Then why the separation with all these disadvantages for the AAs…
1 Like
I don’t see what the disadvantages of the AA division are, personally. AA’s didn’t want to compete against pros and Olympians, so they got their own division. Seems reasonable. But some AAs apparently also don’t want to compete against anyone who rides better, has more money, more time to train, or better horses than they do. Perhaps those people should not be competing at all. At the very least, perhaps they should focus on their own ride and their own score and not worry about anyone else’s test.
11 Likes
Well you still miss to understand that the AA rule excludes people with less money from attending shows…
I thought the American dream includes the idea that somebody having a dream can work hard for it then will reach it…
not an American AA trying to reach his dream to ride dressage and show….
Many pros with less money can’t afford to show either. It has nothing to do with the AA rule.
And yes, I’m sure I read somewhere in a history book that so many immigrants came to America with a dream to win colourful ribbons while prancing around a sand-filled rectangle on a horse. That is 100% the American dream all right 
10 Likes
So why do you participate in this thread?? To fight for the status quo?
@Manni01 can you explain how the ammy rule excludes people with less money attending shows? I had not heard that before.
5 Likes
The thing I can’t figure out, and I think I asked this earlier in the thread, how does the ammy rule (specifically this rule alone) make competing more expensive? If that rule was tossed out, how would competing cost less? Maybe I am dense, but I don’t see how it would.
Of course competing is less in cost here in Germany, but it’s a totally different system and is funded entirely differently. Never mind the different culture toward horse sport (applies to the UK too). So it isn’t so simple as saying “adopt this system” or “this one is better” there are things I like about the US system, German system, and UK. I think I prefer the UK, maybe, if I had to choose.
I don’t know how to “improve” the US system and make it more affordable (definition of affordable also varies). This is usually a stalling point. Sometimes decent points are made, but generally, the discussion on here goes nowhere and people scream “AA rule!” And “USDF/USEF greed!”
4 Likes
Some people work for their hobby and it would make sense if you can earn some additional money within your hobby…. In the Moment people call you cheater for doing this….
So you are not saying the ammy rules makes it so people who make less money can not attend shows you are saying that people who make money from riding should be able to attend shows.
Which they can, just not showing as an ammy.
And since, like you said, the ribbon is not what matters, the score is what matters they should not have a problem with not showing as an ammy.
9 Likes
So if I do some work in the horse industry, in the US, that qualified me as a pro, can’t I then compete as a pro or in the open divisions? People just don’t want to be matched against those who are “better” than them.
Which doesn’t matter, unless you’re riding for a ribbon or placement. There will always be the possibility, even within the AA ranks, that someone is better than you. There will always be the possibility that the better rider(s) have an off day too and don’t ride their best.
I honestly don’t care. I compete against myself and whoever decides to show up. Don’t care their status, tbh. Either way I’ve got to show up and ride.
I think a lot of it is pros are often defined as being better than the ammy/hobby rider and people don’t want the two being (unfairly) matched up. Which is somewhat legit because other sports also have this divide.
I am still not sure what this has to do with the cost.
Sure someone could train horses on the side for money to fund their competing endeavors. Then they’re a pro. They can still compete. But I suppose people feel that individual should still be an ammy and that’s the hang up. Just because you work or earn income with horses doesn’t make you a pro/have pro abilities. Since there are other ways to earn money outside of horses, I’m not sure why this is such a big deal. Or you show against pros.
I can see ability as an argument, possibly.
Well then, i miss understanding this too. What do you mean by this sentence? I do not understand. How, why? would folks on a budget be excluded from shows>>>because the entry fees are high?
2 Likes
Dude you’re going to bring up the American dream in relation to horse shows?
9 Likes
It doesn’t. The shows still cost the same, whether you’re an ally or a pro, or whether you compete against Olympians or people who have never shown higher than training.
Manni is conflating two issues: the rule that says if you earn income from riding or teaching you are a pro, and the cost of competing. One has nothing to do with the other.
8 Likes
Something I read. An idea. Just putting this out there:
Allow amateurs to show via video rides they can do at home and submit. This hugely eliminates a huge proportion of expenses and it’s better for the horses. They could put caps on it if they wanted to if they are worried about it.
USEF allows it for western dressage via their affiliate WDAA why not regular dressage via USDF.
Shows could still function and put on shows, offer prizes, etc but their overhead is also greatly reduced.
It’s noble to say that only the scores should matter, but like I had a life goal to win a neck ribbon too, okay, lol (and I finally achieved that last month!). I see a lot of theoreticals being thrown around in this thread, so again as one of the only people here who have been on both sides of the social media issue, this is when AA vs Open made a difference:
-
Qualifying for Regionals, especially at the lower levels where there’s a 3-5 percentage point spread between what scores you need as a pro vs an AA
-
Placing at highly competitive championship shows
That was it, and it was enough to matter to me. I didn’t include placing in regular classes because 1. It didn’t matter to me, and 2. It was actually a toss up - sometimes I would have placed higher in AA and sometimes I placed higher in Open.
4 Likes
Manni may be incorrectly referring to my point that I went Open specifically to use making money off a horse activity (my blog) to defray the costs of showing enough that I was able to participate in showing. Which doesn’t mean that showing is more expensive as an AA, but it does make cost a factor.
And you can toss the drugs and medications rule in the fire while you’re at it. Plus, at a show, you get one shot. At home, via video, if you screw up the test, you just do it over.
Is home video a useful learning tool? Yes.
Is it a way to level the playing field? I think not.
14 Likes
I thought the same as you about the do overs and the drug rule. But USEF permits the western dressage horses to do it and they are conducting shows with 1000+ entries which are truly global in scope.
In this age of Covid and considering the disadvantages of being an AA I would gently suggest perhaps considering online entries in dressage for at least the lower levels where the majority of AAs show. Membership would go up enormously.
Consider the advantages before considering the disadvantages.
1 Like
What you posted were my first thoughts too.
Then I thought about it more. With online entries for the low levels, everyone has the option to video it six times before they pick which one to send in. And can’t they place the online classes separate from the in person classes?
I like the thought pattern that this allows the organization to have more members, allow more entries and the riders still get their ride scored to have an idea how they are doing.
3 Likes
Ghazzu’s point is a good one. I wouldn’t want to compete against potentially drugged horses, or rides where the videos have been charry picked, even if I could do the same. What would be the point?
Maybe virtual rides could be segregated to their own division. They could call it the “Burger King” division (“have it your way”). 
5 Likes
