Why not increase Junior age

[equisusan]

I am long passed this being relevant to me personally but I wonder about why we don’t raise the top Junior age from 18 to 21 or 25? We have the USEF talent search that has the top age of 21 and we have the U25 jumper series now. It seems like anyone who doesn’t have the family or personal money to continue riding through college is SOL unless they want to declare as a professional.

Why not raise the definition of a Junior to up to 25? I think we would keep a lot of people riding that maybe otherwise had to stop through their college years and we might even develop a nice new group of young people who actually come out as good professionals at 25.

And that’s to say nothing of everyone with young horses who want a rider who is brave and let’s face it youth helps too.

[mmeqcenter]

A 24 year old junior? That seems silly to me. The word “junior” has a strong connotation with a younger set of participants, though that isn’t its only definition. Plus, such a high junior age would make the equine sports even more separated from other sports (soccer, etc.), and I really don’t think it does us any favors to keep pulling further and further away from the general public. Aren’t we supposed to be trying to get more of the general public interested?

I’d rather they change the amateur rules a bit, myself, to allow a small amount of income with a cap and you can still qualify as an amateur.

Or perhaps, make the younger groups into new brackets - Youth (under 18), Junior (under 25), Amateur, Professional

[LowerSaxony_Jumper]

Why not adapte the FEI rules? Children ( until 14), Junior (-18), Young Riders (18-21)?

[blondewithchrome]

@mmeqcenter

I’d rather they change the amateur rules a bit, myself, to allow a small amount of income with a cap and you can still qualify as an amateur.

Or perhaps, make the younger groups into new brackets - Youth (under 18), Junior (under 25), Amateur, Professional

all in favor of the “I can barely afford this but am still here” AA division say “aye!” - I chuckled at this. Totally supportive.

Having to show against talented NCAA and IHSA riders as an adult is bad enough, but I also disagree that college students who are legally adults would be considered juniors.

[equisusan]

OK so maybe a new division like the FEI young riders up to 21 where they are not treated as professionals. I’m not really hung up on the word Junior and the current connotation or even the junior divisions but really having a discussion about how to solve a problem that I think is real for a lot of young people.

If we create a new age category that was 18 to 21 would there be enough people in it to sustain divisions for both the hunters and the jumpers?

I personally think just because juniors have always been defined as up to 18 doesn’t mean they always have to be. We need to do what works.

@mmeqcenter I don’t understand how this change would alienate more of the public getting involved in horse sports. Just because I’m called A in soccer and B in equestrian? I think what would attract more of the public to horse sports would be affordability which means young people being able to teach some lessons; ride some horses like they do as a junior.

[Peggy]

To me it would make sense to raise it to 21 to align with the FEI standard of young rider. Although it wouldn’t be totally aligned since, IIRC, FEI calculates show age slightly differently than USEF does.

[equisusan]

@Peggy

To me it would make sense to raise it to 21 to align with the FEI standard of young rider. Although it wouldn’t be totally aligned since, IIRC, FEI calculates show age slightly differently than USEF does.

That would get most young people through their undergrad years so I think it would be helpful.

[soloudinhere]

I personally sure would like to see some more age brackets in the adult amateurs instead. Or possibly a “still gainfully employed” class where you’re only competing against people who are millionaire lawyers instead of the scions of the well heeled who ride full time but are amateurs.

I’m 30, so my current slot in the amateurs is all the people who WERE well funded enough to keep riding through school - and when I cross the 36 barrier it will be people who have been riding since before I was born and who have had the money to do it full time for (literally) forever. Would like to see maybe a 25-35 division or something.

[mvp]

Well… the health insurance industry had no problem extending the sense of “child and dependent” up to age 26, so I don’t see why we ought to stand on principal about junior status ending at the December of one’s 18th year. Or do you young’ns object to remaining on your parents’ health insurance plans and want to buy your own when you turn 18 (as my generation did?)

Also, I was so, so happy when I aged out of the 18-35 division. My sense was that the well-funded professional amateurs were there. I changed disciplines and so didn’t realize that the 36+ was where those incomparable people hung out.

[mmeqcenter]

@mvp

Well… the health insurance industry had no problem extending the sense of “child and dependent” up to age 26, so I don’t see why we ought to stand on principal about junior status ending at the December of one’s 18th year. Or do you young’ns object to remaining on your parents’ health insurance plans and want to buy your own when you turn 18 (as my generation did?)

For me, the key difference in this comparison is that health insurance is an important part of a person’s physical health and well-being.
Horseback riding is a purely optional sport/hobby/extra-curricular activity.

[Manni01]

Question…is this all about the possibility for juniors to make money??? So they can make money with riding horses and still are considered AAs until they are 25?? Because there is no other reason for extending the age limit.

[RPM]

At age 17 teenagers are still minors. Once they turn 18 they are legally adults. Once they are adults they are no longer juniors.

[FreshAir]

Because parents need a reasonable end point!

[hoopoe]

and then what happens when you are out of college and face looking for an entry level job while paying off college debt?

Sooner or later growing up is going to happen and the harsh reality of how to set priorities comes home.

I rode in college, albeit one day a week on a schoolie. After that, when I got the itch to ride again after 2 years off, I worked 2 jobs to make it so.

probably best, for those in college, to focus on school and perhaps getting practical experience jobs that will make them employable in their career path so that they can enjoy sport for the remaining 60 + years of their life

[PKP]

@soloudinhere

I personally sure would like to see some more age brackets in the adult amateurs instead. Or possibly a “still gainfully employed” class where you’re only competing against people who are millionaire lawyers instead of the scions of the well heeled who ride full time but are amateurs.

I’m 30, so my current slot in the amateurs is all the people who WERE well funded enough to keep riding through school - and when I cross the 36 barrier it will be people who have been riding since before I was born and who have had the money to do it full time for (literally) forever. Would like to see maybe a 25-35 division or something.

So, how DO we separate the shamateurs?

[alittlegray]

I think it is a great idea. No reason we couldn’t have a young rider bracket even to 23. Drop the Jr part. You already have “childrens” out there, so make it 3’ “modified childrens’ and 3’6” “childrens” and then the rest becomes YR instead of “jr jumpers.” Big eq/YR hunters could be 3’9" to 4" same as a big hunter derby and closer to the jr jumper height. Always seemed silly that jr. Hunters is 3’6" but jr jumpers go to 1.40m. What is now going at medal and jr hunter finals as “low” jr hunters just becomes “childrens” limit at 18, and the YR height for medal finals/maclay open like USET to 2? goes up 6". Childrens jumpers are already 3’6" so…why not?

So it goes like this:
“Modified” Childrens Hunters/Jumpers/Eq or Medal classes 3’ (18 and under)
Childrens Hunters/Jumpers/Eq or Medal classes 3’6" (jumpers already are) (18 and under)
Young Riders Hunters/Jumpers/USET/Medal/Maclay/National Finals 4’ (23 and under? 24? EAP same thing)
Pro: same rules as now however the age moves up to whatever new age for the whole “YR” category is.

I am sure there would be some grumbling over the rule changes, but it would allow a lot of kids to get time working in the field as working students and grooms and getting their feet further in the door before saying “sorry, you’re a pro now because your grooming job requires you to rehab the horses in your barn or hack client horses…” It isn’t going to really keep the massively funded/trainers kids/mentored kids from being largely at the top the way they already are, but it just might give others time to figure out their paths. Not to mention giving young riders who have to work to ride another year or two before they are unable to pick up catch rides, etc. If we are serious about wanting to turn out true rising professionals from our programs, it makes sense to give them time to further develop their skills, exhibit those skills over bigger fences (not all the kids who do the 3’6" eq also have a horse to do the junior jumpers on), and work with other professionals who can mentor them.

Is it a perfect idea? No. Is it a good one? Possibly.

[soloudinhere]

@PKP

So, how DO we separate the shamateurs?

Been trying for years. Shamateurs are (at least to me) something different. Those are people who are riding professionally but calling themselves amateurs.

A well heeled amateur who doesn’t need to work and pays for training/owns a barn with their own trainer/has 10 nice horses to ride is a legitimate amateur and I don’t have an issue with that. They’re just luckier than I am, which is fine. They don’t tend to waste time with local circuits so I compete there where I’m on more even ground.

[hoopoe]

agree with Sloudinhere… SHamateurs are the cause of the highly complex ammy rules They are cheaters who hide their pro status.

well heeled riders with means will always be here. They were in the juniors as well and now as adults they go on.

And those select young adults transitioning / becoming pro. Tell me how the other 98% of same age riders feel about competing against them if they are all classed as Young Adult riders. The YR exist in dressage and I always felt sorry for those YRs who are in school or working competing against true pros.

Life is challenging and I dont see why society has become this place where there is coddling and protecting, making sure everyone gets a cookie just for showing up.

I am sure there are a lot of older pros who see the younger riders and wonder how they are going to keep up with their younger more energetic and sounder bodies.

[SnicklefritzG]

Leave ages the way they are. I don’t think changing the junior age bracket is going to fix any major problems. There’s always going to be someone with more money, better horses, seemingly unlimited funding, etc.

change the amateur rules so that as someone else said, let people earn some income on the side from horse stuff and let them still be amateurs

[findeight]

The only logical reason I can see for doing this is the ability to earn money and still ride in a non Pro division. Don’t see the point, don’t think it will effect enough exhibitors to fill the divisions with college, career and family starting obligations. The shamateurs would just openly operate as Pros until they hit 24 under the protection of the Junior status…

And how many in favor here would commit to hitch up and go show rated 10-12 times a year or more to support the 18-24 division? Remember when " everybody" was in favor of a Small Hunter division? Fair number of shows added it…didn’t fill. Not enough actually showing the circuits had the horses to support it, supporters didn’t show often enough to sustain it. Only see it in a few places now.