Many folks are advocating doing away with the AA designation all together. At local, normal shows, I can see how that would make the show manager’s job easier, and I can see that if they choose, the class ribbons could be split into Open riders and AAs.
However, for something like Regionals, I have my doubts. At least here in Region 3, if all riders were in one class, I doubt many “true” AAs would have a chance at one of the 8 ribbons, never mind getting an invite to Nationals. We have LOTS of talent here (I do not think Region 3 is alone in that).
Yeah, you are right. This just allows kids to compete and earn money and not have to show open up to age 21.
I like the idea of replacing the amateur rule with a point system (which I think would do more to level the playing field). I dislike expanding the definition of “amateur” to include what is essentially horse professionals. I think that allowing amateurs to earn money (without a cap) will actually increase the costs to other amateurs because things that were done by working students or for free will now be done by paid staff. But most of all, I fear that, this approach of not figuring out and addressing the real reason for amateurs fleeing the sport (children have always tended to leave when they go to college) and instead just expand the definition of “amateur” will actually cause more people to leave the sport and will have the opposite effect than they intend. By admitting that none of these people now included in the definition of “amateur” will be monitored, they are inviting abuse. Who is going to fork over $300 or whatever it costs to complain about someone, especially when it is very hard to get real proof of the abuse? And most of us don’t have time to police other people, nor the desire. If this expansion has the result of making showing more unfair, more people will just leave.
1 Like
I don’t think people want to do away with it without replacing it with something else.
2 Likes
I agree and
IMO it’s sad that people simply cling to a rule simply because they cannot imagine anything else……
for example the fear of Lorilu that “true” (whatever true means) AAs will never make it to the Nationals anymore…….
If you only make it to the Nationals because you are an AA then, IMO maybe you shouldn’t go anyhow……
for an AA who is good, but simply not as good as some of the Pros in that Area, there are ways to split classes…. if AA and Open are combined the class will have double the seize so if you are defining criteria which would separate experienced riders from less experienced riders that would solve the problem….
1 Like
So wait, they should not go to Nationals because they are not good enough, but if they really want to go there are other ways to make them qualify.
How confusing.
Clearly to some being an OK rider one must hide away and not embarrass those who are really good and force them to see the just OK-ness that exists out there. How dare they aim to be the best of the just OK group.
5 Likes
The best of the OK group gets this.
7 Likes
Well, scores would certainly be able to set a dividing line. Average score (calculated annually) could separate divisions.
Or, maybe, if you get an 80 then bingo! you get to compete with the big-guys. And in the event of a crowing score, should make everyone want to be there. Maybe you get to wear a white helmet to compete in…or a big star on your saddle pad or some recognizable badge of distinction when you go to the show… Make it desirable to achieve a higher status. The way things are now, there doesn t seem to be much incentive to compete up.
1 Like
I have only shown recognized dressage a few times long ago, but I still have opinions! 
I would favor using some sort of experience criteria to separate dressage classes rather than AA/Open. (I showed open just because I didnt jump through the hoops to get a amateur card)
First, you can use data that the association has access to and can easily verify. No wondering about hours, duties, etc.
Second, much of the discontent seems to be more about experienced versus inexperienced rather than pro v ammie. People of modest means on their only horse at their first show are competing against ammies that have ridden at much higher levels. The proposed rule changes dont seem to help this.
Any system is going to have some drawbacks, but I think forgetting who gets paid and going to experience criteria would be a cleaner and more equitable solution.
4 Likes
There are some extra costs to showing open in some of the disciplines. When I was a part time pro, I couldn’t show much on my local circuit because few offered any open classes (and those that did may or may not fill). For example, there’s a local show this weekend that has one schooling division at 2’3 that is open and nothing else. Everything else is restricted to JR or AA. So, instead of paying $50 a stall to show at this venue this weekend, an open rider would have to pay $250 a stall to show the following week at the A show at the same venue. And the open divisions run early in the week there, so if you are an open rider but have a non-horse full time job, that’s more days off work to go show in open classes. That is a large reason why I haven’t shown my current horse much while I was sitting out waiting for amateur reclassification. On that note, I also dislike that some show managers have started creeping some of the AA divisions earlier into the week for the same reasons. So, even putting aside whether or not I’d want to show against the full-time pros at my current rusty skill level, it can be cost prohibitive for someone not on a full time pro’s schedule to try to show in the open classes for some shows/disciplines.
Personally, I prefer not to ride against Steffen Peters, Jan Ebeling, Nick Wagman, Sabine Schut-Kery, etc. And yes, that’s who shows in my area shows.
7 Likes
Here in CA, no amateur would have a chance against the pros, since the pros comprise 3/4 of our Olympic team.
6 Likes
It’s a bit different with dressage. Since you mentioned your local circuit, I’m going to assume that’s similar to our GMO’s schooling show series. These shows are well attended and often have waiting lists. Any class (determined by the test to be ridden) a competitor signs up for is held. The class is judged along with whomever else rides the same test, whether that’s 20 people or only the one. The ribbons are awarded in three possible classifications within that class: JR/YR, AA, and Open. We don’t run separate divisions for the three classifications. The same is true for the recognized shows that we hold every year.
Never having been to Regionals, I don’t know whether the classes for JR/YR, AA, and Open are run separately.
Right, I know that in dressage, they can hold a class even with one entry. That doesn’t work for h/j for example, whether it’s a rated show or local show. The rules require a minimum number of horses to complete the class. But if they can fill their 2 or 3-day show schedule with just jr/aa divisions (which they have the numbers to do), then they just don’t offer the open divisions, even by combining them into the others.
Here, we have local GMO dressage shows that count for that organization’s year end awards but not for USDF. The local h/j circuit is similar. So, not a schooling show, but not USEF rated.
Dressage shows are often not all week long, and the ride times are not split among Open, AA, JR/YR but by test. You might have four 3’ hunter divisions - Green, USHJA, Ch, AA. Green and USHJA are open divisions, where Green is a horse limitation not rider limitation, and those run on like Wednesday-Thursday. The Ch/AA divisions are restricted to JR/AA and typically run on the weekend.
Part of the proposed rule changes are to account for some of the differences across all USEF recognized disciplines that have any amateur restricted classes. I personally find dressage shows to be incredibly affordable in comparison with h/j. Certain disciplines are also more DIY, culturally, and so . For a h/j rider who is looking at higher stabling cost per week than dressage, day care or grooming fees, trainer fees, braiding, it can be a benefit to work some of that off if you have the time/ability. I don’t think it’s increasing the “paid staff” any more than using a working student. But if your barn gives you a credit on your fees for helping out versus paying you cash as a travel groom, that’s still remuneration.
Gonna jump on and say that the ideas of breaking it down by rider and horse experience make the most sense.
People (or horses) are considered X level if they have ridden that level and scored a 60% in the last two years.
People and horses who have never shown would default to the lowest level. You combine the two and have a category system.
Intro rider + intro horse = 2
Intro rider + 4th level horse = 5
4th level rider + 1st level horse = 7
PSG rider + PSG horse = 14
GP rider 60% + GP horse 60% = 16
GP rider 70% + GP horse 70% = 18
Break the groups down to whatever seems the most fair (I’d have to sit down and think about all the combos before I decided). Maybe a smaller number spread at the lower and higher levels, but a bigger number spread in the middle levels.
Groups 1-4
Groups 5-12
Groups 13-16
Groups 16+
But this keeps the “rich ammies” who buy made horses from competing against the “poor ammies” who are struggling along on their limited budgets.
You will still have some pros competing against the mid-level poor ammies with their young horses, but not the bare minimums. And theoretically the 70% divide may weed out the Olympians from the ammies. Or maybe there is a better number 75%? Because I’ll argue that if you’re getting in those scores at GP you are pretty much proving that you can compete against the best.
I know there are some holes in this as well (rich ammie buying a made horse and not competing for two years), but there will be holes in literally every system if someone wants there to be.
4 Likes
I think they went about this the wrong way. Instead of asking what can and can’t an amateur do, they need to ask what can a professional do that makes them a pro. Ride/train horses and teach lessons. Why? Because when you are having a problem with a horse you go to the pro to get help and they either get on the horse and fix the problem or talk you through how to fix the problem while you’re on the horse’s back.
That keeps it clean and tidy.
1 Like
Not according to what I see on facebook… and some here.
median scores are more fair, eliminating the effect of one or two very bad days and one or two generous judges on good days.
At one point the shows ran the amateur and junior cards as an add-on. So you had to enter the open class and then pay an additional amount (maybe a quarter of the regular entry fee) to be considered for a separate set of amateur ribbons. Fun times. One of my proudest moments was winning an open first level class at Del Mar out of 20 horses. On a TB while wearing Vogel field boots.
2 Likes
I’m not against eliminating the amateur-pro distinction AND replacing it with something else. But your average pro had better ride better than the majority of ammies or they shouldn’t be a pro.
I would prefer not to show against pros who ride multiple horses a day, have more tools in their toolbox, are braver, etc. I do look at my score more than placings but after never being able to win against the pros over and over again, it gets a little discouraging. Of course, when I place above a pro I’m on cloud nine, but it shouldn’t be that way.
6 Likes
