What about win/place percentages? So if you place in 3/5 shows, proportionally it would bethe same as if you placed in 15/25 or 30/50.
Then you won’t ever move up, and your placings will be reflective of the area where you are showing.
But I think, in reality, that scores are a better indication of performance than are placings. Placings are not very meaningful for the very reason @leheath pointed out. They’re not particularly meaningful even within the confines of the area in which a person competes. You can come home with a blue ribbon and a score of 52% (mediocre competition, or just one or two people in your class); you can come home with no ribbon and a score of 68% in a highly competitive area and a big class.
2 Likes
Well you could use the scores which should be consistent regardless of the area….
2 Likes
I posited the use of placings mainly for other disciplines, such as breed shows, rail classes, or H/J, where scores are not made public. Amateur status could then be determined within individual organizations, rather than under the USEF. Or rather, it wouldn’t be amateur status necessarily, but tiered based on experience and wins. Thus getting rid of the need for an Amateur status.
1 Like
But again, if you’re in an area where you are the only one in your classes, a slew of first placings would not be indicative of experience, just that you were the only one to show up.
Would you like to be an amateur forced to show with pros just because you won a bunch of single-horse classes?
3 Likes
What about a weighting system for size of competition? Small comps have a lower weight and count for less. I know USDF has show classifications, do other organizations?
IE: A first place at a tier 4 comp only counts for .25 points (local B show), and a first place at a tier 4 comp (i dunno, something like WEF) counts for 1 point. Or even something like, a weight based on the size of the class. Certain shows could be only for comeptitors who have a certain level (ie, no one with more than 20 points or no one with less than 20 points).
Arguably the simplest system is amateur vs professional, but until people are willing to release their tax records for classification, it’s never going to be a totally fair system. Someone will always take advantage of it.
Edit: I keep adding things as I have ideas
3 Likes
If the area is that devoid of competitors, does it matter?
I guess if the person traveled out of region it would.
This could work for disciplines that don’t have numerical scores. I think eventing has a weighting points system that combines score, placing and number in the division when determining year end awards/leaderboards.
1 Like
Depends on the person…of course if a blue ribbon is the most important thing no matter what. it’s probably fun to collect blue ribbons in 1 person classes…. If the person is interested in improvement it doesn’t really matter whether she starts in a one person class or together with other people…
1 Like
USEF already accounts for this, at least for dressage results. Run a Rider Report on their website and you see Placing, Entries, and Nat PNT - points awarded based on placing and # of entries.
I just looked at my Rider Report and they have a summary of my points for each test/level. I feel like a lot of what is needed to calculate a dressage rider’s category based on experience and results already exists.
Maybe they could let someone dump their points that are >X years old if there’s a long gap without showing.
Then I think we’d just want a “Novice Horse” category in Intro through First level to help those intermediate/advanced riders with green or young horses.
4 Likes
Because there is no way the USEF can determine what your income is, or how much is related to riding, training teaching. They do not have access to your income tax returns, and even if they did, that would not provide the necessary information.
A few years ago the USEA voted to define “Amateur for Eventing” as earning less that $3500 from riding, teaching, training. It made it all the way through the rule change process, and was IIRC, approved by the USEF Board of Directors. But the USEF legal team determined that it was “unenforceable”, and it was removed.
1 Like
Here is the problem with that system (I believe its the way they place the Silver Stirrups Awards?) Last year I was “National CH” for PSG AA… yet my median score was very mediocre. I was “champion” not based on my scores- pretty mediocre - but because I live in a region that had shows, and had big shows and big classes, and I won a few ribbons.
A better system might be using median scores to divide up horse/rider combos, altho I am not sure how that could work, as folks might move up to a new level, etc etc…
(And my median is lower this year, had a difficult year… so really no brags here)
1 Like
I like how golf does it.
If you make your living from playing golf, you are a professional golfer.
If you make your living teaching people golf or running the pro shop, you are a golf pro.
If you don’t make any money from golf, you are an amateur.
I think you could run a single class at a show and double pin (like when the NSBA runs a class at a breed show). You would have the normal placing for the overall professional division, then award the equestrian pro division. HOTY could be a separate category. In some regions, it would be better than trying to compete against the uber wealthy amateurs, who would be in the amateur category. It would allow people to make money doing this, albeit not full time, but also to recognize that you have a skill set that likely differs from others. It also makes it fair for the desk jockey working amateurs who can’t make money hacking horses or working in a barn. There’s more to factor in then money - there is also riding time based on whether this is the focus on your life or just a hobby on the side. Making money, even from up downs, makes it a little more than a hobby.
A three tier approach based on a model that works in another sport could potentially solve the problem.
Of course, it also might not!
Carry on…
5 Likes
I guess i just think that money is not a reasonable qualifier. It does not equate to anything happening in the saddle. What happens in the ring is pretty much dependant on skill, not how you earn money. Or how much money you have. Money seems irrelevant to performance.
I feel a person should compete at a skill-set level. You are good and you compete against good. You are a novice, you compete in a class with folks the same level as you. etc.
3 Likes
Some Australian shows do something similar: placings for the class overall, and then placings for AOR (amateur owner rider). It doesn’t necessarily solve the problems people want to solve (wealthy amateurs get TWO ribbons!)
If you run them as 2-3 separate classes, where they would have previously been one, it also drives up costs (more ribbons, prizes, prize money)
isnt that the current rule, in a nutshell?
I write blog posts about the healthcare and pharmaceutical industry for a client. How far is that from me being a doctor?
Really, really far.
7 Likes
Just spit-balling here, but maybe set a percentage of income threshold. I.e. Does more than ___% of your annual income come from horse related activities? Y/N. Will some people cheat? Sure. Some people will cheat regardless of the criteria. Other local competitors know who owns a big training facility vs someone with a backyard barn boarding a couple of retired horses or a person giving a few pony lessons to their neighbor’s kid.
There are 2 issues: income and ability. The amateur rule was instituted to level the playing field but I think the majority of us don’t think it does.
I do think we can all agree that if someone makes 100% of their income from riding/training/teaching they are a professional.
If someone makes 0% of their income from riding/training/teaching they are an amateur.
Now the grey areas:
What percentage of income from riding/training/teaching makes a pro?
Does income from other activities such as blogging, writing, etc make a pro?
What constitutes “income”? (eg, free stuff, money off board, etc?)
Then looking at ability…
Does riding above 2nd mean you’re better than someone at TL?
Does riding multiple horses at TL mean you’re a better rider than someone at 2nd with one horse?
Does having been showing for 20 years make you a better rider than someone who’s only been showing for 1 year?
Most pros ride more horses, at higher levels, and have been riding longer than most amateurs. It was assumed they have greater ability based on their income (definitely a flawed assumption), and it was an easy way to try to level the playing field by making a hard line in the sand(box). However, the world has changed and the rule should change with it.
I think the easiest thing would be to tweak the current rule: if you make >50% of your income from anything horse related (riding/training/teaching or blogging/writing/etc) you are a professional. The difference from the old rule is the “>50%” - the rest can stay the same (for now).
Of course, determining 50% could be challenging but we rely on the honor system now, so we should continue.
4 Likes
@xQHDQ I know your whole list of questions was just tossing things out there, but I spewed food laughing so hard at the one about - Does having been showing for 20 years make you a better rider than someone who’s only been showing for 1 year.
My old, not very coordinated and breaks when I splat chicken ammy adult self says NO!!!
On your last line, it is not really that much of an honor system now, other than the whole saying or not that you are a pro. But now there is no need for access to tax forms to prove one way or the other, your way the only proof would be tax forms. Do we really want to go that route, where one needs tax forms?
And seriously, that does not work either. The stay at home mom who teaches a couple of up down kids once per week is making 100% of their income from teaching (since that is their only income). That is kind of a huge hole in this whole plan, unless you once again want to penalize the person teaching a few up down lessons.
2 Likes
