest option. But he decided that it was too hard. Riding is a hobby for most people after all, and he has much more fun putzing around in the hunter ring. He likes to compete, and can take his horse and clean up in the hunters with relatively little prep. He couldn’t do that in the dressage ring.
IMO the rider classes feel like consolation prizes, and I don’t want that. I want to sit at the adults’ table, you know? I don’t want to be at horse shows and see tons of people that I don’t see often and then say, “oh yeah, I’m off to show in the cheap horse ring.” Pride is an ugly thing, but I can admit that things like that matter to those who enjoy competing. And to be fair, I don’t think I’ve ever been scored poorly because of the horse I’m riding. I’ve competed on a Haflinger, a Saddlebred and some Thoroughbreds. They’re all naturally spicy, opinionated breeds and I accept that I won’t do as well against purpose-bred horses, but as long as I’m riding for a good judge, I get the scores that I deserve. Like I said, I live in Thoroughbred land, and we have a good deal of other off breeds at our sanctioned shows. I’ve seen Fjords and lots of other kinds of ponies. I’ve also seen a few super cool Appy’s. But I don’t see a judging problem. I do scratch my head when I see the scores for some FEI rides, but that’s a separate issue. I don’t believe that impacts accessibility too much. If you can look at a PSG test and see where the scoring doesn’t match, you’ve already got the dressage bug.
I don’t think I have any constructive suggestions unfortunately. I think an attitude adjustment would do the dressage world a lot of good. But horses are expensive, running horse shows is expensive, and dressage is hard. So I don’t think a whole lot can be done to drastically increase interest in the sport. We have to look at this logically, and while the USEF and USDF aren’t perfect by any means, this is an extremely tough challenge to solve.
It is not the judging…though that is another topic.
It is about the ATTITUDE…all I have to say, is look at how the “USEF Sport Horse Committee” (basically people who are USDF decisionmakers) rejected the overwhelming recommendation from the USDF BOG to rescind the MFS Qualifying Rule.
The MFS is a test that is fun to watch and fun to ride…if you want to make dressage more accessible…make it FUN.
So what does the USDF do…it makes it more difficult to ride it by jacking up the qualifying score.
The problem is that sponsoring the class only makes it affordable for one person - the winner (assuming there is prize money). You are sponsoring the judge and the prizes, but the show still needs entry fees to pay for all the costs, and everybody pays them.
Yes, I/my farm have sponsored classes and championships at recognized shows and at regionals. I’ve also gotten flack for it if it’s a class I’m riding in. Sour grapes never go away because it’s not about the money for a lot of people, it’s about the ribbon and the score. I have one decent horse who is not a world beater gaits-wise but is 100% relaxed and focused on his rider in the ring.
Hunters, etc have novice, limit, etc classes that limit entries to people who haven’t won x or y or at z level. they restrict the ownership of horses in amateur classes. Even in eventing they have rider and horse level restrictions. We don’t have any of that for various reasons. However, entries are down, and this doesn’t solve that.
I agree that it’s about attitude; but not just that of the governing organization.
I’m not a fan of the attitude that something is unfair because I’m not winning classes or getting the same scores as someone else. Not saying this is you @pluvinel just making an observation. I’m not a fan of the attitude that AAs who work hard and can afford nice horses and training are somehow cheating. It seems the common theme on this thread is about competition and NOT dressage training, yet some don’t really seem to want to compete in the true sense of the word, at least not against the current standard.
Personally, I’m mystified as to why people like the MFS. It is really hard to do a good one and there are so many icky, IMO, ones that I don’t like to watch them. I don’t want to ride one and I sure don’t like scribing them but since it’s a pain to scribe and I’m a good scribe I’ll take one for the team. To each her own.
I really liked the rider tests, reminded me of AQHA horsemanship classes which I loved, but never rode one in competition because I like to qualify for regionals and save my horse for that.
I think these are excellent points and I agree. I have seen numerous similar topics over the years on these boards (and not just in dressage) and so often, it seems to boil down to, “how can I be the winner (at the bigger shows) without spending a fortune?”
I think the honest answer is, you probably can’t - at least most of the time.
There are situations where someone figures out a really tricky horse that sells for cheap because of a problem they end up solving and that kind of thing. But for the most part, quality costs $$. You can spend that up front or you can buy a young one and make it up - I consider that the payment plan route (costs at least as much but you don’t have to stroke that big check up front.)
There are “horses for courses,” and there is a reason for that. I showed hunters for years and the nicest $$$$ horses usually were the winners. You could buy one or make one up, but no matter how well that horse was ridden, it still had to have a beautiful way of going and a brilliant jump, and a lot of that is just god given. Back in the day, if you had a nice, well schooled but not super fancy hunter, you probably showed in the (very nice) local rated (B or C) shows - not the big A rated ones, if you expected to be competitive.
In dressage, as noted, the “riding well” part is IMO way harder. But two riders who are equally skilled are going to get different ribbons if one is on a fancy horse and the other is not. Personally that doesn’t offend me because I understand and accept that quality and movement are part of what is being evaluated by the judge. My lovely-hunter-turned-dressage horse was never going to get big scores for gaits or impulsion. My purpose-bred-dressage horse gets great scores in those categories but would be scored very poorly in a hunter class. Horses for courses.
will that’s a good idea to sponsor the judge (for the show not privately which is happening as well) and that for sure should get the classfees down for everybody, because I assume every rider pays for the judge with the class fees and why should the judge paid twice… But why only sponsoring the winner??? what about splitting the pricemoeny for everybody in the class you are sponsoring who is in the ribbons?? even if its only $30 dollar for everybody who gets a ribbon in the sponsored class, wouldn’t that be nice???
Actually, the cost is the symptom of the larger problem: the leadership wants an organization that is set up to produce riders and horses that can win internationally. Unfortunately, in the US, we don’t have the educational system to support this, so this has devolved into a focus on gaits and those who want to be “competitive” and strive for awards and recognition for their “dressage riding” will be coughing up the money to buy expensive moving horses, expensive trained horses and expensive training. Judging reflects the desire to create this CDI pipeline as do the tests as the same people making decisions on raising scores, creating qualifying requirements, etc, are all writing the tests and training the judges. How many of you have actual access to trainers experienced to coach you at the CDI level?
As a result of this, people have left the sport, making shows much more costly to run, causing the organizations to raise fees and show fees, and combine this with the urbanization of American and the actual cost to keep a horse within an hour of your or your spouse’s job means the cost of keeping a horse has increased dramatically as well. Then layer on the fact that these expensive horses are often not pleasantly rideable for the average AA (i.e. not suitable to learn the art of riding on because it will be more about learning to sit a bouncing trampoline (for years and years and years) before learning how to engage those hind legs and connect all the aids together to make the bouncy ride a bit smoother). Some of those riders get frustrated and turn those expensive horses over to the trainers (which may be the point of all this), some get qualifying scores despite punishing the horse in the mouth, sides and back with every stride, some of them ride like a hunter princess (allowing the trainer to do all the riding except for minutes before their test), and the list goes on. Then those who are more suitably mounted and who ride well are being thrashed in competition by people who herk and jerk and flail on these expensive horses and are told to “suck up and compete against yourself”.
IMO, “Dressage” means “training” and we need to get back to that.
P.S. I have super 8+ moving warmbloods and the means to show them if I want so I don’t really have a chip on the shoulder over this. I just hate the direction we are going and there is absolutely no focus on training below the elite level.
I don’t know, but back when I first started thinking about this sport (as an adult, never ridden as a kid), I knew my first 2 horses with my riding ability were not for the recognized show ring. But I did go to schooling shows. I am blessed in that our area has a fairly strong schooling show series and that has grow with the advent of a couple other series being started. Low key, low price, ‘R’, ‘r’ and now ‘L’ grads. When after some 13-14 years of trying to do the sport I thought my TB was ready for recognized, I was ready for TL. And we were although our first day produced high 50’s scores. By the next day, she was ready and we scored in the mid 60’s and mid 70’s. The same judges that gave me 50’s the day before were now giving me 60’s and 70’s BECAUSE my mare settled into the show environment and gave me her all. At the end of the day, on my wonderful TB, we were reserve high score at TL. Open show. This was before half points, when getting scores in the 70’s were not easily obtained by even the pros (in our area) with warmbloods.
If one wants to show, put together a schooling show series in your area to give people the option of showing at low costs. Recognized shows have so much more overhead than schooling shows. Our one schooling show series almost always fills 1 or 2 rings almost every show they ‘host’. We can get "R’ and ‘r’ judges but most are ‘L’ grads. HOWEVER, the scores ARE a bit inflated and if you except to get in the 70’s at a recognized show because that’s what you were getting at the schooling show, your bubble will be burst. NOT because the judging is slanted against you and your horse, but because the schooling shows are for encouragement. Recognized shows are not. IMHO as always
I like your P.S. Do you mind if I copy this??
And I agree with a lot of the things you are saying, only that my experience is not really that its all about the gaits… I really had the impression that judges would like to see correct training which of course does produce better gaits as well… In my area there were 2 type of trainers… the average ones who had really no idea what they were doing and whose only goal was to please their students for all the money and some really expensive ones who maybe did know what they were doing but still they did not really teach their students how to ride… That would not have been productive for them… I think that’s a huge problem, more then the gaits… BTW I saw some really expensive European horses with originally great gaits who were ridden in a way which destroyed their gaits… It is kind of sad to see a nice horse going like a sewing machine in order to adjust to its owner who had no real idea what suspension means…
And this is again a money problem… Everybody wants to make money… The show venues, the trainers, USDF and USEF, the people selling the horses and so on… So there is a big demand for money and somebody has to pay it… I had some neighbors who had no problem at all spending it… But most of my friends had problems… So they had a horse but they never had a chance to advance because they could not afford lessons in high price ranges and rated shows… So they stuck with the average trainers in my area and the schooling shows and they never advanced to anything more then Training level and maybe First level… But their horses were not the problem for sure…
I appreciate all the responses on this thread.
I changed the title to reflect what I had originally meant in the first place.
Accessibility IS tied to affordability.
But I wanted to hear specifically from the AAs who want to compete as it relates to their journey up the levels, and how difficult this is to do without some kind of financial support.
Reading up on the USDF website has helped to educate myself on what is happening now, and to challenge some of my assumptions about what I thought I knew.
I’m thankful to those of who pointed out my errors and directed to me places I could learn more.
I was always on the periphery, and that is on me.
But I want to learn more and this thread has been instructive.
I totally respect everyone’s experience. Some of you have had negative experiences and I appreciate your stories and perspectives also.
Some conclusions I have drawn from this thread
The USDF has moved away education as its primary goal, and moved toward building a team of Americans that can compete successfully at the FEI level.
(I agree. )
The USDF does not pay enough attention to the needs and concerns of AAs who pay their membership dues and want to be heard.
( Consensus says this is True . I can’t agree or disagree. Not in a member.)
USDF can change
USDF cant change , no incentive to change.
There have been a number of suggestions regarding how to address the problems of AAs
Extraneous fees that dont seem to do anything but enrich the USDF and the USEA.
Easy fix. One fee for rider and one fee for horse.
Change the membership dues according to status.
AA PM Member Dues
USDF Levels
. FEI. Levels
Pro PM Member Dues
Recognized Show Fees
I cant find in the rule book how class entry fees are calculated. Or if higher level classes are more than lower level classes.
Give AA members a discount for the 1st time they show at a new level. This wont be hard because you are pursuing medals, end of year awards etc they already have the information.
That may not sound like a lot. But any reduction in costs will be appreciated and it applies to all AAs.
Stabling Fees
Trailer parking fees
Travel, food, lodging
This one starts at the GMO level.
Stipends and grants .
Shared expenses of travel and lodging.
It would be a lot easier to have an organization that catered only to Adult Amateurs. No USDF/USEF/FEI involvement at all.
Whether that would be sustainable or not, I have no idea.
So even tho you were incredibly rude to me (Dont let the door hit you in the ass, really, is this middle school?), let me respond to some of the points.
I noticed you changed the title of the post.
That was addressed in the first paragraph of the post you quoted.
“I changed the title to reflect what I had originally meant in the first place.”
You don’t HAVE to show rated. or at all! To me, it is more about the training than the showing experience. Shows help you see where you are, but as an AA with high aspirations, I think it makes much more sense to spend that money on training than showing much at lower levels, certainly not at rated shows.
I personally think dressage is much more accessible than hunter/jumpers when it comes to price. It’s one reason I’ve made the switch. I have some very nice horses, but they weren’t that expensive to purchase (my WB I bought as a weanling). I’ve spent a fair amount developing them and will continue to do so, but it’s usually, IMO, a mistake for an Ammy to buy an extravagant mover. I need a horse with solid, clean gaits I can actually sit, and both of my young horses are just that. They have very good gaits but not Totilas gaits. Perfect for me and they will score 7-8s. I don’t need to come in on something with 9 gaits that I can’t ride because it’s too much for my strength level.
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
