PDA

View Full Version : Crossrails at an A show? Really? rant



Pages : [1] 2

imapepper
May. 2, 2009, 08:24 PM
I am going to apologize right up front for the rant. I was looking through a prize list that I just received for a show and was really shocked to see that it had a WTC crossrail division and a 2 ft division :eek: Are you kidding me? This is a prize list for 3 weeks of showing. 2 A shows and one AA show. How much more dumbed down does this sport need to get? If you are still doing crossrails, go to schooling shows. I know everyone needs to start somewhere and I am all for kids and beginner adults getting out and starting to show over the 2 ft and crossrail division. It's fun and good experience. But I don't think those classes belong in an A show...much less a AA show. There are plenty of local shows that have appropriate divisions for beginner riders and green horses. I think that A shows shouldn't really have anything lower than 3 ft.

Does anyone else think it's ridiculous or is it just me?

Green Acres
May. 2, 2009, 08:30 PM
I totally agree with you and that is why I stick with the schooling/local shows. I'm only doing 2' and wouldn't even think about going to an A show!!!

I don't have a problem with some 2'6" for green rider/horses, etc at A shows but 2' and crossrails... That's rediculous.

Yes, there has to be appropriate fence heights for ponies - but that's a whole different thing.

Huntrs+eq
May. 2, 2009, 08:44 PM
I understand your frustration but, for the sake of discussion, perhaps the poor economy is to blame here. (Man, I sure am tired of seeing the state of the economy as the scapegoat in an overwhelming number of issues!) My theory is that the manager is reaching out to a broader client base-at least testing the waters...Desperate times call for desperate measures!

Though, apparently, they've gotta consider the impact on current clients!

Queen Latisha
May. 2, 2009, 08:45 PM
There's plenty of "A" shows that have x rails and 2' fences.
I don't see what the big deal is, these classes fill and the show makes money.
Why does it bother you that maybe a short stirrup kid, or a novice adult wants to show over smaller jumps.
Multi day "A" shows are a great experience, for both horse and rider.:D

Go Fish
May. 2, 2009, 08:45 PM
The classes under 3' are big money makers for the shows, that's why. They charge the same division entry fees, don't have to hand out any money, and the classes are filled to the brim.

I don't understand why people keep bringing this subject up...if there are enough rings and the show is not being held up, what difference does it make?

Equitate.
May. 2, 2009, 08:46 PM
I feel the same way. We all have been there, but the whole idea is to get good enough to go to these bigger deal shows. To start out there is so unnecessary.

enjoytheride
May. 2, 2009, 08:55 PM
I guess even the wussy people need a way to spend their money and have some fun feeling fancy. :rolleyes:

edited because people didn't get my point, how about you let them spend their money and have fun any way they want.

Queen Latisha
May. 2, 2009, 09:11 PM
I guess even the wussy people need a way to spend their money and have some fun feeling fancy. :rolleyes:


That wasn't nice.:mad:

mvp
May. 2, 2009, 09:12 PM
Fair enough. But to divide A shows from schooling shows this way, you'd have to have a training operation large enough to sport two strings-- one for each kind of shows. That means at least a trainer and an assistant to pay, if not more employees.

Or you could have dedicated "local circuit" trainers and the rated-trainers. The problem with the "feeder approach" strategy (which has been going on for a long time) is that everyone wants to get to the rated side of things. The clients there simply have more to spend for "the same thing" as in show fees, horses (and therefore commissions).

Since trainers have to make a living, you can't blame them for wanting to be able to bring all clients- big and little- to the same show. Show management sees profitability, too.

Is this "dumbing down"? I suppose. But then in the 1960s, you didn't get to show until you could jump a 3'6" course. Ask yourself if the bar were that high now, could you afford to be part of the rated scene?

So there's a better question behind all this: How would you arrange things differently?

Queen Latisha
May. 2, 2009, 09:23 PM
I have a young green horse, who needs show experience.
When my trainer goes away for a week to an A show, I go with him.
I'll usually do the 2'3" or 2'6" hunter classes and it's been a wonderful experience for the horse.
It has nothing to do with feeling fancy, or dumbing down.
Actually with all the extra activities going on at a big show, it's a step up from the local shows.:D

alittlegray
May. 2, 2009, 09:35 PM
I guess even the wussy people need a way to spend their money and have some fun feeling fancy. :rolleyes:

Wow. Get up on the wrong side of the stall this morning?

DD is ten. She rode out of Pebble Beach Equestrian all summer in 2007, when she was 8, on their lesson ponies. Pebble, of course, has a series of "A" and "AA" shows all summer long. For us, that WAS a local show. DD showed (and won) all season in the walk/trot division. Even if we'd wanted to, the lesson ponies don't leave the property to go to other shows. So we showed where we lived. It was fun, exciting, great times. She was the division champ for the series, in walk/trot. Half way through the year she was thrilled to get to 'move up' to the crossrails. For the three-week july show, she was 'grand champion.' You know what? It thrilled the bejesus out of her little self. Those ribbons are still hanging in honor over her bed.

Was there an age restriction on the classes? Nope. Walk/trot and crossrails were open to adults too. Some of the adults were in our situation - showing on lesson ponies that went where the trainers went. Some of the riders were the pro's kids or family members. Was it weird to see adults in with the little kids? Yep. But everyone starts somewhere. Heck, Pebble even breaks the crossrails division into two parts - those that want to canter the fences and those that want to trot them.

I'm just starting to ride again. If I decide to show, I'll have to show where DD does (At the "A's") because we can't be in two places. Does that mean I shouldn't show because she's at the "A" level and I'm a re-rider getting over a sudden fear of jumping? Hmm..

If the fact that those classes are even being held gets your panties in such a twist, don't hang out on the rail watching them. Other than that, deal with it and get on with your life.

:rolleyes:

Go Fish
May. 2, 2009, 09:36 PM
I guess even the wussy people need a way to spend their money and have some fun feeling fancy. :rolleyes:

:sigh:

And having low divisions at AA shows affects you how????

justathought
May. 2, 2009, 09:46 PM
Hey ... so you don't go to an A show to do crossrails or two feet - yep, I agree.... OTOH, if DD is showing (3'6" or more) and the horse is there and not overworked and if I'm ready and if there is a crossrail class, I might just hop on and do it

I think its ok if I have a little fun as well. Having started riding at 50, I am not nearly foolish enough to think that I will ever do a fossils over fences class... I do some days aspire to be a Mortified Adult...

cranky
May. 2, 2009, 09:47 PM
Having started riding at 50, I am not nearly foolish enough to think that I will ever do a fossils over fences class... I do some days aspire to be a Mortified Adult...


HAHAHA! This is the funniest thing I've read all day! Thanks for that.

brightwhitestockings
May. 2, 2009, 09:52 PM
I just don't know why people would spend SO MUCH MORE money to do the AA rated shows to show over x-rails when you can go 15 minutes down the road to a local show and get the same expierence! Must be nice. :sigh:

LetsChat
May. 2, 2009, 09:56 PM
I hate to be the voice of reason but if you go and look at the Garden State Horse show results you will find FORTY entries in the Meeper Jumpers - 2'3" to 2'6" and 11 in the A/O hunters younger and 6 in the older A/O hunters. These smaller divisions pay the bills, they allow the A/Os to walk away with the prize money.... I just don't know why people don't understand the business of it. People want to feel important, trainers want to be able to take all their clients and let's be honest, many times the folks who have the money CAN'T find the jumps or SHOULDN'T be jumping any higher. The point is those divisions are ALWAYS HUGE.... the regular divisions - not so much. Simple supply and demand, not a conspiracy to piss you off....

Equibrit
May. 2, 2009, 09:57 PM
I am going to apologize right up front for the rant. I was looking through a prize list that I just received for a show and was really shocked to see that it had a WTC crossrail division and a 2 ft division :eek: Are you kidding me? This is a prize list for 3 weeks of showing. 2 A shows and one AA show. How much more dumbed down does this sport need to get? If you are still doing crossrails, go to schooling shows. I know everyone needs to start somewhere and I am all for kids and beginner adults getting out and starting to show over the 2 ft and crossrail division. It's fun and good experience. But I don't think those classes belong in an A show...much less a AA show. There are plenty of local shows that have appropriate divisions for beginner riders and green horses. I think that A shows shouldn't really have anything lower than 3 ft.

Does anyone else think it's ridiculous or is it just me?


They need to pay for the show, so that you "upper class" folks can go too.

Dinah-do
May. 2, 2009, 10:00 PM
In the area I live there is no small local show system anymore. It's big shows or nothing.

MintHillFarm
May. 2, 2009, 10:09 PM
There's plenty of "A" shows that have x rails and 2' fences.
I don't see what the big deal is, these classes fill and the show makes money.
Why does it bother you that maybe a short stirrup kid, or a novice adult wants to show over smaller jumps.
Multi day "A" shows are a great experience, for both horse and rider.:D

Keeping the horse shows afloat is the main idea. What is the big deal if there are classes for cross rails or other classes at lower heights? I think it is a great addition for these higher quality shows to offer more options.

JstMyLuck3
May. 2, 2009, 10:10 PM
I've never in my life been to (or heard of) an A or AA show w/ cross-rail or WTC divisions! What show is this?

MintHillFarm
May. 2, 2009, 10:12 PM
I guess even the wussy people need a way to spend their money and have some fun feeling fancy. :rolleyes:

What a mean comment.

LovesHorses
May. 2, 2009, 10:28 PM
Yes, Pebble Beach runs a one ring unrated show on the wkends of the A/AA shows. If you do the unrated show then you can't ride in the rated part. Many good trainers can't be in two places at once and will obviously opt to go to the AA show. Let's those just starting out get the big show experience. Otherwise they would often be left at home. I am pretty sure these classes are much, much cheaper. Braiding is optional. Not sure why so many people care. It is not like trainers are stealing ribbons from 8 year olds.

enjoytheride
May. 2, 2009, 10:29 PM
Well damn, seeing how I'm the type of person that thinks 2 feet is an accomplishment maybe some people on this BB read my statement wrong. I'm tired of people saying that anyone who jumps below 3 feet or 3' 6" or 4foot brush hedges doesn't deserve to show and is ruining the sport.

Jersey Fresh
May. 2, 2009, 10:32 PM
to each his own. =)

Jersey Fresh
May. 2, 2009, 10:33 PM
Well damn, seeing how I'm the type of person that thinks 2 feet is an accomplishment maybe some people on this BB read my statement wrong. I'm tired of people saying that anyone who jumps below 3 feet or 3' 6" or 4foot brush hedges doesn't deserve to show and is ruining the sport.

I didn't see it as a mean comment if its any consolation!! =)

rugbygirl
May. 2, 2009, 10:36 PM
People whine and moan about low divisions in my area too.

Know what? There wouldn't BE any shows without people like me paying to be one of the 40-50 in the cross-rail division. The three people in Open 4' just don't keep the gates open, unfortunately.

I think that the "uppers" would whine and moan LESS if their trainers didn't make them arrive for schooling rounds before the crack of dawn, then sit through all the cross-rail and 2'6" divisions until mid-afternoon though. MAybe some scheduling re-work is in order so that the high-level Princesses can just breeze in, collect their high-level ribbons and breeze back out.

Wouldn't want any of the upper-level riders supporting their lower-level teammates, making things a bit easier for their trainers by having the whole program show at one venue, or give the low-level folks a chance to see the high-level rides. Better they head to small schooling shows, while their coach takes the "good riders" to the big shows, and fuddle around in the 2'6" with all the other "wusses".:rolleyes:

I know it's an elitist sport. Come on though.

mvp
May. 2, 2009, 10:38 PM
Thanks to all the posters who pointed out that the dinky divisions pay the bills that let the big dogs take home prize money.

But let's not forget that competition tends to drive the sport. That means that the advent of 2'6" and under divisions at a rated show does not require the same amount of time spent learning to ride as does the idea that you pay your dues at local shows and then move up when you can jump bigger fences and (presumably) ride better.

If I thought that I could ever afford a competitive 3'6" horse I'd be happy to be told to wait to jump into the rated scene until I could master that kind of course.

I have no problem spending 1/3 the price to show at a local show (often held at the same places as rated shows) until I have the right horse and skill. Why anyone is in a rush to spend so much for the same eight fences at a rated show is beyond me. Now if the local shows near me would just build something higher than 2'9" I think they'd make money and many of us would be very, very happy.

enjoytheride
May. 2, 2009, 10:50 PM
So what about people that have no desire to show over 2' 6"? You're older, you can't afford a 3 foot horse, your horse is older, you are a bit wussy, you work often and can't put in as much time to move up as you want. It isn't always about the height, sometimes it IS about the atmosphere.

phoenix mom
May. 2, 2009, 10:58 PM
We have several ladies in our barn that do the modified and have, in younger years done the 3'6". I am glad they still want to show and love the experience because when we get our show split I am happy they are along for the ride. Some people are not in areas that have great local shows and their barn only goes to A shows. There is enough room for everyone, these ladies go to Ocala every year to jump 2'6". If you are having fun that is what matters. We can't all be World Cup riders.

MissKatie
May. 2, 2009, 11:00 PM
Those classes are great for little kids, sister/brothers to have fun while mom, big sis, brother ect are showing and to get experience!

mvp
May. 2, 2009, 11:30 PM
The "entitlement" to show the affordable or desired under 3' horse is fine, but so dearly paid for! What is the appeal?

If you have read my po' folks posts, you know that I'm all for making riding and showing inclusive. But to say that the dinky divisions ought to become a staple at the largest shows because "we can't all be World Cup riders" is a little unfair. You don't need to become a world cup rider to jump a 3'6" course. You do need to ride appreciably better (at least way more accurately) at 3'6" than you do 2' or even 3'. That's worth preserving as a goal.

For those wishing to give their babies experience, this is how it was done back in the day before there was anything below 3'. You made a local show into at least a two day show by getting a stall, shipping in the day before and schooling.

Or (even better) you groomed for your trainer and took your baby along, dealing with him when you had time. He got the really valuable experience of spending multiple days figuring it out and had no pressure because he was just getting lunged, schooled, trail ridden, made to camp out by the ring, whatever. If you did it right, you even made a little money.

WB Mom
May. 2, 2009, 11:39 PM
Obviously it comes down to economics. Horse show management will do what it takes to make money in order to continue to have horse shows. That is true for back yard shows up to AA. They know where their bread and butter comes from and will cater to it. I personally don't see a huge need for these types of classes at the bigger shows, but that is up to show management. I guess we always will have to sit through divisions that don't apply to us, but that is the way it all works, so be it.

Ghazzu
May. 2, 2009, 11:43 PM
In the area I live there is no small local show system anymore. It's big shows or nothing.

Which is the shame of it all.
Convenience for the trainers is a silly reason.
Showing in the A's ought to mean something.

enjoytheride
May. 2, 2009, 11:57 PM
Why is it entitlement? Isn't it entitlement for you to think that a dinky fence height that someone else chooses to enter dumbs down your experience? Explain why it is so offensive to think that someone might be happy wasting their money showing at 2 feet? The appeal is because you enjoy showing at whatever height you are suited for. Is that so wrong to enjoy showing even if it is over low fences?

Here is the vibe I'm getting.

"There isn't much difference between 3' 6" and 2feet, just a little more effort that you aren't willing to put out"

"All these dinky classes dumb down our fancypants show."

"You should be happy grooming for your trainer and staying out of the way"

"back in the day we jumped over barbed wire fences with no helmets or saddle pads."

Personally I do not have the money or the horse to show at A or AA or even B shows and I'm fine with my local stuff over my meaningless fence heights. I have ZERO desire to ever show 3' 6"

But if another rider wants to show at an A show at 2 feet and their class fits in neatly why not let them enjoy the experience? I don't care that 30 years ago a bunch of people in canary pants and carboard helmets jumped their horses over 4 foot high brush fences. Sports change and this sport has changed to meet the needs and desires of a different generation of riders. Horse showing will always be a luxury but now this luxury is open to many more people who will continue to support the sport even if they are showing over lower levels.

SoBeIt
May. 3, 2009, 12:06 AM
Classes under 3' have been going on FOREVER here in the Northeast. Leadline at the Hampton Classic and Devon for instance. While I think that it is pretty silly to ship your kid and pony to Florida for the entire WEF circuit to be the short-stirrup champion, having the kids go to a nearby A or AA show when they are young is invaluable, It gives them an idea of what to expect in the future and if they git a ribbon it is great for their self confidence.

lauriep
May. 3, 2009, 12:15 AM
Which is the shame of it all.
Convenience for the trainers is a silly reason.
Showing in the A's ought to mean something.

Here, here.

overthemoon
May. 3, 2009, 12:35 AM
I think the majority of the posters here are actually semi-agreeing with one another, underneath it all.

General consensus: While children and adults alike should feel welcomed to show in the smaller divisions at A and AA shows should they so choose to do so, they should not feel forced, whether it be via lack of schooling shows or trainer influences, to pay the high prices to compete in A or AA for training, exposure, or general merriment. It's a sad state of affairs if the latter is true!

Vandy
May. 3, 2009, 12:45 AM
I have very mixed feelings about this. I took a crossrail kid to a B show a few weeks ago, and while the "regular" classes at this show were $30-$40, the crossrail classes were $10 each, and the only other thing crossrail entries had to pay for was a stall - no USEF fees, grounds fees, schooling fees, non-member fees, etc. In fact, it ended up costing the same thing as a schooling show and was a great experience for the kid and the pony. There were a good number of entries and my kid was over the moon when she ended up reserve champ. There are crossrail divisions at the A-shows my barn attends too (not discounted entries though), and I've advised the parents to save their money and stick with the Bs/Locals for now though...But if money were no issue, I'd certainly bring them along. In addition to the show experience, watching the better riders compete is inspiring and educational for folks who are just getting started.

However, I too remember when people were grumbling years ago about 3' children's/aa hunter divisions at rated shows. My first rated show, on a lesson horse, was at 3' because there was nothing smaller. Not only did the horse and I survive it, we actually won a class despite the fact that I'd been riding for about 6 months and wasn't blessed with a great amount of natural ability. What used to be a school horse/beginner division now goes to indoors. I still find this strange. Can we all agree that we don't need a rated 2'6" division or, god forbid, crossrail division at indoors someday? Someone will probably argue that this would be cool...

The flip side is, local shows in my area are starting to offer bigger, more competitive divisions. I am hoping there will be a bunch of horses in the 3'6" classes at my barn's schooling show next week...Now that's a trend I hope we'll see more of! In addition to letting the crossrailers play at the big shows, I think it's great when more advanced horses and riders can find reasonably priced local options at 3'6"+ and aren't shut out of having fun at shows just because of the crappy economy.

Gry2Yng
May. 3, 2009, 12:48 AM
Or (even better) you groomed for your trainer and took your baby along, dealing with him when you had time. He got the really valuable experience of spending multiple days figuring it out and had no pressure because he was just getting lunged, schooled, trail ridden, made to camp out by the ring, whatever. If you did it right, you even made a little money.

That worked until I got a real job, a husband and a child. The trainers don't go to schooling shows. I am capable of taking a baby on my own. Many people aren't or don't want to. Some weeks I don't want to.

EventFan
May. 3, 2009, 12:50 AM
I guess even the wussy people need a way to spend their money and have some fun feeling fancy. :rolleyes:

edited because people didn't get my point, how about you let them spend their money and have fun any way they want.\

Wow! Do you work hard at being bitter and rude, or does it come naturally?

Consider that some areas do NOT have many schooling shows, Trainers have to allow the kids to gain experience somewhere. If it bothers you so much, don't watch!

heartinrye
May. 3, 2009, 01:04 AM
But let's not forget that competition tends to drive the sport. That means that the advent of 2'6" and under divisions at a rated show does not require the same amount of time spent learning to ride as does the idea that you pay your dues at local shows and then move up when you can jump bigger fences and (presumably) ride better.



Well, lets see I started and did 'work my way up' to the big shows, where I showed at 3'9 and 4' (jumpers) but a few injuries later, my jumper can only do the 2'9 jumpers now. You BET he's still coming to the horse show- he loves it there, I love showing him, yes I wish he was still the 1.40 horse I bought 5 years ago, but he's not, and if I am willing to pay $60-$80 for a class that doesn't pay out thats my prerogative.
I do happen to also have a Jr Jumper, and you know what there is a whole lot more competition in the Level 1/2 class than there is in the Level 5/6, I actually have more fun in those classes because you really have to be sharp to win, since usually atleast half the class will go double clear.
I want to be able to show both my horses at the same show, I'm not going to waste my time scheduling which horse goes to which show, and spend time at schooling shows just because my horse is no longer a 3'6 campaigner.
This is just silly.

superpony123
May. 3, 2009, 01:09 AM
oh my !

OP, you wouldn't even be able to ride in these shows if they didnt host those divisions--they would go bankrupt. The shows NEED to host those lower divisions because they are the best money makers--minimal prize money, maximum turnout. ive seen ten jr hunters and 50+ beginner riders at the same AA show. where do you think they're making the money there?

silver2
May. 3, 2009, 06:09 AM
If anyone really thinks that shows have gotten cheaper for the higher level competitors since they started introducing the unrated divisions they are insane. Or haven't been showing for very many years.

Around the time the "mega-shows" started up in the mid 90s competing at the high junior or A/O level became a) insanely expensive and b) a mid week affair. People stopped going.

The old system of a mix of one and multi day shows was much more competitor freindly for riders at the higher levels, you could haul in for the day and do a Medal class or the A/O jumpers and be home in time to see your family once in a while. Your classes still went on the weekends because there were rings available. And consequently, there were a lot more riders at the upper levels.

Of all the people I showed in the juniors with only one still competes, the rest of us can't compete at the A/O level due to HAVING JOBS. And we have no interest in stepping down the divisions just so we can go hang out at a show in the dust eating overpriced hamburgers. I'd rather trail ride.

Look at dressage shows: they are very competitor friendly (and I do mean competitor, not participant) and they make money just fine. There are more popping up all the time and a lot of competitive adult amateurs have migrated that way.

Talk of the Town
May. 3, 2009, 06:17 AM
Personally I feel that was awful comment to make. I never had a horse that was able to do the 3' rated stuff at A shows until I was almost ready to age out. I am a good rider so yeah if I went to a schooling show it really wasn't fair to me or the 13 year olds I was showing against. The 2'6 divisions at the A shows gave me a place to show and these classes were always huge. I mean even the kids with the money need a couple of shows at 2'6 on their new horse when they move up from their pony to get comfortable to be able to do the childrens. So yeah I do see why they need these classes because you know what some people don't have the money for the horses but can save enough to at least go and show with the people who do.

silver2
May. 3, 2009, 07:59 AM
There seems to be a big split between the people who's goal is just to attend shows, be it for social or whatever reasons, and who don't care about how they place and those competitors who would like to see a return to more amateur friendly but stiff competitions.

I have no interest in attending shows just to hang out with friends or as a fun hobby. I'm there to try and win at the highest levels I can be competitive at which is currently logistically impossible. At this point I feel that there is no place for me in the US anymore in the show jumping divisions.

If someone started a local circuit that offered a variety of Level 4/5/6/7 jumper classes with good competition and ran over one or two days I'd be there in a heartbeat.

Queen Latisha
May. 3, 2009, 08:11 AM
I just don't know why people would spend SO MUCH MORE money to do the AA rated shows to show over x-rails when you can go 15 minutes down the road to a local show and get the same expierence! Must be nice. :sigh:

Why are you so concerned how other people spend their money?:mad:

je.suis
May. 3, 2009, 08:37 AM
A LittleGrey, Are you familiar with Pebble Beach Eq. Ctr.? I'm wondering what it's like as I might be re-locating to Cali and I love that area. Is it mostly a hack/lesson barn or a barn geared towards competition. Can't really tell from their site so it's helpful to have the opinion of someone who knows. Looks nice. Heck, I'd sleep in a wheelbarrow to be on Pebble Beach ! ( Was there once, lost my car keys on the beach, would you believe? More unbelievable is that I found them !!! )

supershorty628
May. 3, 2009, 08:50 AM
I'm going to refrain from writing a long drawn-out post, but I just have one point to make. I think that having the smaller, unrated classes are actually a good thing to have at the A shows - apart from the fact that they really keep the shows running, financially - otherwise, a lot of people (kids especially) showing at that level will not get the exposure to the upper level classes. How will they know what they want to strive for if they cannot see it?

bascher
May. 3, 2009, 08:55 AM
I have a young green horse, who needs show experience.
When my trainer goes away for a week to an A show, I go with him.
I'll usually do the 2'3" or 2'6" hunter classes and it's been a wonderful experience for the horse.
It has nothing to do with feeling fancy, or dumbing down.
Actually with all the extra activities going on at a big show, it's a step up from the local shows.:D

When I first started doing my baby, we went to the bigger A shows not to feel fancy, but to get him used to all of the activity that you wouldn't see at a local, one-day horse show.

Edited to add:

When my trainer goes to the big shows, some of the little kids at the barn want to show, but wouldn't be able to that weekend because our trainer is not there. So, they come to the big shows so that they can show, and it also gives the kids A LOT of experience and a taste of what it's like. Additionally, I agree with everyone who has said that the lower divisions are the ones that make the most money. If you only had Juniors, Reg Workings, etc, there is no way the show would be able to be financed. The lower divisions, like 2'3" schooling or whatever, always have TONS of entries! Plus, if you are showing in another division, some people use the schooling divisions to get their horses into the ring and more comfortable.

ToTheNines
May. 3, 2009, 09:02 AM
I am 57 years old, and my riding career went from 2'6" to 3' to 3'6" to 3' and now 2'6". I am delighted that I can still show and hope to keep showing as long as I can. Also, I do not want to start any more youngsters, so I want my current show horses to last as long as I do.

I recently opened a prize list to a big Texas show and was delighted to see all the 2'6" classes. When I am 70 and all I can do is crossrails, I will be happy about that. I like to go and hang with my trainer and friends, young and old, watch all the beautiful horses, and enjoy the whole atmosphere. I am having as much doing that now than I ever did.

Czar
May. 3, 2009, 09:29 AM
Who cares :rolleyes:

I get the exact same feeling when I see a thread about the automatic release or what they do in Europe - do what you do and mind your own business.

Why are horse people so opinionated & nosy? The sport is about the horse, whether it's a 2'6" mount or a Grand Prix mount..what does it matter? This is my absolute biggest pet peeve...people who want to shoot their mouth about what everyone else is doing - it's immature & childish *thumbs down* - not to mention a huge waste of time.

Lauren!
May. 3, 2009, 09:38 AM
2' classes aren't uncommon at any of the A shows I can think of around here... except HITS. They have much less low stuff. All the other multi-day shows have plenty... the lowest level jumpers (2'3) are always VERY full... I wouldn't be suprised if those had the most entries of ANY division! Likewise, there is never a lack of super-low hunters... but they often have to combine 3'6 divisions to get enough entries to run it. There are a LOT of people who, for whatever reason, dont' jump that high, and they have the time an money to show anyway... good for them!

Actually, I can beat the horror doing crossrails at an A show! Get your flamethrowers ready... when I was a kid (13ish?) I did several rated shows (at least 1 or 2 A's or AA's) where ALL I did was flat classes. Yep, random flat classes, pieces of divisions. I just entered the hack (Children's or Pre-children's Hunter and Equitation... and maybe I did the Pleasure Division too? LOL!). I rode a horse who wasn't supposed to jump, and I'm not sure I knew how to anyway. Best part... I actually won a few ribbons.

I probably shouldn't have been allowed to do this, but either no one payed attention or no one cared. My trainer was busy riding nicer horses (no one coached me, I didn't realize they were supposed to either) and we had plenty (for me... 4 a year?) of rated shows at the barn, so there wasn't any travel involved. My horse (he was a school horse at the time, but I bought him later) was impecably clean, though not braided, and I have to say, when I look back at the pictures I'm not horrified at our turnout (although I would have gotten the poor animal a smaller loose ring and a nicer bridle... ;)

sidepasser
May. 3, 2009, 09:53 AM
I am 57 years old, and my riding career went from 2'6" to 3' to 3'6" to 3' and now 2'6". I am delighted that I can still show and hope to keep showing as long as I can. Also, I do not want to start any more youngsters, so I want my current show horses to last as long as I do.

I recently opened a prize list to a big Texas show and was delighted to see all the 2'6" classes. When I am 70 and all I can do is crossrails, I will be happy about that. I like to go and hang with my trainer and friends, young and old, watch all the beautiful horses, and enjoy the whole atmosphere. I am having as much doing that now than I ever did.

You sound like someone I'd like to show with..lol..as we age we seem to appreciate why we show, I guess it comes full circle - as a kid it was the wonder of "getting to show" like Oh wow, look at all the horses, meeting new and old friends, watching others go round. Then we got competitive and it was all about getting a clean run (in whatever discipline) and planning strategies for training, etc. One day we wake up and we are older and find ourselves moving down a bit, but appreciating the reason for showing more.

No matter what the discipline, there should be room for all - whether just having fun, serious competitor, rank ammie with green bean horse and no trainer, big time riders and trainers. Seems to me the older I get, the happier I am that I can still crawl up on my horse and quiet the butterflies in my stomach and hope no one laughs louder than me at myself. Sometimes too, it takes getting older to be able to afford to show and I, for one, put mine off for over 20 years to let my kids show and pay for their "stuff". Now it's my turn, in a new discipline, on a new horse with a whole lot of new things to learn. If there were no beginning dressage tests, which I would liken to your crossrails divisions - there would be no place for me at the shows. Everyone has to start somewhere, does it really matter if they start really small at the fancy shows?

Tothenines - nice post.

Scott Free
May. 3, 2009, 10:15 AM
Showing in the A's ought to mean something.


Showing in the A's just means more money, more days, more divisions and usually nicer venues than the B's or unrated shows. That list usually brings the best competition, so WINNING in the A's means something, but SHOWING in the A's just means you can pay the fees.

This is just a game, folks. This is just another way humans amuse themselves until the meteor hits.

We all like to train and pamper and polish our horses & ourselves and then zip up our horse show suits and plunk down our cash for a chance to go jump around the ring. We usually choose to do this in the nicest rings with the nicest atmosphere and the nicest horses that we can afford.

Whether you like your jumps to be 2' or 3' or 4' makes no frickin' difference to me.

twobays
May. 3, 2009, 10:16 AM
I think this type of rant has really become a way for people to show off just how much better they are than other people. It becomes a vehicle for people to say "Oh yes, I would NEVER DREAM of jumping less than 3'6" at a rated show; and if you aren't showing at 3'6" obviously you're just too untalented/lazy anyway and should stay out of my line of vision, lest you RUIN the supreme experience that IS a rated show."

Puh-leeze. This is America. If shows want to offer smaller classes, people are free to partake. Pull the stick out and get over yourself.

enjoytheride
May. 3, 2009, 10:17 AM
\

Wow! Do you work hard at being bitter and rude, or does it come naturally?

Consider that some areas do NOT have many schooling shows, Trainers have to allow the kids to gain experience somewhere. If it bothers you so much, don't watch!

And have you bothered to read anything I've had to say? :rolleyes:

lauriep
May. 3, 2009, 10:33 AM
I'm sorry, but the ENTITLEMENT to show at the upper level shows is the weakest arguement here,and the one I absolutely will not get on board with. This is the real world, folks, and not everyone gets to do everything they WANT to do. Whether due to $$, time, ability, whatever, sometimes you just accept that this is all you can do right now.

Now WHY trainers don't have assistant trainers anymore to stay home and take the lower level riders and horses to shows suiting their abilities, hence supporting and REBUILDING those shows is beyond me. The reason these shows are so few and far between is because somewhere along the line the trainers decided they could MAKE MORE MONEY off of you by taking you along on the long circuits (or just your horse) and you all bought into it. These valuable, and FUN, B and C shows then had to close down due to lack of entries.

Are they cash cows for the show managers? Sure they are, but they certainly don't cheapen the experience for the other entrants. They just put more cash in the manager's pocket. If they are doing so much financial good for the shows, why aren't the fees lower, the footing fantastic, and the complaints about stabling, food, facilities, non-existent? Somehow, the shows made it without these divisions years ago. Why can't the managers get a little creative and do so now?

I think the 3' AA division is a good idea, because people's lives do require more time away from riding now. But sorry, if you can only jump 2'6", you don't belong at an A show.

LetsChat
May. 3, 2009, 10:49 AM
If anyone really thinks that shows have gotten cheaper for the higher level competitors since they started introducing the unrated divisions they are insane. Or haven't been showing for very many years.

Around the time the "mega-shows" started up in the mid 90s competing at the high junior or A/O level became a) insanely expensive and b) a mid week affair. People stopped going.

The old system of a mix of one and multi day shows was much more competitor freindly for riders at the higher levels, you could haul in for the day and do a Medal class or the A/O jumpers and be home in time to see your family once in a while. Your classes still went on the weekends because there were rings available. And consequently, there were a lot more riders at the upper levels.

Of all the people I showed in the juniors with only one still competes, the rest of us can't compete at the A/O level due to HAVING JOBS. And we have no interest in stepping down the divisions just so we can go hang out at a show in the dust eating overpriced hamburgers. I'd rather trail ride.

Look at dressage shows: they are very competitor friendly (and I do mean competitor, not participant) and they make money just fine. There are more popping up all the time and a lot of competitive adult amateurs have migrated that way.


I don't know, maybe I missed some posts but I don't think - at least I didn't mean, that by having lower divisions it made anything cheaper for the upper divisions - I just meant it is money to the horse show and helps the horse show have additional money. Still, some shows that offer prize money to A/O hunters and only have 4 in the division, even if they charge $300 per person so $1200 they are paying out a lot more so these divisions alone are NOT paying for themselves, the bulk of the working capital, cash, is coming from the bagillion who do the modified adults and children hunters which generally are split into 3 or 4 groups... Kinda weak when the A/Os only get 4 in it.

twobays
May. 3, 2009, 10:53 AM
This is the real world, folks, and not everyone gets to do everything they WANT to do. Whether due to $$, time, ability, whatever, sometimes you just accept that this is all you can do right now.



For better or for worse, that just isn't the reality anymore at these shows. People want to compete at 2'6" and shows want to offer it. Just going to an A-show isn't prestigious...it means you have the money to pay your entries.

As a competitor, you certainly don't have some inalienable right to not have to see a crossrail at a rated show. If you don't like it; you're free to go elsewhere/

twobays
May. 3, 2009, 10:55 AM
I think some have hit the proverbial nail on the head: While many of us are aware of our and our mounts' limitations, we still prefer to show somewhere that is perhaps (not always) "nicer" than the "C"'s or locals. With the letters "A", "A2" etc., comes an expectation of quality. Now, of course, not all "A" shows are quality and not all "C"s or locals are bad - it really depends on the host and/or management.

I think both "sides" of this argument have good arguments as to why they feel/believe the way they do, but it is important to recognize that people have STRONG feelings about their respective points of view, which may be why this entire argument is really silly - IT'S A HORSE SHOW, PEOPLE!!!!!!! We are doing this for fun - every sport is ultimately supposed to be for FUN and competition - very few riders make their living off this sport. Amateurs need to be treated with respect and dignity since we are the only reason most professionals can enjoy this sport as THEIR career. If an amateur wants to pay day care and training fees at a show, be grateful that they are willing to pay such ridiculous fees for such a thing!

As for how things used to be and how they are now - GET OVER IT! Life changes and so do the way horse shows are conducted. If it bothers you so much, manage your own show the way you like it - if it's as wonderful as YOU think it is, people will come and you will make money - if not enough people feel as you do, it will FAIL. At that point, you will either be willing to concede that your point of view does not work, OR you will remain willfully ignorant of the fact that your point of view does not make enough money to be a viable option. In other words, either SHUT UP OR PUT UP! Going on and on about they way it was is just spinning wheels and serves NO PURPOSE other than to argue or weep and wail with others that wish they could build their own time machine.

rant over, flamesuit zipped, wine and chocolates ready. :winkgrin:

RIGHT ON. Can we get a standing ovation smiley?

gortmore
May. 3, 2009, 11:03 AM
I could care less if they offer crossrail classes. My concern is that the lower classes seem to run on the weekend while the bigger fences go during the week. I would love to see the Level 5/6/7 classes offered over the weekend. Now I do get that part of the reason that they run only during the week is because they don't fill as often they are used as prep classes for the Friday and Sunday Grand Prix. Maybe if they did offer them Friday, Saturday and Sunday, some of us who aren't showing now would start again. Last year I used up my vacation to take one of my horses to two weeks of back to back shows. He shipped in on Tuesday and came home on Friday night as there were no classes for him over the weekend.

It also gets me that, and this is for everyone showing regardless of level, that we pay a flat fee for the stall. I think they should be able to split stall costs. If we could do that again, maybe do something with the nomination fee (really I have to pay $ 125 to nominate to a ring that I will show in one, maybe twice, plus pay a Grand Prix nomination for that same ring, so essentially I am paying $ 75 nomination fee per class, plus $ 60 per class to enter it), I think that there would be more people attending and showing in the classes with bigger fences.

mvp
May. 3, 2009, 11:14 AM
To all of you ready to defend your "right" (too strong a word, I know) to show in dinky divisions at rated shows. Relax! Those money-making classes aren't going anywhere.

To those who are unhappy, you should ask yourself just what you are losing by tolerating their presence. I agree that it's boring to watch 3 hours of that. But jumper riders have also got to get bored and impatient watching 150 children's hunter trips (been in that, made others wait). But you don't have to watch, right? In the era of cell phones, it's a whole lot easier to avoid the notorious "hurry up and wait" built into showing.

I do wish peeps would read other posts or read them carefully. To the poster who nailed me (or others?) for thinking that I said "3'6" and 2' are the same thing," you are dead wrong. If fact, I explained why the difference exists and why it matters in all this. To the poster who thought I suggested that peeps with green would-be 2' horses ought to remain their trainers' grooms/slaves forever (and like it!), that was wrong, too. Please do me and other the courtesy of reading with care and at least neutrality.

twobays
May. 3, 2009, 11:23 AM
To those who are unhappy, you should ask yourself just what you are losing by tolerating their presence. I agree that it's boring to watch 3 hours of that. But jumper riders have also got to get bored and impatient watching 150 children's hunter trips (been in that, made others wait). But you don't have to watch, right? In the era of cell phones, it's a whole lot easier to avoid the notorious "hurry up and wait" built into showing.



Exactly. If you don't like it, don't watch. I think it's funny when people talk about the 3'6" hunter classes as though they're the pinnacle of riding. As someone who plays mostly in the jumper ring, I find the prospect of watching 54834437874 A/O trips to be boring. I don't think a 3'6" A/O class is appreciably more exciting than a 3' ammy class.

S A McKee
May. 3, 2009, 11:36 AM
Hampton Classic has a x rail division.
Nobody cares.

Cita
May. 3, 2009, 11:41 AM
I'm sorry, but the ENTITLEMENT to show at the upper level shows is the weakest arguement here,and the one I absolutely will not get on board with. This is the real world, folks, and not everyone gets to do everything they WANT to do. Whether due to $$, time, ability, whatever, sometimes you just accept that this is all you can do right now.

Now WHY trainers don't have assistant trainers anymore to stay home and take the lower level riders and horses to shows suiting their abilities, hence supporting and REBUILDING those shows is beyond me. The reason these shows are so few and far between is because somewhere along the line the trainers decided they could MAKE MORE MONEY off of you by taking you along on the long circuits (or just your horse) and you all bought into it. These valuable, and FUN, B and C shows then had to close down due to lack of entries.

Are they cash cows for the show managers? Sure they are, but they certainly don't cheapen the experience for the other entrants. They just put more cash in the manager's pocket. If they are doing so much financial good for the shows, why aren't the fees lower, the footing fantastic, and the complaints about stabling, food, facilities, non-existent? Somehow, the shows made it without these divisions years ago. Why can't the managers get a little creative and do so now?

I think the 3' AA division is a good idea, because people's lives do require more time away from riding now. But sorry, if you can only jump 2'6", you don't belong at an A show.

This opinion cracks me up, and has been expressed several different times in several different ways in this thread.

What I'm hearing is, "Don't allow the little people to come to MY A show, because my showing at the A-level is a status symbol and makes me feel important, and I don't want that taken away by the presence of undesirables (like people who are only jumping 2'6")." :lol:

I'm more of the "who the heck cares?" mindset!

Coreene
May. 3, 2009, 12:03 PM
Bla bla bla. It's just the same as some dressage people who say you need to "earn" the "right" to wear a topper. You get one life. "Stayed home from A shows because she couldn't afford a 3'6" horse" on headstones? Doubtful. The world changes. Embrace change or step aside, because you're blocking other people embracing their one life. :D

GreenMachine
May. 3, 2009, 12:06 PM
This is just a game, folks. This is just another way humans amuse themselves until the meteor hits.

No truer words. :lol:

lauriep
May. 3, 2009, 12:07 PM
This opinion cracks me up, and has been expressed several different times in several different ways in this thread.

What I'm hearing is, "Don't allow the little people to come to MY A show, because my showing at the A-level is a status symbol and makes me feel important, and I don't want that taken away by the presence of undesirables (like people who are only jumping 2'6")." :lol:

I'm more of the "who the heck cares?" mindset!

No, Cita, that is not at ALL what my post means. It means that there should be some level that is attainable by being a good rider, able to ride at a certain level, that is EARNED by moving up the divisions. That is why different levels of horse shows were created in the first place. It has NOTHING, I will say it again, NOTHING to do with status, haves vs have nots, or anything like that. DO NOT put words in my mouth.

CallMeGrace
May. 3, 2009, 12:08 PM
Those classes are great for little kids, sister/brothers to have fun while mom, big sis, brother ect are showing and to get experience!


That's exactly what I was going to say - my kids are 4 years apart, and rather than have my 7 year old sit around on her hands while her brother was showing, she got to show in the weenies and feel as though it was her weekend, too!

Coreene
May. 3, 2009, 12:12 PM
If a person's trainer only does As and AAs, then the only way to show is to go to those shows. And move up the levels. Or not. If you can afford a horse and the max it can do is 2'9", do you never show because you're not able to move up / earn your right to go to a A show / etc.? Not everyone has local shows available. Or $$ to buy a better horse.

Equibrit
May. 3, 2009, 12:13 PM
Who knew they had 2'6" classes? I would take my dressage horse !

Lucassb
May. 3, 2009, 12:16 PM
Now WHY trainers don't have assistant trainers anymore to stay home and take the lower level riders and horses to shows suiting their abilities, hence supporting and REBUILDING those shows is beyond me. The reason these shows are so few and far between is because somewhere along the line the trainers decided they could MAKE MORE MONEY off of you by taking you along on the long circuits (or just your horse) and you all bought into it. These valuable, and FUN, B and C shows then had to close down due to lack of entries.


As someone who came up in such a tiered system (schoolies/local shows/rated shows)... I have given this a lot of thought. And frankly I think one of the main reasons is that folks who are just starting out in those BNT barns would balk at the costs they'd be paying to be on the "second string," because I'm quite sure there wouldn't be much of a discount! Although it is less common than it used to be, certainly a lot of the big barns have assistant or co-trainers in the program, so it's not a lack of instructors. I think it is just pure economics.

I have kept horses in some of these barns and frankly it has been made very clear that their main interest was in convincing you to keep buying & selling horses... expensive ones. So unless you were in a position where you were consistently champion or reserve (in which case they were OK with you keeping your current horse) there was a lot of pressure to generate some of those big commissions, not to develop the horse you rode in on.

To be fair, though, the demise of the good local show circuits that used to exist has certainly also driven some of the changes.

We are lucky in my area that we still have some nice venues for local shows, and you DO see the BNTs at them, schooling their greener riders and bringing some of their younger horses along (nothing like doing a warm up low hunter division and having to ride against T. Whitehead & Sachine Bell doing their fancy greenies...) But shows like that are few and far between in a lot of areas these days, and to expect a BNT to take customers to what is left (in some areas) would be asking a lot. For sure I am not the next world cup sensation, but if I am writing a check for what it costs to have my horse in one of these programs, I sure don't expect to be taken to a venue that is, let's just say, "less than professional."

I got talked into going to a real "local show" not too long ago and the judging was appalling. So for those making the argument about "wasting money to show at the AA level," I'd say - I'm happy to pay for the opinion of a knoweldgeable, educated judge rather than throwing (less of my) money away on someone who apparently could not discern things like leads and diagonals.

Punkie
May. 3, 2009, 12:17 PM
I think the 3' AA division is a good idea, because people's lives do require more time away from riding now. But sorry, if you can only jump 2'6", you don't belong at an A show.

Wow. So I've been showing for 20 years, I've had junior hunters and competed through the level 5 jumpers. I also have rheumatoid arthritis. For the better part of my first years as an adult, I COULDN'T jump more than 2'6" because of the amount of pain that landing off a fence would cause me. I was not an unsafe rider, I most certainly could (and now do again thanks to the miracle of medical science) compete at a much higher level, but at that time, 2'6" was all I could physically handle. My horses were still going to AA shows to do the greens and pre-greens, so why should I have missed out on enjoying MY animals just because I had PHYSICAL limitations that prevented me from comfortably going higher? I only have so many horses (and so much money to spend on them); it just made logistical sense.

And what about my mom? My mom is in her 50s, she rode western for the better part of her life, started in the hunter/jumper world a few years ago, and then developed avascular necrosis in both hips. She had some highly experimental surgery (core decompression with free vascularized fibular grafting) and is now back to riding. She rides just for the fun of it, but she comes to all of the away shows to support me and enjoy her horses. Well Vermont just so happened to have a Long Stirrup division last year and guess who entered it with my former large pony hunter who comes on the road with us as a companion horse? My mom. You should've seen the smile on her face. My mom - who by most standards shouldn't be able to SIT on a horse, let alone properly ride one - got to show and really enjoy herself because they provided that division. She has no interest in going out of her way and keeping a horse at home so she can go to random shows; if she's there and the horse is there, she has no problem hopping on and having a good time of it.

I think your logic is very skewed; just because there is a x-rail class running next door to the hunter derby doesn't make the hunter derby any less prestigious...it just makes it next to an x-rails class. We talk about how outsiders perceive horseback riding to be incredibly elitist and inaccessible to the general public...and now we have people in our sport trying to make it less accessible to other riders. That just makes the rest of us feel wonderful:no:

Silk
May. 3, 2009, 12:30 PM
What about the fact that the A shows have better judges? I would rather have the opinion of a judge at an A show than some of the "judging" I have seen at schooling, etc shows. That factor alone makes it worth wile for many to choose the higher level shows.

I wont even address those who choose to ride ponies and introduce greenies. Never mind those with physical, age and or financial limitations. I know many who save and do 2 AA shows a year with a very moderate (under 5K) horses rather than do 6 or so backyard shows....yes, they are lower leverl riders who dont want to jump higher than the modified adults or long stirrup.

I am both surprised and disdainful of those who have adopted this elistist belief that only those who can do the 3 ft and above "deserve" tobe at the A level.

hey....can they go if they just want to flat their horses????? Should there be special requirements for those who dont jump at all?

Jumphigh83
May. 3, 2009, 12:41 PM
Who cares? Follow the money.

kbbarn
May. 3, 2009, 12:49 PM
No, Cita, that is not at ALL what my post means. It means that there should be some level that is attainable by being a good rider, able to ride at a certain level, that is EARNED by moving up the divisions. That is why different levels of horse shows were created in the first place. It has NOTHING, I will say it again, NOTHING to do with status, haves vs have nots, or anything like that. DO NOT put words in my mouth.

I do want to mis-interpret but it does sound like you believe to be a good rider and attain recongnition for this skill, you must be beyond 2'6"? :no:
I would disagree since I have seen some very nice 2'6 riders that stay in that division and some very scary 3'6, 4' riders that you wonder why such a nice horse puts up with being ridden so poorly. Just because a rider goes out and buys a 4' horse, does not mean they belong in the higher divisions, which is what seems to be happening more often. Maybe it is this drive to be in a 'higher, more prestigious level' that causing riders to forget the basics of good riding

I do agree with the weekend thing. Yes, it would be nice to have the 3' and higher on Saturday since it is hard for me to take weekdays off to go to a show but that only seems to be a problem the first 1-2 shows of the year. Once June hits, kids out of school and crossbars are on Thursdays!

Shows with all divisions are quite long but look at it this way: a time to hang out with the barn, go get lunch, whatever. It is supposed to be fun. This is a hobby for most of us. I often would hang out in my lounge chair, mare standing next to me and we both take a nap while waiting for the 30 x-bars to finish. I considered it bonding time with my horse and it also teaches the horse that hurry up and wait, is just fine.

gottagrey
May. 3, 2009, 12:59 PM
One of the reasons theses classes became popular is because show managment realized these classes can and are money makers; trainers do not necessarily have to decide whether to stay home for a schooling show or go to rated show - this way unrated, schooling show type classes are offered at the rated show - therefore trainer can take more clients to show - trainer happy, show management happy, clients happy...

I don't like the dumming down of horse shows either but as long as clients are happy to pay 2-3 times as much to do a X-rail class at a rated show; then management has every right to offer them and increase their profits. We can argue about show management profits all we want but the bottom line is - if they don't make a profit there will be fewer shows.

Schune
May. 3, 2009, 01:27 PM
Well, here's the opinion of one who has only shown the 2'6" divisions at small A-shows:

You don't know me. You don't know the falls that I've taken in my 12 years of riding, the bad concussions I've racked up from cracking THREE helmets (why do I always manage to fall on my head? ;) ), or the unreliable, dirty-stoppers that I've been able to afford. You don't know my history, and therefore I don't think you can make a statement such as "If you can't jump higher than 2'6", you don't belong at A shows" without sounding like, well... a big snob who's too big for her britches. Sorry :)

I would LOVE to be able to show at 3'6" so I can revel in my amazingness and ability with all y'all up in the clouds. I really would, but seeing as how
1. I'm in college, so I have no money
2. I'm in college, so my priorities are on my EDUCATION and future career
3. All the horses available to me are schoolies whose legs will break if you jump them higher than 2'
4. I don't have the mental confidence or ability to do 3'6" without having a panic attack

this just isn't feasible.

If you don't like that, look at it from this perspective:

2'3" division - 40+ entries
2'6" division - 40+ entries
A/O jumper division - maybe 4 entries, 5 tops if the show is lucky

What do you think is more valuable to the show hosts? If you still don't like it, then come up with your own show series of exclusive 3'6" classes. Then you won't be inconvenienced.

Jersey Fresh
May. 3, 2009, 01:27 PM
No, Cita, that is not at ALL what my post means. It means that there should be some level that is attainable by being a good rider, able to ride at a certain level, that is EARNED by moving up the divisions. That is why different levels of horse shows were created in the first place. It has NOTHING, I will say it again, NOTHING to do with status, haves vs have nots, or anything like that. DO NOT put words in my mouth.

You could be an absolutely fabulous rider but still not have a horse that can cart your ass around a 4' course. Not everyone can afford a 3'6" horse, therefore its not always the rider's abilities that hold them back to 2'6" or 3'. Not all of us have a trust fund, come from a family with old money or are willing to take out a loan to buy a six figure horse. I make a good living for someone my age and I have absolutely no debt, but guess what I still couldn't afford to buy a made AO hunter. So why should someone like me, who has a greenie to bring along, be limited to crappy schooling shows? While I agree the first few shows should be schooling shows, after a while I see nothing wrong with going and doing the 2'6" at a rated show. Its the level of competion, better courses, sights and sounds and higher quality judges that you just don't get at local schooling show. Around here, some of hte schooling shows are pretty good but others are downright scary. I feel like a good ride/ribbon at a rated show means a hell of a lot more than at a schooling show.

bascher
May. 3, 2009, 01:33 PM
You could be an absolutely fabulous rider but still not have a horse that can cart your ass around a 4' course. Not everyone can afford a 3'6" horse, therefore its not always the rider's abilities that hold them back to 2'6" or 3'. Not all of us have a trust fund, come from a family with old money or are willing to take out a loan to buy a six figure horse. I make a good living for someone my age and I have absolutely no debt, but guess what I still couldn't afford to buy a made AO hunter. So why should someone like me, who has a greenie to bring along, be limited to crappy schooling shows?

AMEN AMEN MANE. I'm in college, I can't afford a 3'6" horse right now, so I have a baby that I'm working with. I do the 3' stuff with him because at this point in his training, he isn't ready for the 3'6" yet. However, that doesn't mean I'm not capable of doing the 3'6", I have done it in the past and my trainer believes that I capable of doing it now, but my horse is green, and I don't want to push him too hard.I know you weren't talking about the 3' divisions necessarily, but the same logic applies to someone that has a 2'6" horse not because of their level, but because at this point they have a greenie, are in school, have bills to pay, etc.

Transplant
May. 3, 2009, 02:24 PM
What about the fact that the A shows have better judges? I would rather have the opinion of a judge at an A show than some of the "judging" I have seen at schooling, etc shows. That factor alone makes it worth wile for many to choose the higher level shows.

I just rode in my first school show and yeah I thought the judging was a bit arbitrary. It was like the judge didn't want to leave anyone out and so the placements from one round in the same class to another varied widely. I appreciate the fact that school shows are more informal and relaxed but I was expecting them to be a reasonably objective measure of your riding progress however much of a beginner you are. I was also expecting my trainer to teach us things we'd need to do in the show before she recommended us. A horse show, even an informal school show, is not the place to first learn to back up a horse. :mad:

My overall impression was that the approach to everything was a bit too casual. Its great they didn't require us to be turned out to the nines but I wasn't expecting the casualness to extend to the riding preparation for the show and the judging which didn't seem to make sense. BTW, I got a second place in one class and doubt seriously if I deserved it.

tikihorse2
May. 3, 2009, 02:31 PM
Wow. All I can say is, now I know why my trainer has been gently discouraging me from even TRYING to attain A shows. I'm really disappointed! :cry:

See, finally in my life I can afford it, and I finally have a horse who can do it. He did A's and AA's with his former owner. I was so excited at the thought... it's been my dream all my life to show. :( :cry:

But I'm 46, and a little "fluffy", and I'd be doing the "mortified adults". Jeez. If the stuff I'm seeing on this thread is the attitude of a lot of the people at the A shows, again, I see why my trainer suggested I show at locals and then aim for B's.

Here we are, in case you want to see me and my horse that I LITERALLY dreamed of having. Just bought him in January and he has more talent than I'll ever utilize in my lifetime. I'll retire him before I outgrow him, God willing. "Twister Blues", Appendix Quarter horse.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/meezergal/

Kim

GallopGirl
May. 3, 2009, 02:54 PM
I understand where looking at a prize list and seeing that would make you say, "hmmmm..." and at first glance, it does seem a little silly. Traditionally A shows have been the highest level of competition. That's why you have to braid.. to set yourself apart because the bar is set much higher. Clipped, shiny, clean, etc. Local shows, that's not a requirement for the most part. If the classes fill, why not have the extra bodies to help keep expenses down for everyone. If you're an ammie showing and you have a kid who also rides, why not be able to throw the pony on the trailer and both of you get to compete. Win/win situation.

When I was a kid, I rode short stirrup and long stirrup classes at the Oaks. I remember being long stirrup champ for a week at the end of the summer. I was thrilled, even though the class was 2' or 2'3. It gave me a goal. Some people are limited by horses, or fear, or whatever. If there are classes for every level, why not let them work toward goals. It's just improving the sport for everyone.

Also, what would you call the "cut off". What should be the lowest division? In my opinion 2'6 is low. Those are schooling jumps that a horse can literally walk up to and hop over. Why even have a 2'6 division? Do you start at 3'? Why not start at 3'6 because that's the height IMO that you need skill to jump. Anything lower, a horse can literally just pick up the landing gear even from a bad spot, and get over it. But how many people are showing at 3'6 and above? Not as many as are doing the 3' and below. If people are having fun, pumping money into our sport, loving on their horses, why not let them enjoy a fancy show? Why not let them set a goal and reach it?

supershorty628
May. 3, 2009, 03:23 PM
Wow. All I can say is, now I know why my trainer has been gently discouraging me from even TRYING to attain A shows. I'm really disappointed! :cry:

See, finally in my life I can afford it, and I finally have a horse who can do it. He did A's and AA's with his former owner. I was so excited at the thought... it's been my dream all my life to show. :( :cry:

But I'm 46, and a little "fluffy", and I'd be doing the "mortified adults". Jeez. If the stuff I'm seeing on this thread is the attitude of a lot of the people at the A shows, again, I see why my trainer suggested I show at locals and then aim for B's.

Here we are, in case you want to see me and my horse that I LITERALLY dreamed of having. Just bought him in January and he has more talent than I'll ever utilize in my lifetime. I'll retire him before I outgrow him, God willing. "Twister Blues", Appendix Quarter horse.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/meezergal/

Kim

Please don't feel discouraged by what you're reading. There will always be people who mutter about divisions that they feel "shouldn't be at the A shows" (I've seen this about any division, from the crossrails and modified divisions to the low junior jumpers). Just because there are some people who think the A shows should just be the rated divisions doesn't mean that everyone feels that way by any means (and I've seen more than one big name trainer with clients in the lower and unrated divisions). Keep your chin up! :)

EAY
May. 3, 2009, 03:23 PM
This might belong in a different thread, but one of the problems that I've seen with the addition of lower level jumper classes at the rated shows is that you see quite a bit of scary riding in these classes (not to say that that's true of everyone). I think it made sense when you were expected to have reached a certain level in your riding and been able to negotiate 3'6 junior hunter and equitation courses before you moved up to the jumpers. Nowadays even at an AA show like Capital Challenge a lot of the kids in the children's jumpers do not seem ready to be riding a jumper course and look like they could easily hurt themselves or their horses if it were not for their saint-like horses saving their butts time and again. I imagine this is not such an issue in the 2'6 hunter divisions.

The other thing that I can't quite understand is as everyone keeps saying the upper level hunter divisions have so few entries. That's not how I remember it at the A shows in the late 70s and early 80s. At least in the large ponies there were usually at least 25 and sometimes 40 in a class, and shows always had separate divisions for smalls, mediums and larges. And this was in an area that also had well-run, competitive local show series.

silver2
May. 3, 2009, 03:53 PM
I could care less if they offer crossrail classes. My concern is that the lower classes seem to run on the weekend while the bigger fences go during the week. I would love to see the Level 5/6/7 classes offered over the weekend.

EXACTLY. :yes::yes: The proliferation of the unrated divisions has directly impacted the rated divisions and made them logistically impossible for the normal amateur rider who rides at that level. THAT is why we "care that people do the lower levels". It essentially means that I can't show anymore and the only reason I can see is so trainers can make more money in a more convenient fashion?

Showing seems to have become more about transferring money from clients to trainers than actually providing a venue for good competition.

How about we move the unrated divisions to the midweek slot :) Or more realistically, have them at the same venue the week before the rated divisions which would be moved back to Fri-Sun?

imapepper
May. 3, 2009, 04:24 PM
No, Cita, that is not at ALL what my post means. It means that there should be some level that is attainable by being a good rider, able to ride at a certain level, that is EARNED by moving up the divisions. That is why different levels of horse shows were created in the first place. It has NOTHING, I will say it again, NOTHING to do with status, haves vs have nots, or anything like that. DO NOT put words in my mouth.

Actually...I think lauriep kind of gets where I was going with my rant. Geez....I wasn't saying that people who show under 2'6" suck and I am certainly not a upper level princess. I wouldn't dream of taking any of my greenies right now to an A show. They don't belong there yet. If I did go, I would be going to hack and school but not show. Maybe I am just old and do need to get over myself. I always looked at A shows as a place that you graduated to after getting mileage at schooling shows, then C - B shows. I have always looked at it as a place to aspire to go put in a respectable showing. When I feel like my horses can get around well at the locals, then I will start thinking about taking old butt (hopefully I will have gotten the stick out by then) to an A show :rolleyes:

BTW....as a working adult I would love to see AA hunters on the weekends. Adding a bunch of small classes and scheduling them for kids makes that even more unlikely. Part of the reason that I don't go (besides my green horses) is that all the classes that I can do run during the week.

rydrzup
May. 3, 2009, 04:48 PM
I guess if you use the suggested guidlines proferred by some...that 2'6 or less doesnt belong...I guess fat people dont deserve to go to the beach...or should I say the nicest beaches.

All the pretty people can be together and feel pretty...

Im sorry. Actually Im not. You people are idiots.

Its sad you use your horse as a vehicle for self importance. While you hens are cackling ...Im having a GREAT time at the shows. Mind your own business and work on being fabulous.

Queen Latisha
May. 3, 2009, 04:55 PM
Wow. All I can say is, now I know why my trainer has been gently discouraging me from even TRYING to attain A shows. I'm really disappointed! :cry:

See, finally in my life I can afford it, and I finally have a horse who can do it. He did A's and AA's with his former owner. I was so excited at the thought... it's been my dream all my life to show. :( :cry:

But I'm 46, and a little "fluffy", and I'd be doing the "mortified adults". Jeez. If the stuff I'm seeing on this thread is the attitude of a lot of the people at the A shows, again, I see why my trainer suggested I show at locals and then aim for B's.

Here we are, in case you want to see me and my horse that I LITERALLY dreamed of having. Just bought him in January and he has more talent than I'll ever utilize in my lifetime. I'll retire him before I outgrow him, God willing. "Twister Blues", Appendix Quarter horse.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/meezergal/

Kim

Please don't let a few bad apples, spoil the bunch.
I have a great time showing, no matter what division I'm in.
To be honest, the attitude of the OP is not the majority. I don't find the people at "A" shows any snootier, then any other show.
If you want to show, go for it and have a great time.
Don't let stupid opinions deter you from what you want to do.:D

ynl063w
May. 3, 2009, 05:12 PM
I wouldn't dream of taking any of my greenies right now to an A show. They don't belong there yet. If I did go, I would be going to hack and school but not show.

Great. You're not good enough to compete at an A show, so you're going to go and clog up the schooling ring and get in the way of everyone who IS (in your opinion) good enough to be there (and is paying to be there).

If the purpose of A shows was to be exclusive to only the best horses and riders at the top levels, they would all be like Devon and indoors: you would have to qualify for them. Those who want to chase points over the bigger jumps can do so no matter what someone else is jumping in the next ring.

Heineken
May. 3, 2009, 05:17 PM
I'm not going to comment on the rest of this thread but I will tell you that the group of ladies in the Pre Adults at the A and B rated shows near me are the MOST lovely, kind and supportive people out there. There wasn't a show that I didn't feel like I was thrilled when any one of us won. It's usually people on their crazy greenies(me) or ladies like yourself who have their dreamcometrue packer and are having fun. Please go and enjoy!!! Your horse is LOVELY!

babygreenqueen
May. 3, 2009, 05:39 PM
OMG i am laughing so hard at all you snobs out there with your petty complaints. i love the analogy of not allowing FAT people at the beach!

why do YOU care how people spend their money? too long a line to the porto potty or burger truck?? dont want to be photographed next to someone in a TROXEL? maybe Mine That Bird should have NOT been allowed to run yesterday with that 8500 yearling price tag and all....

i applaud ANYONE SHOWING at any level. its a sport and supposed to be FUN.
its a test of your skill level at a point in time. its a social venue.

i dont know how to create an alter but as you see i am the babygreenqueen
crossrailhunter -wonderwoman. baby after baby year after year, and at my age PROUD to show my youngsters.
if we have to start out in pre womb suitable hunters, who cares what people say. if we have to dumb down as you call it, to schooling shows, WHO cares!

a note about dressage shows......id like to see you bitch at Hilda Gurney or
Lisa Wilcox doing an intro or T-1 test on a young horse.

whatever your level BE PROUD and not intimidated by ' the haves' with the big egos. dont spend money you dont have to impress people you dont like.

have fun and ride well.

lauriep
May. 3, 2009, 05:56 PM
Please don't let a few bad apples, spoil the bunch.
I have a great time showing, no matter what division I'm in.
To be honest, the attitude of the OP is not the majority. I don't find the people at "A" shows any snootier, then any other show.
If you want to show, go for it and have a great time.
Don't let stupid opinions deter you from what you want to do.:D

Since when does having a DIFFERING opinion make someone stupid? Bad apples? Not once have any of us who disagree stooped to name calling and belittling. In fact, we have bent over backwards to be clear that it IS NOT a status issue, but an issue of accomplishment/riding to a certain level. Is your argument so weak that you have to resort to juvenile tactics?

lauriep
May. 3, 2009, 05:58 PM
OMG i am laughing so hard at all you snobs out there with your petty complaints. i love the analogy of not allowing FAT people at the beach!

why do YOU care how people spend their money? too long a line to the porto potty or burger truck?? dont want to be photographed next to someone in a TROXEL? maybe Mine That Bird should have NOT been allowed to run yesterday with that 8500 yearling price tag and all....

i applaud ANYONE SHOWING at any level. its a sport and supposed to be FUN.
its a test of your skill level at a point in time. its a social venue.

i dont know how to create an alter but as you see i am the babygreenqueen
crossrailhunter -wonderwoman. baby after baby year after year, and at my age PROUD to show my youngsters.
if we have to start out in pre womb suitable hunters, who cares what people say. if we have to dumb down as you call it, to schooling shows, WHO cares!

a note about dressage shows......id like to see you bitch at Hilda Gurney or
Lisa Wilcox doing an intro or T-1 test on a young horse.

whatever your level BE PROUD and not intimidated by ' the haves' with the big egos. dont spend money you dont have to impress people you dont like.

have fun and ride well.

READ FOR COMPREHENSION! NOT ABOUT EGOS!!!

GreenMachine
May. 3, 2009, 06:16 PM
So what, exactly, is all the outrage about? I understand the argument that the lower divisions hog the prime weekend time, making it harder for the working AA or A/O to make a show during the week. But this whole "dumbing down" argument seems pretty weak.

Horse showing is a business. Should the shows not offer divisions that lots of people are (apparently) willing to pay big money for? I'll complain about the cost all day long, but what's wrong with a business seeking maximum profit (assuming that it's not dumping toxic waste in a playground or something equally detrimental to society in the process)? If the mileage rule went away, I'm sure several of the more egregiously opportunistic shows would go under, but even then shows will offer what people are willing to pay for.

Yeah, yeah, it would all be nice if we could all ride 3'6" perfectly and "earn" our way to the As. There are a lot of perfectly valid reasons why things ain't the way they used to be. So, what's the problem? Besides, last I checked, you still have to qualify for Devon, Pony Finals, and indoors.

babygreenqueen
May. 3, 2009, 06:27 PM
whoaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

LAURIEP

holy cribbing strap.....with spikes!!!!!


calm down girl:eek:

rydrzup
May. 3, 2009, 06:44 PM
all of you 2'6 riders who dont deserve to leave the zip code...dont belong at A shows according to lauriep and others because you didnt earn your way to the Big A shows...I salute you. For the single reason of surviving the schooling breaks at local shows. Have you EVER witnessed this event?

Ive seen plenty of riders over the years have parents buy them a string of the top ponies...(As many as 4) ...or top eq horses they didnt train...or buy a horse qualified for indoors or Devon they just purchased. Did they earn it? Soooooooo what.


PS I think all the people who go to Devon to watch that dont have boxes dont deserve to watch. They didnt come from the right backround...they didnt earn enough money or marry right. What a scary attitude. Some of you have a lack of humility and trust me...when life throws you a curveball, you just may learn to be more tolerant.

enjoytheride
May. 3, 2009, 06:45 PM
So what level is special enough to show at a A show then? What level of accomplishment?

What if your level of accomplishment or idea of special differs from someone else? If you don't want people below a certain height to show at your show because they have not accomplished enough isn't that about ego at least a little bit? I've seen people be scary and dangerous in 2' 6" and I've seen people that are gasp worthy all the way up the levels. If someone's ultimate goal is to show 2' 6" at an A show and the show can fit their classes in what is the big deal? Maybe that is a huge accomlishment and where their skill and or horse safely maxes out at.

bascher
May. 3, 2009, 06:56 PM
\ I wouldn't dream of taking any of my greenies right now to an A show. They don't belong there yet. If I did go, I would be going to hack and school but not show.

I don't feel that just because my horse is green, he doesn't belong at an A show. Yes, we did some local shows and he got experience there, but it's not the same kind of experience that he gets at an A show. It makes me all the prouder when my green horse does well at an A show, because it proves that he is maturing and can compete against the big guns. Anyway, it's my decision if I want to bring my green horse to A shows and it certainly isn't hurting anyone. It's not like he can't jump, isn't broke, etc. He does the 3' wonderfully, but he's still green. Every show is a learning experience and that's why I do them. How will my horse ever be good at an A show if he isn't "allowed" to do them because he's green? Yes, he can get experience at local shows, but it's not the same as the atmosphere at a bigger show.

dghunter
May. 3, 2009, 07:04 PM
I've always liked how the Merrill Lynch (or Chagrin Valley Hunter/Jumper Classic as I believe it's called now) had the unrated weekend the weekend before the regular show started. They also always have a handicapped riding day too. You still got some good competition because some people use the unrated weekend to warm up for the rated week. Guess that would be the best of both worlds for both sides!

That being said, my horse and I are still doing the 2'6". Because of me. He is more than capable of doing at least 3' and his previous owner did 3'6" with him. However, I've been having some confidence issues and such so we stick with the 2'6". I go to whatever my trainer is planning on going to show wise for the year. If that means that we go to an A show and do the 2'6" so what? That is where my trainer is. Around here we typically only have one show a weekend and sometimes it's a schooling show and sometimes it's an A show. I'm in college and I'm in a long distance relationship and Director of Rituals in my sorority. That means that a lot of my weekends get tied up with other things so sometimes I can only go to A shows. I usually try to schedule for the schooling shows and especially Cs and Bs because they're cheaper and as I mentioned I'm a college student :lol:

And trust me watching the same 3'6" junior trip over and over again is just as boring to me as watching the same 2'6" hunter trip over and over again :lol::lol: I do like watching ALL levels of jumpers, however.

And with the scheduling... I thought that the reason some of the adult stuff was during the week was because the juniors HAVE to go on the weekends during the school year?? But I could just be making that up for all I know :lol:

magnolia73
May. 3, 2009, 07:09 PM
But I'm 46, and a little "fluffy", and I'd be doing the "mortified adults". Jeez. If the stuff I'm seeing on this thread is the attitude of a lot of the people at the A shows, again, I see why my trainer suggested I show at locals and then aim for B's.

Don't be discouraged. If your dream is to go do an A show, you go do an A show. If your goal is to go and show at the best venue, go for it!

My barn had some local shows- I went to the first one to watch and it really was fun, but lacked the "specialness" of a big show.

Obviously, there is demand for more beginner divisions at these shows. They are often huge and very competitive. Growing up, the lowest classes at most shows were 2'6 - those divisions were always big and competitive. Just because the jumps are little, doesn't mean the performances stink. And the horses and riders were always well turned out and prepared to a high level.

I do see how these divisions can negatively impact the schedule though. But honestly- if the divisions bother you, don't show in them! Tell the show manager it bothers you. But don't belittle the people who choose to show in them. They just want to enjoy showing... they aren't hurting you.

mvp
May. 3, 2009, 07:15 PM
I think the peeps who are seeing two sides developing around the need for inclusion in big shows via dinky divisions and the opposite as elitism have missed the point.

If it were not so expensive to buy a bigger-jumping horse and if it weren't so expensive to learn to ride it well enough to show, I think the problem would go away to an extent.

I don't think that "modern showing" where you are welcome to spend, say $700 a week to show in the dinky's is a good idea. Follow me in my look at the future and see what you think:

The 3'6" horse has become so expensive in part because it makes up for the mistakes that people who haven't spent years and years getting there tend to make. (If you're a perfect rider, relax, I'm not talking about you!)

You can't afford one of these, and you want to have a showing goal. No problem, your trainer has just the first horse for you to buy so that you can get into at the 2' level. By the way, your trainer isn't really interested in you if you don't want to lease/buy/show. After all, he or she has to make a living and teaching and training frankly don't do it. So with, say, 18 months under your belt, you buy him (including commission). You are now on the conveyer belt that will continued to lead you to larger and larger purchases and showing bills.

But wait a sec. Trainers with competive owners got the same idea and someone bought an even more beautiful, kind 2' packer than the one you have. They're whipping you and the rider has only been at it for a year! Of course, that angelic horse cost more....

So my point is that by taking the requirement of slowly learning to ride out of the equation, we create a problem. It might not be big right now, but then the 3'6" horse wasn't quite the expense 25 years ago either. I'm just suggesting that everyone who has entered this debate look beyond their situation to imagine a collective world that changes.

lauriep
May. 3, 2009, 07:35 PM
whoaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

LAURIEP

holy cribbing strap.....with spikes!!!!!


calm down girl:eek:

No, not when people continue to insist on reading my opinion as something it is not. Over and over, I have repeated that I am talking about riding ability and level of training. And it has been called egotistical, bad apples, stupid, among others. It is merely my opinion, which I have formulated after many years in the business, both "back then" and now. And so, I am as entitled to it as those who like the way things are. And they aren't being called names because they are welcome to their opinions, when stated without name calling, as I am and anyone else is.

My opinion is that cross-rails don't belong at A shows, other than in the schooling area.

xabbracadabra
May. 3, 2009, 07:41 PM
No, not when people continue to insist on reading my opinion as something it is not. Over and over, I have repeated that I am talking about riding ability and level of training. And it has been called egotistical, bad apples, stupid, among others. It is merely my opinion, which I have formulated after many years in the business, both "back then" and now. And so, I am as entitled to it as those who like the way things are. And they aren't being called names because they are welcome to their opinions, when stated without name calling, as I am and anyone else is.

My opinion is that cross-rails don't belong at A shows, other than in the schooling area.

But you still have not given a valid enough reason. Going to a local schooling show is NOTHING like going to a big A show with huge tents and vendors everywhere. Going to a local schooling show does nothing when you go to your first A show. It does almost nothing to prepare you for the difference unless you have grown up knowing about both worlds. I know that my horse for one could have cared less about anything at a schooling show but put up tents and he would freak out. So yes, I went to A shows to do -gasp- crossrails to get him used to it

babygreenqueen
May. 3, 2009, 07:54 PM
laurie p didnt you say that......in the real world we cant always do what we want......paraphrased.....



so then i am sorry you have to be at the same A shows with ME doing CROSSRAILS


i will try my best :Dto stay out of your way

2boys
May. 3, 2009, 08:08 PM
Wow, I stumbled upon this thread and am so glad I did! What a great idea! Especially when these economic times call for leaning things out. Get rid of most lower level shows, and combine all level classes into one big show that EVERYONE can attend and enjoy. I love it! Sorry if I am raining on the elitists' parade, but I think this is a really good idea!

enjoytheride
May. 3, 2009, 08:20 PM
I've asked this before, what about the lower height indicates a lack of riding ability? I'm sure some people that ride at this height have no business doing so but that is true of every level and says more about the trainer then it does the class being at an A show. Wouldn't they be just as dangerous at a B or C show? What makes a lack of ability ok to do at a lower show then an A show?

Again, I've asked before, if someone is skilled at 2' 6" but has no desire to show above that, why can't they do an A show?

Albion
May. 3, 2009, 08:21 PM
Wow, I stumbled upon this thread and am so glad I did! What a great idea! Especially when these economic times call for leaning things out. Get rid of most lower level shows, and combine all level classes into one big show that EVERYONE can attend and enjoy. I love it! Sorry if I am raining on the elitists' parade, but I think this is a really good idea!

Right, because getting ridding of lower level shows that are the only shows many people can afford to show at is a great idea & really combats the idea that horse shows are only for the wealthy. :confused:

2boys
May. 3, 2009, 08:23 PM
Again, I've asked before, if someone is skilled at 2' 6" but has no desire to show above that, why can't they do an A show?

They can and they should. It just seems like so much better business. What a huge market that everyone has been missing out on!!!

justathought
May. 3, 2009, 08:28 PM
So, ... now its not even ok for us to simply disagree....

I don't like to show when it rains, when its too hot, when its too cold, when there are horses spooking anywhwere near mine, if the courses are too hard, when the courses are too easy

In short, I like Goldilocks want everything just right

It doesn't usually happen, so I make my choices and I let other people makes theirs... it sure makes life easier

imapepper
May. 3, 2009, 08:34 PM
I've asked this before, what about the lower height indicates a lack of riding ability? I'm sure some people that ride at this height have no business doing so but that is true of every level and says more about the trainer then it does the class being at an A show. Wouldn't they be just as dangerous at a B or C show? What makes a lack of ability ok to do at a lower show then an A show?

Again, I've asked before, if someone is skilled at 2' 6" but has no desire to show above that, why can't they do an A show?

Nothing. It's case by case. I totally understand the "mortified" adult division, the baby green division and the limits which are 2'6" and were unrated classes.

If my horse is only cabable of getting around the crossrails, I wouldn't go to a show yet. He/she would not be ready in my opinion. I was just thinking it is ridiculous to spend $$$ to go do crossrails at an A show. There should be local shows (and there are several nice local circuits in the DFW area) for people to get their feet wet before moving up to A shows. Any kid that has done a season of local shows would be ready to do more than the crossrails at the A show.

imapepper
May. 3, 2009, 08:39 PM
Great. You're not good enough to compete at an A show, so you're going to go and clog up the schooling ring and get in the way of everyone who IS (in your opinion) good enough to be there (and is paying to be there).

Really unecessary comment :rolleyes: Do you really think that someone who is concerned that their horse isn't broke enough to show would really ride during a busy schooling time?

Vandy
May. 3, 2009, 08:40 PM
Get rid of most lower level shows, and combine all level classes into one big show that EVERYONE can attend and enjoy. I love it! Sorry if I am raining on the elitists' parade, but I think this is a really good idea!I can't tell if you are kidding or not. Those local unrated shows (and 1 or 2 day B or C shows) were precisely the venues where EVERYBODY could show because it was affordable. Dropping $1K+ for a beginner division at a rated show seems like a rip off to me, personally. But whatever floats your boat.


What I really don't understand is, the people saying they aren't jumping higher because they can't afford a horse who can jump over 2'6", and yet somehow they can afford to go to A shows?

I understand where LaurieP is coming from, and I hope she'll forgive me for my assumption, but I'm guessing that her views stem from the days where there WEREN'T any 2' or 2'6" divisions at the rated shows. It wasn't that long ago. Everyone who feels it's their "right" to be there needs to know that the crossrail, 2' and 2'6" divisions were unheard of 20 years ago. When the minimum height was 3'6" and in later years 3', there were plenty of horses showing at these heights because that's what was available, so people stepped up to the plate and jumped bigger if they wanted to play at the rated shows. And of course, the hunters weren't a "who can crawl around on a big dumbblood that never plays in the corners" contest, you galloped to the jumps on a TB. I know I'm not the only one who misses those days :sigh:

xabbracadabra
May. 3, 2009, 08:46 PM
I can't tell if you are kidding or not. Those local unrated shows (and 1 or 2 day B or C shows) were precisely the venues where EVERYBODY could show because it was affordable. Dropping $1K+ for a beginner division at a rated show seems like a rip off to me, personally. But whatever floats your boat.


What I really don't understand is, the people saying they aren't jumping higher because they afford a horse who can jump over 2'6", and yet somehow they can afford to go to A shows?

I understand where LaurieP is coming from, and I hope she'll forgive me for my assumption, but I'm guessing that her views stem from the days where there WEREN'T any 2' or 2'6" divisions at the rated shows. It wasn't that long ago. Everyone who feels it's their "right" to be there needs to know that the crossrail, 2' and 2'6" divisions were unheard of 20 years ago. When the minimum height was 3'6" and in later years 3', there were plenty of horses showing at these heights because that's what was available, so people stepped up to the plate and jumped bigger if they wanted to play at the rated shows. And of course, the hunters weren't a "who can crawl around on a big dumbblood that never plays in the corners" contest, you galloped to the jumps on a TB. I know I'm not the only one who misses those days :sigh:


I totally understand this point of view and I understand how people miss it but the world (and not just in horse shows) has changed since then to the point that it seems impossible. I did crossrails at A shows but I never paid over 1K. I trailered in for the day and just hung around and waited for my class to go off. I'm lucky enough that a lot of major A shows are within a 2 hour drive from my barn so why would I have gone to a schooling show when I was doing an A show and not have a massive price increase except in entry fees which in the grand scheme of things is not a big deal.

brightwhitestockings
May. 3, 2009, 08:50 PM
Its the level of competion, better courses, sights and sounds and higher quality judges that you just don't get at local schooling show. Around here, some of hte schooling shows are pretty good but others are downright scary. I feel like a good ride/ribbon at a rated show means a hell of a lot more than at a schooling show.

Very true. I posted earlier not sure why you would pay a lot more to do x-rails at a rated show when you could get the same expierence at a local one, but now i definitely see your point. My apologies

imapepper
May. 3, 2009, 08:51 PM
I guess if you use the suggested guidlines proferred by some...that 2'6 or less doesnt belong...I guess fat people dont deserve to go to the beach...or should I say the nicest beaches.

All the pretty people can be together and feel pretty...

Im sorry. Actually Im not. You people are idiots.

Its sad you use your horse as a vehicle for self importance. While you hens are cackling ...Im having a GREAT time at the shows. Mind your own business and work on being fabulous.

Over-react a little? :rolleyes:

Maybe we should let people start qualifiying for crossrails at Devon or indoors. Why not? Heck....let's start making some Olympic level classes for the lower level riders. I mean....it's certainly a different experience than the local show and why should it be exclusive. You can't get the same experience at a regular show....why shouldn't people be able to go it they can pay for it?

You guys are missing the point. I am not saying that people who ride over smaller jumps suck. I am not saying that they shouldn't go to shows. I am not saying that fat people shouldn't be allowed at beaches (OMG that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard). I am saying that the A level used to be something that people worked their way up to through other showing levels. I do realize that it is a money maker for the shows. I do realize it is convenient for the trainers who want all their clients to go on the road with them. I just think, personally, that it doesn't belong at that level.

And for all of those that say they can only get that experience at the A show, there are venders at every local NTHJC show. The schooling area is frankly way more hectic at the lower levels because people are learning which is good for everyone to learn to navigate around each other. There are plenty of shows that are held over several days which allow the beginners to get used to "away" show. Local shows are every bit as good as A shows to get experience.

harvestmoon
May. 3, 2009, 09:03 PM
I do realize that it is a money maker for the shows. I do realize it is convenient for the trainers who want all their clients to go on the road with them. I just think, personally, that it doesn't belong at that level.

So apparently the underling classes make a pretty penny for these shows. If they are removed, how will the shows make up for their loss? Higher fees?

Just wondering...

xabbracadabra
May. 3, 2009, 09:03 PM
Over-react a little? :rolleyes:

Maybe we should let people start qualifiying for crossrails at Devon or indoors. Why not? Heck....let's start making some Olympic level classes for the lower level riders. I mean....it's certainly a different experience than the local show and why should it be exclusive. You can't get the same experience at a regular show....why shouldn't people be able to go it they can pay for it?

You guys are missing the point. I am not saying that people who ride over smaller jumps suck. I am not saying that they shouldn't go to shows. I am not saying that fat people shouldn't be allowed at beaches (OMG that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard). I am saying that the A level used to be something that people worked their way up to through other showing levels. I do realize that it is a money maker for the shows. I do realize it is convenient for the trainers who want all their clients to go on the road with them. I just think, personally, that it doesn't belong at that level.

And for all of those that say they can only get that experience at the A show, there are venders at every local NTHJC show. The schooling area is frankly way more hectic at the lower levels because people are learning which is good for everyone to learn to navigate around each other. There are plenty of shows that are held over several days which allow the beginners to get used to "away" show. Local shows are every bit as good as A shows to get experience.

And little kids don't work hard to be able to show at the A's? I'm sorry but even in crossrails there is a big difference between the A's and the locals is a huge difference. Using the Olympics is extreme. The Olympics are not A shows that is a whole different level. And yes, if you can do leadline at Devon why can't you do crossrails?

Ghazzu
May. 3, 2009, 09:07 PM
I'm sorry, but the ENTITLEMENT to show at the upper level shows is the weakest arguement here,and the one I absolutely will not get on board with. This is the real world, folks, and not everyone gets to do everything they WANT to do. Whether due to $$, time, ability, whatever, sometimes you just accept that this is all you can do right now.

Now WHY trainers don't have assistant trainers anymore to stay home and take the lower level riders and horses to shows suiting their abilities, hence supporting and REBUILDING those shows is beyond me. The reason these shows are so few and far between is because somewhere along the line the trainers decided they could MAKE MORE MONEY off of you by taking you along on the long circuits (or just your horse) and you all bought into it. These valuable, and FUN, B and C shows then had to close down due to lack of entries.

Are they cash cows for the show managers? Sure they are, but they certainly don't cheapen the experience for the other entrants. They just put more cash in the manager's pocket. If they are doing so much financial good for the shows, why aren't the fees lower, the footing fantastic, and the complaints about stabling, food, facilities, non-existent? Somehow, the shows made it without these divisions years ago. Why can't the managers get a little creative and do so now?

I think the 3' AA division is a good idea, because people's lives do require more time away from riding now. But sorry, if you can only jump 2'6", you don't belong at an A show.


AMEN!

(And it should be noted, I'll not be jumping at an A hunter show in this lifetime, so it's not like I have the money and talent to be lording it over the plebes.)

2boys
May. 3, 2009, 09:13 PM
So there appears to be a difference in perception of what these rated shows represent. From where I am standing, it appears that there is one crowd who sees the rated shows as a level to which some may aspire. To others, it represents simply a venue to show your horse. This is where the issue may be.

xabbracadabra
May. 3, 2009, 09:19 PM
So there appears to be a difference in perception of what these rated shows represent. From where I am standing, it appears that there is one crowd who sees the rated shows as a level to which some may aspire. To others, it represents simply a venue to show your horse. This is where the issue may be.

I think most are saying that the venue is just an added bonus of the A shows...

imapepper
May. 3, 2009, 09:33 PM
And little kids don't work hard to be able to show at the A's? I'm sorry but even in crossrails there is a big difference between the A's and the locals is a huge difference. Using the Olympics is extreme. The Olympics are not A shows that is a whole different level. And yes, if you can do leadline at Devon why can't you do crossrails?

If they are still doing crossrails, they haven't put in enough hours yet. I am not saying that they are not working hard. They should do the crossrails until they are ready to move up to the 2 ft. And when they get to 2'6", they can go show the limits until they win their 6 blue ribbons at that level and move up :) They should put in the time it takes to develop their skills and move to the next level. When I was a kid, there weren't crossrails at a show. If you couldn't get around 2'6", there wasn't a division yet. You stayed at home until you could navigate a course at that height. I think that having those lower levels are great at the local circuits and C show and then when people are competant at that level....they have put in enough time to go to the A show.

Again....you all are missing the point. I am saying that it is something to aspire to after you have put in the time and effort to develop your skills. Thank you 2boys.....at least someone gets my point. I guess that my communication skills need some serious work. Using the Olympics is an extreme example....I was trying to get my point across and still failing miserably :rolleyes:.

xabbracadabra
May. 3, 2009, 09:40 PM
If they are still doing crossrails, they haven't put in enough hours yet. I am not saying that they are not working hard. They should do the crossrails until they are ready to move up to the 2 ft. And when they get to 2'6", they can go show the limits until they win their 6 blue ribbons at that level and move up :) They should put in the time it takes to develop their skills and move to the next level. When I was a kid, there weren't crossrails at a show. If you couldn't get around 2'6", there wasn't a division yet. You stayed at home until you could navigate a course at that height. I think that having those lower levels are great at the local circuits and C show and then when people are competant at that level....they have put in enough time to go to the A show.

Again....you all are missing the point. I am saying that it is something to aspire to after you have put in the time and effort to develop your skills. Thank you 2boys.....at least someone gets my point. I guess that my communication skills need some serious work. Using the Olympics is an extreme example....I was trying to get my point across and still failing miserably :rolleyes:.


I get what you mean about aspiring. But I don't think have crossrails and an A show kills that dream at all. It just gives you something better to look up to. And I disagree with the 6 blue ribbons too. What about kids who get massive show fears? They could win their ribbons but still not feel confident enough to move up and they deserve to be at the As and work there too. Unfortunately, we can't keep comparing show to how it was when you could only show 3'6" and above. Times change and you can't stop that so you just have to learn to enjoy it in a new way

jr
May. 3, 2009, 09:44 PM
"Are they cash cows for the show managers? Sure they are, but they certainly don't cheapen the experience for the other entrants. They just put more cash in the manager's pocket. If they are doing so much financial good for the shows, why aren't the fees lower, the footing fantastic, and the complaints about stabling, food, facilities, non-existent? Somehow, the shows made it without these divisions years ago. Why can't the managers get a little creative and do so now?"

Shows are a business -- expensive to put on. As good business men and women, they need to maximize profit. The lower level classes are there to make money! It's ridiculous to suggest that a show manager forego a division that puts that much $$ in their pocket. They have a right (and responsibility in corporate cases) to increase profit margin.

If you don't like it, don't watch them. You might be surprised how high your fees get in the elite divisions (stalls, entries, etc.) without the participation of the less accomplished horses and riders. Those divisions provide a great base that spreads the cost of facility rental, insurance, judges, jumps, EMT, etc etc. over a wider number of entries.

Whenever this subject comes up, it always astounds me. Everyone on the showgrounds admires the upper level divisions, and understand the differences. It's a shame that the respect doesn't always work both ways. Many of the folks showing in the 2'6" division worked hard to get to that level. If they want to spend the $$ to show at the A shows, the more the Merrier!

bornfreenowexpensive
May. 3, 2009, 09:49 PM
If they are still doing crossrails, they haven't put in enough hours yet. I am not saying that they are not working hard. They should do the crossrails until they are ready to move up to the 2 ft. And when they get to 2'6", they can go show the limits until they win their 6 blue ribbons at that level and move up :) They should put in the time it takes to develop their skills and move to the next level. When I was a kid, there weren't crossrails at a show. If you couldn't get around 2'6", there wasn't a division yet. You stayed at home until you could navigate a course at that height. I think that having those lower levels are great at the local circuits and C show and then when people are competant at that level....they have put in enough time to go to the A show.

Again....you all are missing the point. I am saying that it is something to aspire to after you have put in the time and effort to develop your skills. Thank you 2boys.....at least someone gets my point. I guess that my communication skills need some serious work. Using the Olympics is an extreme example....I was trying to get my point across and still failing miserably :rolleyes:.


I get your point and agree with it. Same thing is happening in eventing and dressage....WT tests for dressage. Tadpole divisions in eventing.

I think all these smaller classes puts the emphasis too much on showing rather than developing skills. (you can put milleage on green horses/riders WITHOUT going into the show ring---and yes, even get them use to the atmosphere and tents). I don't think it is elitist at all.....I think spending goobs of money to go in some of these classes a bit MORE elitst to be honest.


I do think it supports medocracy. I'm sorry...but I've yet met a rider who couldn't jump 3' on an average horse (not big money horse) with a little hard work and GOOD instruction. I think if riders are having to work so hard to learn to jump 2'6"....I question their training (someone is not giving them good basics, good skills and good confident exercises). When they have developed their skills....then you go to the shows.

lauriep
May. 3, 2009, 09:56 PM
"they deserve to be at the As and work there too."

There it is again. Entitlement. Why do they deserve to go to a show that they are not ready for?

"I get your point and agree with it. Same thing is happening in eventing and dressage....WT tests for dressage. Tadpole divisions in eventing.

I think all these smaller classes puts the emphasis too much on showing rather than developing skills. (you can put milleage on green horses/riders WITHOUT going into the show ring---and yes, even get them use to the atmosphere and tents). I don't think it is elitist at all.....I think spending goobs of money to go in some of these classes a bit MORE elitst to be honest.

I do think it supports medocracy. I'm sorry...but I've yet met a rider who couldn't jump 3' on an average horse (not big money horse) with a little hard work and GOOD instruction. I think if riders are having to work so hard to learn to jump 2'6"....I question their training (someone is not giving them good basics, good skills and good confident exercises)."

Yes.

Seven-up
May. 3, 2009, 09:59 PM
I don't get what the big deal is. They usually do the munchkin classes in a different ring, way far away from all the other rings. I never even see them. If they weren't listed on the prize list, I'd never know they were even going on.


If they only did 3'+ at shows, then people would be bitching because the stall fees would be $400/wk. instead of $200/wk., and the office fee would be $100. They'd need to cover their costs some way.

If someone wants to drop all that cash on an x-rail or 2'6" division, who cares?

If it makes you feel less special to know that someone is trotting x-rails on the same showgrounds that you are riding on, then maybe you have some personal issues you need to work on.

justathought
May. 3, 2009, 10:00 PM
....
I do think it supports medocracy. I'm sorry...but I've yet met a rider who couldn't jump 3' on an average horse (not big money horse) with a little hard work and GOOD instruction. I think if riders are having to work so hard to learn to jump 2'6"....I question their training (someone is not giving them good basics, good skills and good confident exercises).


I said this before but anyway, I think that A shows are a goal that should be worked towards... that being said, if the horse is already at the
show and if the ciricumstances are right I'll do a cross rail class...

I do a great deal to support my kid and her riding and it doesn't leave much, if any time, for me to go off on my own to shows. So, if it puts a smile on my face ---- why not

And, more importantly why does it bother you so much

Vandy
May. 3, 2009, 10:07 PM
And, more importantly why does it bother you so muchI'll reiterate once again why it bothers some of us, and it has nothing to do with being elitist. At the next A show I'm attending, the first 2 junior hunter classes and the Maclay are on a Friday, which is the last day of final high school exams for my students. Hard for these kids to skip this day, and even if they do, the juniors may not fill because they're on a Friday, a school day. All the crossrail and 2'6" kid/ammy classes are on the weekend. So a kid who's put in the time and the miles to get to the 3'6" divisions doesn't get to ride in their classes because of the cash cow classes taking up the weekend schedule. When we didn't have all those unrated 2'6" and crossrail classes, the juniors and the eq always showed on the weekends. Same with the A/Os. Is it elitist for those folks showing at 3'6" and higher to want their classes on days when there isn't school/work? If we were really wealthy elitist snobs, we'd probably have private tutors for the kids and none of the ammies would need to work so the scheduling wouldn't matter!

DancingQueen
May. 3, 2009, 10:14 PM
Not having read all and perhaps doing a repeat.

What first comes to mind is the professionals own children as well as the younger siblings (and sometimes parents) of their students riding in the big divisions.

They are pretty much forced to go where the rest fo the family goes so why not give them a chance to show too?

Secondly, some of our kids "grew up" on the circuit and they have collected enough hours in the ring to consider it a second home. Keeping track of their rings, their horses and which shows has the best icecream vendors. They are totally comfortable with the showenvironment already.

They will not get rattled by the stress and they will not get intimidated by the competition when they move up in the divisions, they've seen half of the kids through the minis and up.

I see nothing wrong with smaller divisions at bigger shows. I think it's great!

justathought
May. 3, 2009, 10:15 PM
Vandy,

The scheduling of the classes is not the responsibility of the fault of the rider... I've been to too many shows where my daughter's classes (at 3'6")started at 10pm... yep...10 pm - because the show manager underestimated the number of riders that would appear or mismanaged the schedule or did not have enough judges to run all the rings the entire day, or even more annoying because the ring was held open because a rider wasn't ready or a trainer had a conflict (a 45 minute conflict????). And, I have taken my kid out of school to do the classes that were scheduled during class time.

So... address the scheduling problem with the show manager... suggest it shift around from time to time - but to say people under 3' should not be there is IMHO less than gracious...

Seven-up
May. 3, 2009, 10:17 PM
Junior hunters have always been during the week. I can still remember the hoops I jumped through to take off school Thursday and Friday for the juniors. It happened a whopping one time.:lol:


Kids who live on the circuit miss some school. They get tutors, they make up tests, they make special arrangements with the school. If it's that important to someone, they make it work.

Do parents really spend the amount they do for 3'6" junior horses and eq horses and heavy showing and not realize when the classes go?

bornfreenowexpensive
May. 3, 2009, 10:19 PM
I said this before but anyway, I think that A shows are a goal that should be worked towards... that being said, if the horse is already at the
show and if the ciricumstances are right I'll do a cross rail class...

I do a great deal to support my kid and her riding and it doesn't leave much, if any time, for me to go off on my own to shows. So, if it puts a smile on my face ---- why not

And, more importantly why does it bother you so much


Why aren't you working on your own riding to be showing in the 3' division if you care so much about showing? If you are supporting your kid...you can also support yourself and put in the work to show. Why are your limiting yourself to show in cross rails?

It does bother me because it encourages some people to be a bit lazy. Not getting good instruction....not putting in the time. It goes to how I was raised and what showing was about......not something to be done until you were perpared (not lowering the skill levels needed to that everyone can show). Just a different priority.

At the end of the day...I don't really care but do consider it a waste of money but that is your money to waste.

DancingQueen
May. 3, 2009, 10:22 PM
Ok, I can see that the schedule could be an issue. I would suggest making the show-management aware of how their schedule makes it very hard for your kids to show in the important classes.
They may not realize that this is a bad week for the big eq kids to take 1/2 Friday off and they might try to accomodate the Big Eq kids by making changes in next years prizelist if they understand the problems.

Serah
May. 3, 2009, 10:27 PM
Why aren't you working on your own riding to be showing in the 3' division if you care so much about showing? Sorry...but I also work 70+ hours a week...and still ride 2-3 horses a day. Why...because I want to be the best rider I can be and I do want to show and compete. So I put in the work. If you are supporting your kid...you can also support yourself and put in the work to show. Why are your limiting yourself to show in cross rails?

It does bother me because of the scheduling factors....and also that it encourages some people to be a bit lazy. It goes to how I was raised and what showing was about......not something to be done until you were perpared (not lowering the skill levels needed to that everyone can show). Just a different priority.

I know this MIGHT come as a surprise to you... but some people do all this for fun
Thats great that you have your own set of goals and dedication, but you can't apply that same set to other people. What if someone who shows in the Regulars told you that you aren't working hard enough to come to the A shows because you're not showing in the 4'???

LAZY?? Seriously??? And has anyone ever thought of the professionals in this situation. The lower divisions are a great place to get people started in showing and to let them see if it is something they like enough to pursue and build on.

I can't believe some of the attitude on this thread... who is anyone on this board to say they are more qualified or have more of a right to be at any show than someone else...

Vandy
May. 3, 2009, 10:28 PM
Junior hunters have always been during the week.
Not talking about WEF today, talking about the shows 20 years ago when there weren't a million different unrated divisions. Absolutely the juniors were on the weekend. And the Medal/Maclay classes? Always on the weekend IME, especially during the school year. And of course we also had all the B and C shows that offered medal classes at one day shows, now at least in my area, it's spread out over 3-4 days if you want to show anything but unrated. I'm aware that back east there are still some one-day medal shows, but Medal and Maclay in this area are at A shows only.



Do parents really spend the amount they do for 3'6" junior horses and eq horses and heavy showing and not realize when the classes go? Not all of them spend a lot of money. I've had horses that have been very competitive in the 3'6" divisions that cost in the low 5-figures or even 4-figures that the riders have made up themselves. Currently, not 20 years ago ;) And just a few years ago, the circuit where we are now showing had less 2'6" and crossrails and consequently had more of the 3'6" and up stuff on the weekends.

justathought
May. 3, 2009, 10:29 PM
Why aren't you working on your own riding to be showing in the 3' division if you care so much about showing? Sorry...but I also work 70+ hours a week...and still ride 2-3 horses a day. Why...because I want to be the best rider I can be and I do want to show and compete. So I put in the work. If you are supporting your kid...you can also support yourself and put in the work to show. Why are your limiting yourself to show in cross rails?

It does bother me because it encourages some people to be a bit lazy. It goes to how I was raised and what showing was about......not something to be done until you were perpared (not lowering the skill levels needed to that everyone can show). Just a different priority.

At the end of the day...I don't really care but do consider it a waste of money but that is your money to waste.


I am over 50 years old - starting riding at 50 - and simply do not believe that I have the time, the horse, or the ability to do 3' - and probably not the courage either, I just do not bounce that well anymore.

I was an elite athlete as a teenager. I know what it takes to compete at that level and it isn't there anymore... It may be a function of old chronic injuries, it may be a function of being a perfectionist and knowing that the talent and knowledge and accuracy needed to be competitive at 3' and higher is A LOT different than at cross rails - or maybe you're right and it is simply laziness.. but whatever.

I am both safe and competitive at the low levels and it gives me joy. I don't look for shows to go to... but I'll hop on if the timing is right. It gives me a chance to be a competitor once again and to measure the progress I am making and that is just plenty for me

imapepper
May. 3, 2009, 10:34 PM
I do think it supports medocracy. I'm sorry...but I've yet met a rider who couldn't jump 3' on an average horse (not big money horse) with a little hard work and GOOD instruction. I think if riders are having to work so hard to learn to jump 2'6"....I question their training (someone is not giving them good basics, good skills and good confident exercises). When they have developed their skills....then you go to the shows.

This is why it bothers me. I totally agree with the statement above. It is not that I feel that my show experience is tainted by crossrails. It bothers me that people are not learning basics and not getting good instruction. It bothers me that riding is about showing and not about learning to ride. Learn to get around at home....not at the shows. Learn your show skills at schooling shows where judges (and I have judged the crossrails at schooling shows and taken the time out to talk to the kids) take the time to tell a curious kid why the class placed like it did :) If trainers put better basics on their students, they could be out there jumping around the 2'6". They just need competant instruction. Why are you guys selling yourselves short?

bornfreenowexpensive
May. 3, 2009, 10:36 PM
I know this MIGHT come as a surprise to you... but some people do all this for fun
Thats great that you have your own set of goals and dedication, but you can't apply that same set to other people. What if someone who shows in the Regulars told you that you aren't working hard enough to come to the A shows because you're not showing in the 4'???

.


I don't expect everyone to be showing 4'.....but 3' ISN'T that hard....and doesn't take much skill to do no matter what people may tell you. I know many many many riders who ride 2-3 times a week, on OTTBs, that are easily competitive riding 3'. Because they have gotten good instruction and work on it when they do ride. I do think about the professionals......being able to help a rider confidently ride a 3' course on an average horse is NOT difficult. Too many inadequate trainers though can make a living convincing people they are teaching them by taking them showing over cross rails. The trainers that I've had in my lifetime would NEVER encourage me to waste my money on a show....especially an A show...until we were ready. And if getting to that A show was my goal..and showing 3'....they would come up with the training plan to help me to get there.

And yes....I do ride for fun....and have been riding for 30+ years for fun. I have helped a lot of re-riders or new to riding adults and given them the advice to just wait until adding the showing. That showing ISN'T that big of a deal and isn't the end all be all...and it is more important to stay at home a bit longer and do a bit more work...and to be come a good competent rider (whether you show or not).

Vandy
May. 3, 2009, 10:38 PM
Kids who live on the circuit miss some school. They get tutors, they make up tests, they make special arrangements with the school. If it's that important to someone, they make it work.
Seven-up (I am still laughing about you beating your koi), I don't mean to keep picking apart your post, but here goes again:

I guess another point is, you didn't used to have to "live on the circuit" and miss a lot of school to get to medal finals or get points in the juniors. Because there were plenty of weekend options. Not every kid who wants more than anything to make it work has parents (or teachers) who are willing to let them miss a lot of school. I managed to qualify for Medal/Maclay/USET finals more than once without "living on the circuit", and am saddened that this is much harder to do these days.

2ndyrgal
May. 3, 2009, 10:40 PM
If you get to go to an "A" show, or any show for that matter, you are luckier than most. Except for the scheduling conflict, which I understand (and presume that the show management feels that folks with a competitive "A" medals horse, have enough dosh to skip work or school) how do you even begin to think that those with lesser horses and lesser skills, shouldn't have the same experience you do? You have to start somewhere. Everyone does. Maybe I want to eat a steak at a three star restaurant, not a hamburger at McD's. Maybe I want to go to a big show where there are vendors and golf carts and heaven forbid, maybe I'll head over to YOUR ring to watch YOU so I can have an example to aspire to that I don't get at the local shows. What a selfish git.

Seven-up
May. 3, 2009, 10:45 PM
Not talking about WEF today, talking about the shows 20 years ago when there weren't a million different unrated divisions. Absolutely the juniors were on the weekend. And the medal/maclay classes? Always on the weekend IME, especially during the school year.

Not all of them spend a lot of money. I've had horses that have been very competitive in the 3'6" divisions that cost in the low 5-figures or even 4-figures that the riders have made up themselves. Currently, not 20 years ago ;) And just a few years ago, the circuit where we are now showing had less 2'6" and crossrails and consequently had more of the 3'6" and up stuff on the weekends.


I'm not talking about WEF either. I've barely even seen pictures of WEF--forget about being there!:lol:

I did the juniors about 17 years ago. I took off Thurs. afternoon to school and Friday to show. At an 'A' show in podunk little Louisiana. I can't even see my junior years now with a time machine. It's been like this at all the shows in my area, and every prize list I've ever seen. It never made much sense to me to have jr & ammy classes during the week, but that was part of the razzle-dazzle of making it to those heights.

It's all about priorities. If you make your kid go to school instead of letting them show on a Friday, aren't you teaching them what's (in your eyes) more important? Some people place junior careers above school.

If someone thinks their kid deserves to ride in the 3'6" classes, and because of that they should be held on the weekend so poopsie doesn't miss class, why is that different than those parents who think their kid deserves to show even though they don't yet do 3'6"? Why do some kids deserve more than others?

twobays
May. 3, 2009, 10:46 PM
This is why it bothers me. I totally agree with the statement above. It is not that I feel that my show experience is tainted by crossrails. It bothers me that people are not learning basics and not getting good instruction. It bothers me that riding is about showing and not about learning to ride. Learn to get around at home....not at the shows. Learn your show skills at schooling shows where judges (and I have judged the crossrails at schooling shows and taken the time out to talk to the kids) take the time to tell a curious kid why the class placed like it did :) If trainers put better basics on their students, they could be out there jumping around the 2'6". They just need competant instruction. Why are you guys selling yourselves short?

Seriously, just mind your own business. Don't get your panties in a twist because of how other people view riding/showing. If I got this riled up about everyone doing something entirely inconsequential that bugged me, I'd have died of a heart attack years ago.

bornfreenowexpensive
May. 3, 2009, 10:46 PM
I am over 50 years old - starting riding at 50 - and simply do not believe that I have the time, the horse, or the ability to do 3' - and probably not the courage either, I just do not bounce that well anymore.




You're selling your self too short. I bet you would be fine....but you need people around you supporting YOU and giving you the exercises to be confident in your skills. To jump 3' doesn't require the work of an elite athlete..or a super fancy horse. But it does require a bit of commitment and might take you a bit of time. I know of MANY riders who started in their 40s-50s. No..not as easy when you start riding when you are younger....but can still be a lot of fun and no reason why you can not get there. You just need to take your time. None of us bounce so well any more......that ends after your 30s.....but then we do have better access to pain medication too!

Serah
May. 3, 2009, 10:46 PM
I don't expect everyone to be showing 4'.....but 3' ISN'T that hard....and doesn't take much skill to do no matter what people may tell you. I know many many many riders who ride 2-3 times a week, on OTTBs, that are easily competitive riding 3'. Because they have gotten good instruction and work on it when they do ride. I do think about the professionals......being able to help a rider confidently ride a 3' course on an average horse is NOT difficult. Too many inadequate trainers though can make a living convincing people they are teaching them by taking them showing over cross rails. The trainers that I've had in my lifetime would NEVER encourage me to waste my money on a show....especially an A show...until we were ready. And if getting to that A show was my goal..and showing 3'....they would come up with the training plan to help me to get there.

And yes....I do ride for fun....and have been riding for 30+ years for fun. I have helped a lot of re-riders or new to riding adults and given them the advice to just wait until adding the showing. That showing ISN'T that big of a deal and isn't the end all be all...and it is more important to stay at home a bit longer and do a bit more work...and to be come a good competent rider (whether you show or not).

Well good for you that 3' comes so easily. I have clients that might not agree with you... and I'm sure you'll place that blame on me, that I'm a poor instructor, or in your own words, "inadequate". Sometimes 3' isn't the goal... sometimes people think its fun to go to the shows and meet other riders in their same division, and watch their kids show, or watch their horse show with a pro or just enter some classes for fun. You don't think these people should be welcomed at the shows?? And I love how you use people riding 2-3 times a week on OTTB's as an "anyone can do it" example. Are you this judgemental all the time?? I'm sorry if that seems harsh, and I don't mean to pick a fight, I just can't believe what makes people think its okay to look down on other people so easily

snaffle635
May. 3, 2009, 10:47 PM
So there appears to be a difference in perception of what these rated shows represent. From where I am standing, it appears that there is one crowd who sees the rated shows as a level to which some may aspire. To others, it represents simply a venue to show your horse. This is where the issue may be.

You've hit the nail on the head. I browsed usef.org and according to GR313, the number of classes in a division, the amount of prize money offered, and the holding of required classes in certain divisions determine a show's ratings (AA, A, B, etc).

I understand that the A shows carry more prestige...they attract the better horses and riders because of the prize money and prestige associated with competing against the best. And I think it's that prestige that the OP feels is being compromised by offering additional classes.

But don't confuse the A divisions at an A show with non-rated classes which may be offered. These shows are just trying to broaden their attendance by offering something for everyone. The beginner classes do not compromise the achievements or prestige of competing in the more challenging divisions.

If people want to spend gobs of money to show over cross-rails at an A show, good for them!

tikihorse2
May. 3, 2009, 10:48 PM
I wanted to thank the people who had kind words for me (and my horse!). Thanks for understanding that I'm coming from the perspective of one for whom showing has been a lifelong dream, and now that I'm within actual reach of achieving it, it was really disheartening to read this thread!

I have no intentions of immediately trying for the A's, but I don't think I'll EVER be doing more than, say, 3'. I'm older and I don't bounce. I couldn't show when I was young and able to work my way up. To me, showing at 2'6" IS an enormous achievement!

I immediately am on guard people who start right off with "I'm apologizing in advance..." Right off, that's a warning that something is going to be less than pleasant. I DREAM of showing at 2'6" at an A show. THAT IS my aspiration. Maybe I won't even make it. But to say it's ridiculous or worse, "dumbing down" and then go back and try to say, "No, I didn't really say that, this is what I meant" doesn't fly with me. Think more carefully before you post. Especially since as others have said, it would seem that someone else's dreams may be funding your classes.

Kim

Seven-up
May. 3, 2009, 10:55 PM
Seven-up (I am still laughing about you beating your koi), I don't mean to keep picking apart your post, but here goes again:

I guess another point is, you didn't used to have to "live on the circuit" and miss a lot of school to get to medal finals or get points in the juniors. Because there were plenty of weekend options. Not every kid who wants more than anything to make it work has parents (or teachers) who are willing to let them miss a lot of school. I managed to qualify for Medal/Maclay/USET finals more than once without "living on the circuit", and am saddened that this is much harder to do these days.

Well, then that's an issue with points, not scheduling. You don't have to go to all those shows. You pick your show schedule carefully (arranged around school if that's important to you) and you can still get the job done.

Trust me, I know very well that not every kid with stars in their eyes has parents who want to make it happen. My folks wouldn't dream of spending the $$$ to let me show enough to qualify for the Maclays. I had to kiss that dream goodbye a long time ago.


But really, people used to have to walk uphill both ways in the snow to get to school. You and I used to have to answer the phone without the benefit of caller i.d. And remember the busy signal? :lol: Things ain't always gonna be like the good ol' days.

justathought
May. 3, 2009, 10:58 PM
You're selling your self too short. I bet you would be fine....but you need people around you supporting YOU and giving you the exercises to be confident in your skills. To jump 3' doesn't require the work of an elite athlete..or a super fancy horse. But it does require a bit of commitment and might take you a bit of time. I know of MANY riders who started in their 40s-50s. No..not as easy when you start riding when you are younger....but can still be a lot of fun and no reason why you can not get there. You just need to take your time. None of us bounce so well any more......that ends after your 30s.....but then we do have better access to pain medication too!

Perhaps... I will think about it.... thanks for the encouragement and vote of confidence.

twobays
May. 3, 2009, 11:07 PM
I LOVE when people throw around words like "entitlement" and then complain that the presence of little divisions takes the time slots away from the bigger divisions. Pot meet kettle.

Seriously, if I see the words "entitlement mentality" one more time on the boards, I'm gonna lose it.

dghunter
May. 3, 2009, 11:14 PM
I don't expect everyone to be showing 4'.....but 3' ISN'T that hard....and doesn't take much skill to do no matter what people may tell you. I know many many many riders who ride 2-3 times a week, on OTTBs, that are easily competitive riding 3'. Because they have gotten good instruction and work on it when they do ride. I do think about the professionals......being able to help a rider confidently ride a 3' course on an average horse is NOT difficult. Too many inadequate trainers though can make a living convincing people they are teaching them by taking them showing over cross rails. The trainers that I've had in my lifetime would NEVER encourage me to waste my money on a show....especially an A show...until we were ready. And if getting to that A show was my goal..and showing 3'....they would come up with the training plan to help me to get there.

And yes....I do ride for fun....and have been riding for 30+ years for fun. I have helped a lot of re-riders or new to riding adults and given them the advice to just wait until adding the showing. That showing ISN'T that big of a deal and isn't the end all be all...and it is more important to stay at home a bit longer and do a bit more work...and to be come a good competent rider (whether you show or not).

Bolded is mine. I am so happy that you find it so easy to jump 3' :rolleyes: I know I can jump 3' without any difficulties, I've done it before. I know I can do it on my horse, we've done it before. However, I've faced some confidence set backs so while in my head I know that I could jump a 3' fence if my trainer put it front of me I also know that I would still be a nervous wreck and probably pull back at the last minute :no:. I may never get over that and it really would be a shame but it's also a fact of life. I have a great trainer who has many successful students and successful horses that he has worked with from the beginning. I also ride 4-5 days a week on a nice warmblood who used to event and do 3'6" jumpers. So neither of those things are an issue.

However, I DO in fact have these confidence issues and would still like to do some of the bigger shows and have that experience and I don't see anything wrong with that. At the A shows that I've seen around here, most of the classes during the week are divisions typically ridden in by professionals. I was just looking at Andrews Osborne's entry form for the Ridgewood shows and that's exactly the way it was. Thursday and Friday were things like Pre-Greens and Greens. At the end of the day Friday there was a little bit of Children's/Adults Jumpers I believe. But everything else ran in two different rings on Saturday and Sunday. So my Low Adult division isn't taking a spot away from the juniors or other amateurs. So in this case I'm not sure what the big deal is at all?

bornfreenowexpensive
May. 3, 2009, 11:20 PM
And I love how you use people riding 2-3 times a week on OTTB's as an "anyone can do it" example. Are you this judgemental all the time?? I'm sorry if that seems harsh, and I don't mean to pick a fight, I just can't believe what makes people think its okay to look down on other people so easily


I used that example because those are the people I know. I like OTTBs...and have re-trained many of them....and many of them are DAMN fancy and very nice horses. My friends bought nice horses......for not tons of money...but good safe horses who are fancy enough for what they want. Thy don't have them in full training and are not riding an unattainable amount of time...most are hard working stiffs with family commitments...so 2-3 times a week is all they have time to ride. Yes, it took them some time to get to 3'.....but not forever. I don't look down on them....I have fun riding with them...and love watching them improve and have a good time. My point was you don't need to have a hard to find exceptional horse and ride every day to get to that level....IF that is your goal. Of course it is easier if you DO have that exceptional horse!

Some of the best horsemen or women that I know DON'T show. And I know lots of riders who ride for the sheer fun of riding. What I get suspicious of is trainers encouraging riders to spend a lot of money showing....or putting the emphasis on showing. I also see some of these riders very stressed out about the pressure....and wonder can they really be having fun.

But really....I don't care. If someone wants to spend their money that way...more power to them. But don't really understand it....and most of the riders in those classes that I've seen ARE perfectly capable of moving up with a little encouragement and a little work so it looks to an outsider like they were pressured into showing too early.

Lucassb
May. 3, 2009, 11:21 PM
I wanted to thank the people who had kind words for me (and my horse!). Thanks for understanding that I'm coming from the perspective of one for whom showing has been a lifelong dream, and now that I'm within actual reach of achieving it, it was really disheartening to read this thread!

I have no intentions of immediately trying for the A's, but I don't think I'll EVER be doing more than, say, 3'. I'm older and I don't bounce. I couldn't show when I was young and able to work my way up. To me, showing at 2'6" IS an enormous achievement!

I immediately am on guard people who start right off with "I'm apologizing in advance..." Right off, that's a warning that something is going to be less than pleasant. I DREAM of showing at 2'6" at an A show. THAT IS my aspiration. Maybe I won't even make it. But to say it's ridiculous or worse, "dumbing down" and then go back and try to say, "No, I didn't really say that, this is what I meant" doesn't fly with me. Think more carefully before you post. Especially since as others have said, it would seem that someone else's dreams may be funding your classes.

Kim

Glad you weren't put off!! Really, to read this board, one could understand someone deciding to take up bowling instead. But IME, the adults who show, particularly in the modified & adult rings, are really a great group of people and we have a BALL. You really CAN show at the A's without needing to be Margie Engle, I promise, and I bet you'll really enjoy it. Even when one of us has a so-so round, you will find that there is always someone there to say, "no worries, we've all been there," and no doubt, someone else to say, "that's why we bring the adult beverages!" ;) So come on in, the water's fine!

Trixie
May. 3, 2009, 11:27 PM
The proliferation of the unrated divisions has directly impacted the rated divisions and made them logistically impossible for the normal amateur rider who rides at that level. THAT is why we "care that people do the lower levels". It essentially means that I can't show anymore and the only reason I can see is so trainers can make more money in a more convenient fashion?

I’m another that was brought up thinking that the “A’s” were the crème de la crème and you didn’t show there until you were ready. I don’t particularly care who shows in what divisions or what divisions the show offers - but I *can* tell you that it’s incredibly inconvenient, as an amateur rider, when there’s a “novice rider 2’/2’6”” or “maiden equitation” division in a Saturday time slot and the “A” rated division I wanted to do is then scheduled for a WEDNESDAY, making it impossible for me to attend. Yes, that can be frustrating.


I guess if you use the suggested guidlines proferred by some...that 2'6 or less doesnt belong...I guess fat people dont deserve to go to the beach...or should I say the nicest beaches.

All the pretty people can be together and feel pretty...

Im sorry. Actually Im not. You people are idiots.

If one can’t make an argument without resorting to name-calling, one likely doesn’t have a strong point.



Especially when these economic times call for leaning things out. Get rid of most lower level shows, and combine all level classes into one big show that EVERYONE can attend and enjoy. I love it! Sorry if I am raining on the elitists' parade, but I think this is a really good idea!

This makes absolutely NO SENSE. In order to get ONTO THE GROUNDS for an “A” show, one is paying drug fees, stall fees, astronomical grounds fees, and lord knows what else. A local show has MAYBE a grounds fee and is therefore far more accessible to everyone.


Do you really think that someone who is concerned that their horse isn't broke enough to show would really ride during a busy schooling time?

YES. They can and they do. I see this ALL.THE.TIME.

Vandy
May. 3, 2009, 11:35 PM
If someone thinks their kid deserves to ride in the 3'6" classes, and because of that they should be held on the weekend so poopsie doesn't miss class, why is that different than those parents who think their kid deserves to show even though they don't yet do 3'6"? Why do some kids deserve more than others?IMHO, kids who've come up through the ranks do deserve more than those just starting. Do you think those crossrail kids deserve to show at indoors too? If so, I suggest you start a letter writing campaign now, because there's no 2'6" or crossrails at indoors ;) And you can show a crossrail or 2'6" course at any unrated schooling show. You can't qualify for the Medal/Maclay finals at schooling shows...so actually, the 2'6" crowd has even MORE opportunities to do their thing.

I guess our rated show experiences are different - in NE, there was always plenty of 3'6" on the weekends. It was a little more than 17 years ago in my case, but trust me, I'd still remember if I'd missed that much school every week :lol:

Vandy
May. 3, 2009, 11:42 PM
Wanted to add too, there are SO MANY 2'6" divisions at the shows I attend - schooling ponies, children's ponies, low adults, low children's, schooling hunters, limit hunters, beginner hunters, ad nauseam. Why can't there just be 1 or 2 2'6" divisions? I have no desire to see the 2'6" competitors disappear, I just want the scheduling to improve for the higher level juniors and ammies.

myrna
May. 3, 2009, 11:46 PM
money is money and if the show can offer classes to everyone that's ok.if you don't want to show in a cross rail class then don't.show in your own division and more power to all of the other riders,no matter what height they are jumping.everyone starts some where.after all us over 50 riders have more disposable income than some of the others.let us play in the pond too.

silver2
May. 3, 2009, 11:50 PM
You are not "showing at the As" if you do the 2'6". You are showing in an unrated division that happens to be held at the same venue on the same day as a courtesy to your trainer. Big difference! I'm not annoyed that you're "showing at an A show" and you're not good enough. I could care less. I'm annoyed that the A shows have prioritized these unrated divisions (which aren't technically even part of the show) over A-rated divisions and consequently killed them.

Whether you are at an A show or not has really no bearing on your division, it would be the same people and horses if it was held the weekend before too and called a "C" show.

mvp
May. 3, 2009, 11:54 PM
Just to check in on the train wreck.

To the poster who wanted to drop a great deal of coin to do little stuff at A shows. Have at it, but don't tell me that part of what's so important to you is the presence of big tent stalls and vendors. Spare me. The local shows could really use our support. No they don't have vendors (though some near me do!), but they do have appropriate classes, courses and time schedules.

The second reason to limit the dinky divisions is the sometimes spectacular lack of steering that beginners showing in these divisions demonstrate. Have you been in a schooling ring at a really big show? It's a disaster, even for those who do ride well enough to get around a bigger course. Most of the injuries I have seen in the schooling ring have, unfortunately, been caused by riders really not ready. Sorry to be a hard-a$$, but I begin to agree with the notion that some people shouldn't be at big shows when they seem to be the cause of a disproportionate number of wrecks.

Sometimes the "price of entry" to the A show circuit needs to be competence in the schooling ring.

Vandy
May. 3, 2009, 11:55 PM
Silver2, you just summed up what I was trying to say much better than I could have. Thank you for your eloquent post.

Trixie
May. 3, 2009, 11:58 PM
Wanted to add too, there are SO MANY 2'6" divisions at the shows I attend - schooling ponies, children's ponies, low adults, low children's, schooling hunters, limit hunters, beginner hunters, ad nauseam. Why can't there just be 1 or 2 2'6" divisions? I have no desire to see the 2'6" competitors disappear, I just want the scheduling to improve for the higher level juniors and ammies.

I'm guessing the reason is that everyone needs a place to ribbon? I've often been to local shows with 5-6 2'6" variations on a basic outside diagonal course.

dghunter
May. 3, 2009, 11:59 PM
Just to check in on the train wreck.

To the poster who wanted to drop a great deal of coin to do little stuff at A shows. Have at it, but don't tell me that part of what's so important to you is the presence of big tent stalls and vendors. Spare me. The local shows could really use our support. No they don't have vendors (though some near me do!), but they do have appropriate classes, courses and time schedules.

The second reason to limit the dinky divisions is the sometimes spectacular lack of steering that beginners showing in these divisions demonstrate. Have you been in a schooling ring at a really big show? It's a disaster, even for those who do ride well enough to get around a bigger course. Most of the injuries I have seen in the schooling ring have, unfortunately, been caused by riders really not ready. Sorry to be a hard-a$$, but I begin to agree with the notion that some people shouldn't be at big shows when they seem to be the cause of a disproportionate number of wrecks.

Sometimes the "price of entry" to the A show circuit needs to be competence in the schooling ring.

So those of us not quite ready to do the 3' or 3'6" or who have a four or five year old that we don't want to push should just go hang out at the schooling shows so we don't cause any accidents? :rolleyes: I have been to shows where the people showing in the 3' and up classes cause just as many problems as those doing crossrails. I've also had trainers who really do know better cut right in front me as I'm heading to a jump that I've clearly and loudly called. I have plenty of similar stories as well. I think what we need is better schooling ring etiquette all around but that's a different story for another thread.

EventFan
May. 4, 2009, 12:03 AM
This is why it bothers me. I totally agree with the statement above. It is not that I feel that my show experience is tainted by crossrails. It bothers me that people are not learning basics and not getting good instruction. It bothers me that riding is about showing and not about learning to ride. Learn to get around at home....not at the shows. Learn your show skills at schooling shows where judges (and I have judged the crossrails at schooling shows and taken the time out to talk to the kids) take the time to tell a curious kid why the class placed like it did :) If trainers put better basics on their students, they could be out there jumping around the 2'6". They just need competant instruction. Why are you guys selling yourselves short?

I completely understand what you are saying here. However, some areas simply do not have the local schooling shows you are describing.

mvp
May. 4, 2009, 12:15 AM
On the schooling ring problem. Yes, dammit, you should be able to steer, stop, ride in a predictable way.

People of all persuasions will be rude. What bugs me is the person who causes a wreck because they could not have done otherwise and therefore issues no apology. Sorry, but this kind of thing is just unsafe and rude.

You are entitled to show where ever your desire and checking account allow. You are not entitled to endanger other exhibitors because you, your trainer, your ego said nothing less than an A show would do.

Seven-up
May. 4, 2009, 12:19 AM
I don't need to write letters. I don't care about the crossrail classes. But I don't see why anyone else doesn't want them to be there. IF there's a scheduling problem in your area, then maybe you should write some letters to get it fixed. It seems perfectly reasonable to me to want your classes to run when you're able to get there. I bet there will be some complaining later on, when the juniors are on the weekend and get 15 entries...somebody's going to be mad they aren't getting the points they need.:winkgrin:


But you bring up a good point. What about the pony classes? Should they get the boot because they are at 3' or under? A lot of those kids are just starting out. Why are they the exception? Additionally, I see a lot of pony kids (not the pro-pony jocks) who have no business jumping as high as they do--some of them are flopping all over the place. So why can't adults (who might be flopping all over the place) ride in a class that's appropriate for them?


How do you think the kids who came up thru the ranks got there? If they grew up in the last 15 years or so, chances are they were doing the little jumps at rated shows. The classes weren't rated, just like they aren't rated now.


I totally get your issues with scheduling. So work on getting it fixed. It can be done. Get enough people on board with you, and you can get the jr's to go in the AM.

But if someone is going to bitch and moan because the 2'6" crowd is less special than them? Sorry, I need to place a call the WAAAAAAAAAH-mbulance....:rolleyes:

dghunter
May. 4, 2009, 12:21 AM
On the schooling ring problem. Yes, dammit, you should be able to steer, stop, ride in a predictable way.

People of all persuasions will be rude. What bugs me is the person who causes a wreck because they could not have done otherwise and therefore issues no apology. Sorry, but this kind of thing is just unsafe and rude.

You are entitled to show where ever your desire and checking account allow. You are not entitled to endanger other exhibitors because you, your trainer, your ego said nothing less than an A show would do.

People who cannot steer shouldn't be at a show in the first place IMO no matter what level. A show is not the time to learn how to steer. Trainers should teach good schooling ring manners (ie: pass left to left, stay off the rail if you're only walking, etc...) but the fact is that a lot of them don't. As I mentioned I've watched just as many 3'6" or up riders school just as atrociously as some of those crossrail kids that you mentioned. Makes me miss my dressage days sometimes. We were all doing tempi changes, leg yields, half passes, lots of circles, etc... and managed to stay out of each others way. But I guess to even do an intro test you need to be able to steer to do those circles! :lol:

mvp
May. 4, 2009, 12:26 AM
The local scene was traditionally the place to do the under 3' stuff you wanted. I think these shows need to be supported.

In my area, a group of trainers who have many clients from lead-line to 2'6" or 3' got together and created a very nice, very well attended 5-show series. They are making money hand over fist.

It works well for their horses, their clients (most of modest means) and therefore their businesses. When appropriate I support these shows because these trainers are filling a real need. These trainers would potentially make way more money if they could take these same clients to multiple day shows and start ramping up the price of competitive 2'6" horses.

But maybe market pressures-- clients with only so much to spend-- will keep prices in line. I hope so. Now if these guys would add a few higher divisions, the po folks among us who have learned to jump bigger could play, too.

Linny
May. 4, 2009, 12:30 AM
I have not read this whole thread, so I apologize if I am repeating someone's points.

This thread dovetails with the Suzie Schoelkopf thread. In that thread, the point was made that many "beginners" to showing were going to A's rather than learning the ropes at locals and C's. They are expected to hand their horses over to grooms because they cannot live up to the standards of their trainers. Thus, they never learn basic horse care/prep skills.
This issue is that the trainers simply don't want to put the effort into the locals and the C's. It's easier to go to A's and if your novices/X-railers/ W-T-C riders want to show, then they are welcome to join in the party. Charge them the same as you get from your AA and A/O clients, watch them jump around and pat them on the head as you go off to cash the check.
This is NOT an anti- trainer rant. Trainers are forced to be on the road 5 days a week for most of the season now. They need to be able to make a living at it but it seems that for the novice the expense is very high. I live in the northeast where it's cold and nasty (weatherwise) for about 4 or 5 months a year. There used to be about 8-10 really good local/C shows to attend each year in my area during the fair weather months. Now HITS runs for about 8-10 weeks during that time and Vermont for 4. Add in Saratoga (St. Clement's for 2 weeks and Skidmore for 2) and it's tough to find time to squeeze in some good "locals." Local and 2 day shows are great for learning riders and green horses. They save some money for some riders while allowing othere to dip into showing for whom a 5 day four digit spendfest is outside the realm of possibility.

I know that lower level classes support the high end stuff at most shows but I do think that changes in the last 10-15 years have made "A Shows" far less important than they once were. Shows are always looking for ways to bring out spectators. For an "elite" show to host hours and hours of X rails and long/short stirrups won't do it!

Instant Karma
May. 4, 2009, 12:41 AM
No, Cita, that is not at ALL what my post means. It means that there should be some level that is attainable by being a good rider, able to ride at a certain level, that is EARNED by moving up the divisions. That is why different levels of horse shows were created in the first place. It has NOTHING, I will say it again, NOTHING to do with status, haves vs have nots, or anything like that. DO NOT put words in my mouth.

That is BS. I know many people showing in the 2'6 and under who have done more to "EARN" their showing than many of the folks sitting on 3'6 and up horses. So that foul sense of entitlement goes both ways.

DancingQueen
May. 4, 2009, 12:47 AM
I'm all for the little guy, we all start out with that one forst step right? However, I agree that at many shows the bigger divisions which is the goal for a lot of riders end up going too late in the day because the smaller divisions have a lot of entries.

Simple solution is to suggest to the show management that thet adjust their schedule to cater to the main event. They all listened when it came to the Grand Prix. They now mostly go on Saturdays instead of Sundays.

Garden State had a 2,9 jumper division go on for over 10 hours (we scrathed last class and I lost touch of it after that, it could possibly have been as long as a full 12 hours) Saturday. The 3.0 Eq was happening for almost 7 hours in the ring next door (after a higher but smaller jumper division).
Perhaps it would be easier to run the jumpers in two rings in the am and then the Eq in two rings in the pm then to make horses and riders stick around for that kind of time?

I also totally agree that scheduling the big Eq on a Friday afternoon specially in the spring when a lot of the highschool students are most likely busy with tests and stuff is wrong. This is a big deal over on the Hunter/Eq side and should have prime time.
Surely pulling the mini and short stirrup riders out of school early and having them show on friday afternoon instead would not harm their academic achievement as much?

Altohugh as far as next show goes, if it's next weekend isn't there SATs on the staurday? Maybe that's why Eq is friday afternoon rather then saturday?

Either way, I love that there is smaller classes, but the focus should be on the main event. Putting those classes in the prime spot would also make it easier and more interesting for the aspiring riders to watch and get inspiration from them.

DancingQueen
May. 4, 2009, 12:55 AM
Scooling area issues,

I agree that everyone should be able to steer and stop. Sometimes however there's nerves involved in both horses and riders. Some of them are little, some of them just started showing and some of them got ran into at some point and are now a bit jaded.
There's hardly ever adequate space for safe schooling and for some reason the schooling area is never properly supervised by a steward.

I think schooling manners would be greatly improved if shows were required to have an official of sorts monitor the action out there.

easyrider
May. 4, 2009, 12:55 AM
To the OP: You are not the only one who thinks it's ridiculous.

dghunter
May. 4, 2009, 01:00 AM
I also totally agree that scheduling the big Eq on a Friday afternoon specially in the spring when a lot of the high school students are most likely busy with tests and stuff is wrong. This is a big deal over on the Hunter/Eq side and should have prime time.
Surely pulling the mini and short stirrup riders out of school early and having them show on friday afternoon instead would not harm their academic achievement as much?

Altohugh as far as next show goes, if it's next weekend isn't there SATs on the staurday? Maybe that's why Eq is friday afternoon rather then saturday?



When I was in high school (all those many moons ago aka two years :lol:) tests were not usually on Fridays. I had a lot of tests and projects due midweek. Teachers tried hard to never do tests on Mondays but the rest of the week they could be any time. I find the same is true in college. Tests go whenever the unit ends and it's time for a test, this may be a Friday or it may not be. As I'm getting ready to student teach soon I'm seeing that students are less focused on Fridays as they are already in "weekend mode" so I will try to schedule tests and such for Wednesdays when I start teaching. And trust me the fall is just as busy as a time for tests as the spring though perhaps not quite as many horses in the fall though August and September are still pretty busy around here.

And yes SATs are offered a number of times throughout the year on Saturdays (as well as the ACTs).

dghunter
May. 4, 2009, 01:03 AM
Scooling area issues,

I agree that everyone should be able to steer and stop. Sometimes however there's nerves involved in both horses and riders. Some of them are little, some of them just started showing and some of them got ran into at some point and are now a bit jaded.
There's hardly ever adequate space for safe schooling and for some reason the schooling area is never properly supervised by a steward.

I think schooling manners would be greatly improved if shows were required to have an official of sorts monitor the action out there.

All right I could totally be making this up and may have just dreamed it or something :lol: but when they did that one thing down in WEF (I believe) I think it was the George Morris class or something with his name in it anyways? idk. But didn't they have somebody standing at the schooling area to supervise and could deduct points if they saw something dangerous? Perhaps we need something like that :lol: But at least someone who can go "All right Rider X has now cut off 10 different people who were approaching a jump, perhaps it's time to have a talk."

hunterjumper22
May. 4, 2009, 01:07 AM
i am actually quite happy showing my 3 ft + hunter at the local shows. I have been to both and love the atmosphere better in the local shows. I like to go and enjoy showing and meeting new people and feel the local shows are so much more relaxed and fun. I am also a 4-H leader, so i do spend my time there also watching the kids compete.

silver2
May. 4, 2009, 01:11 AM
But if someone is going to bitch and moan because the 2'6" crowd is less special than them? Sorry, I need to place a call the WAAAAAAAAAH-mbulance....:rolleyes:
A lot of us feel that at an A-rated competition the A-rated divisions should be prioritized and not shunted to the least attractive time slots. If you choose to take that stance as a personal affront to you and your abilities, go right ahead. Like I said, I don't go to shows to socialize.

Frankly I'm amazed that riders who ride at the higher rated levels continue to support the show circuit as it currently exists, even in the miniscule numbers that they do.

Seven-up
May. 4, 2009, 01:31 AM
A lot of us feel that at an A-rated competition the A-rated divisions should be prioritized and not shunted to the least attractive time slots. If you choose to take that stance as a personal affront to you and your abilities, go right ahead. Like I said, I don't go to shows to socialize.

Frankly I'm amazed that riders who ride at the rated level continue to support the show circuit as it currently exists, even in the miniscule numbers that they do. HITS and the other Horse Show Corps should be thanking their lucky stars that they still are able to advertise what they offer as "A" rated shows.

I wonder what percentage of the rounds at a typical "A show" are even rated anymore?


Erm, I haven't been a 2'6"-er in a loooooong time. ;) But even when I had the 3'6" horse, I wasn't so presumptuous to think I should get special treatment. I guess some parents raise their kids by telling them how special they are. My parents, on the other hand, were quick to say, "Who the hell do you think you are? What makes you think you're so special?":lol:


If you have a problem with when your classes go, then talk to the management and ask them why. Around here, when people bitch enough, they get their classes first. After a while, the other groups complain, and the schedule gets switched around.

If you bothered to ask what's up with the scheduling, you might get some interesting answers. In some areas, the big classes never fill. In others, the $$$ comes from the little classes so they get priority. In other places, the jump crew always shows up late so they do the x-rails first.:lol: Some people like to set the jumps high and move them down. Others like to start little and get bigger.

Quit whining and figure out why you're getting the shaft. Then do something about it.

Vandy
May. 4, 2009, 01:50 AM
Quit whining and figure out why you're getting the shaft. Then do something about it.I know exactly why we're getting the shaft: the 2'6" classes make money and don't give out prize money. The 3'6" classes, even when they're on the weekends, don't get as many entries and still have to give out prize money to get their rating. Simple economics. So the show managers keep adding more and more teeny tiny jump divisions to make more money, and the big classes get the crummier and crummier time slots. If I lived in an area where there were lots of show options, particularly weekend B shows or medal days, I'd vote with my feet and it wouldn't be a big deal. But why on earth would a show manager want to change what the majority wants when it would hurt their bottom line on top of it? I don't think it's a battle that I really want to take on. I'll just stick to pining for the good old days on an internet message board ;) Oh, and I'll also continue to offer schooling shows at my farm with 3'6" divisions and resolve to look further into having rated medal days here next year, an idea I've been toying with for a while.


I guess some parents raise their kids by telling them how special they are.I agree. And IMO the ones who seem to think they deserve special treatment are the ones who want a million unrated divisions on the weekends at A shows.

Seven-up
May. 4, 2009, 02:03 AM
Well, it sounds like your kid and the other 2 people in the juniors are just screwed. :winkgrin: (Kidding.) I dunno what to tell you.

The problem is that many of the million itty bitty classes are used as warm-ups for the "real" divisions. In all likelyhood, the classes were created because the trainers asked for more classes to get their clients' horses ready. If they took away all those classes and just left the big-uns' there with their 4 1/2 entries, the shows would probably pack up and leave town completely. Then you wouldn't have any shows to go to at all.



Damn, Vandy, can't we just go drink a beer and beat on some goldfish?;):lol:

silver2
May. 4, 2009, 02:03 AM
I do think that A-rated divisions should get preferential treatment at an A-rated show. That does not mean that I think I am personally special (for example I even think they should get preferential treatment at shows I do not plan to attend). Show managers and trainers make a lot of money off of people who are willing to pay vast amounts to be on the same grounds as people showing in the As. The people who make that revenue opportunity possible, the A-competitors, should expect to get something for that.

While we're at it the lower level competitors should be looking for more competitor friendly events too. All this nonsense about "earning it" and "worthiness" and people thinking they are second class citizens because of the level they ride at is silly. It sounds like a bunch of cult members or maybe teenage girls. Either you can ride the level and have a horse that can do it or you don't. Your ability to ride a 3'6" course not a reflection on your worth as a person. A show is supposed to be a competition, not an expensive week long self-realization retreat for insecure women.

Basically I am arguing against a system that I find to be a very cynical money making enterprise that capitalizes on people's desire to be part of something. A system that has largely destroyed a sport I care about. Even you admit that the current scheduling does not work for most people that use it.

Maybe they just need to get rid of the mileage rule. Or maybe A competitors need to go on strike until they get Saturdays back :)

I voted with my feet a long time ago and haven't been to a rated show since about 2003. I think they were running the high AAs at 3'3", it was a joke.

Seven-up
May. 4, 2009, 02:07 AM
I do think that A-rated divisions should get preferential treament at an A-rated show. That does not mean that I think I am personally special (I even think they should get preferential treatment at shows I do not plan to attend). Show managers and trainers make a lot of money off of people who are willing to pay vast amounts to be on the same grounds as people showing in the As. The people who make that revenue opportunity possible, the A-comeptitors, should expect to get something for that.

I am arguing against a system that I find to be a very cynical money making enterprise that capitalizes on people's desire to be part of something. A system that has largely destroyed a sport I care about. Even you admit that the current scheduling does not work for most people that use it.

Maybe they just need to get rid of the mileage rule. Or amybe A comeptitors need to go on strike :)

Well, get crackin'. Please keep us updated on your strike.:)

Vandy
May. 4, 2009, 02:11 AM
Damn, Vandy, can't we just go drink a beer and beat on some goldfish?;):lol:Sounds great...don't expect to get that party started til late though, because the show days run so long what with all your crossrail classes :lol: :lol: :lol:

Vandy
May. 4, 2009, 02:14 AM
A show is supposed to be a competition, not an expensive week long self-realization retreat for insecure women.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Seven-up
May. 4, 2009, 02:16 AM
Sounds great...don't expect to get that party started til late though, because the show days run so long what with all your crossrail classes :lol: :lol: :lol:

Y'all just need to get another ring going like we do. Put 'em way on the other side of the grounds so you never even see them. It's much more pleasant that way--you never have to hear the little ones screeching because they fell off!:lol:

DancingQueen
May. 4, 2009, 02:38 AM
And there's nothing that will kill a beautiful sittiong trot as effectively as the screech of a panicked youth midways between heaven and earth! LOL!

Seven-up
May. 4, 2009, 02:52 AM
No kidding!

I really don't see why more shows couldn't do it the way our local shows do it. It's not like we're progressive or anything down here.

Munchkins have their own ring. It's always the smallest ring (to prevent things from getting hairy) and sometimes it's even a paddock converted to show ring duty. They don't really need to warm up, since they don't really do anything, but if there is a warm up it's designated "w/u until X o'clock." They have a "judge" who is usually a younger person or some trainer they wrangled up who doesn't have any kids going. Pretty much all they need to know is who's on the wrong diagonal. An ammy usually volunteers to be the announcer, because their classes don't go until later. Then they crank 'em out. No holding up the ring is allowed. Courses are usually shortened to 6 (sometimes even 4) jumps so everyone gets done quicker.

It works great, unless you drew the shortest straw and you're assigned to putting the wee ones in the ring.;) Then 4 hours seems like an eternity. But as long as you don't get stuck doing that, you never see the kids. You don't ever have to worry about running over a toddler on a pony in the warm up ring. They are out of sight, out of mind.

Go Fish
May. 4, 2009, 03:10 AM
For all of you against the smaller divisions - when the 3'6" and higher divisions can field a class of 40+ entries, then I'll listen to your argument. I guess horse shows should lose money so you can feel a sense of "prestige, riding ability, moving up, etc." Horse shows are a business, people. Business exists to make money.

With a few exceptions, I can't think of a single show out here on the West coast that can make a decent profit without these "dinky" divisions anymore. Just who do you think is funding your upper level classes????? It sure ain't your entries!

Seven-up
May. 4, 2009, 04:13 AM
Quote from silver2:


I for one don't think that competitions should be a money making business, with the money coming from the competitors. No other sport is run that way.


Where in the world is the money going to come from?? Is Nike going to sponsor the small junior division and all 3 of its entries? And once you've banished all the lower level class participants, who is going to hang around to watch you ride, besides your groom? How many advertisers would pay for a jump or a banner when nobody's watching?

It's not just the show that's making money. It's the trainers, the grooms, the jump crew, the vendors, etc. Unless you're a BNT, you only have a couple jr/a/o's but a slew of Childrens', baby greens, pre greens, mortifieds. Bringing people to shows is how you make your money. If you only had 2 clients that could show at the 3'6" level but none at the lower levels, you'd go out of business.

Getting rid of the little classes isn't going to increase the entries for the big stuff. Instead, the shows are going to see that it's not cost-effective to run a show for just a few people. So they're going to stop coming.

I guess they could charge a 5K entry fee for the division, and trainers could charge 2K for day fees...

Jumperprincess
May. 4, 2009, 07:26 AM
my,my,my-aren't we the prima donna!!!!!

jr
May. 4, 2009, 07:52 AM
For all you self-righteous types-perhaps you have it backwards.

There are plenty of shows without those pesky, dinky little divisions. Perhaps if you worked a little harder and progressed a little more, you could get good enough to show at Spruce Meadows, Aachen or in the hunter world, qualify for Devon, Washington, etc. Then you don't need to be offended or put-off by the lesser riders sharing the experience.

You can wax nostalgic for the good old days when everyone jumped the big jumps. As one old enough to remember and compete in those days, they weren't all good. Fewer horses, riders, instruction wasn't always that great. The fences were bigger, but the riding wasn't always better. I've jumped adult jumper classics recently that were more technical than the 4'6" open class I jumped as a teenager.

We're a healthier sport today, with more participants enjoying, yes ENJOYING the sport. Those adults showing 2'6" are often the folks putting up the $$s for that grand prix horse in the next ring. Why shouldn't they enjoy the weekend, compete in their division AND get to see their big horse go on Sun afternoon? And parents with a kid in the pony ring -- why shouldn't they get to get involved rather than just stand by the rail. Why should we leave the young kids at home getting into trouble while we take our teenager to the rated show.

Really people, lighten up. It's a big tent.

Queen Latisha
May. 4, 2009, 09:02 AM
laurie p didnt you say that......in the real world we cant always do what we want......paraphrased.....



so then i am sorry you have to be at the same A shows with ME doing CROSSRAILS


i will try my best :Dto stay out of your way

Oh and try to make your porta potty visits short, I hate waiting on line behind the "undesirables".:lol:

Hunter Mom
May. 4, 2009, 09:42 AM
I recently opened a prize list to a big Texas show and was delighted to see all the 2'6" classes. When I am 70 and all I can do is crossrails, I will be happy about that. I like to go and hang with my trainer and friends, young and old, watch all the beautiful horses, and enjoy the whole atmosphere. I am having as much doing that now than I ever did.

So well said. For many of us, it isn't about the ribbons - it is about the experience. Why do those of us who show at low divisions at rated shows do it? For the joy of doing it. Ribbons are nice, too, though :cool:

Trixie
May. 4, 2009, 09:50 AM
Your ability to ride a 3'6" course not a reflection on your worth as a person. A show is supposed to be a competition, not an expensive week long self-realization retreat for insecure women.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I think this needs to be my new signature.

Ozone
May. 4, 2009, 09:53 AM
I think it is a good thing to have 2' and Xrails at A shows. WHY should the kids, less experienced adults be shone and have to do locals when they can do some A shows at their levels and LEARN in the interim from other riders, classes (something that really cannot be done at local shows)

Whoever said it had something to do with the "fancy factor" I think that was a silly statement.

These classes are more to fill then some other bigger divisions making the show money. Also, the riders who ride in these lower level divisions starting out on the A circuit will most likely continue up the levels on that circuit instead of staying in the locals for years upon years.

OP, were you young once? Did you ride the X rail division & 2''s? Wouldn't it have been GREAT to ride on the A circuit back then but only the locals held your classes?

Sometimes I think we all need to step outside of where we are now and remember when we were young and how we would have felt if we read this thread... outcasted for sure to even want to attend the show for statements like the above being said!

Maya01
May. 4, 2009, 10:05 AM
Yes, there has to be appropriate fence heights for ponies - but that's a whole different thing.

That's why they have pony divisions :D

The classes should be strictly for young riders (like 6-10). I mean when you were young wouldn't you have wanted to compete in an A circuit show where all the big names go? :yes: Yes, yes, I am sure you would have! :yes:

imapepper
May. 4, 2009, 10:08 AM
OP, were you young once? Did you ride the X rail division & 2''s? Wouldn't it have been GREAT to ride on the A circuit back then but only the locals held your classes?

Sometimes I think we all need to step outside of where we are now and remember when we were young and how we would have felt if we read this thread... outcasted for sure to even want to attend the show for statements like the above being said!

Yes I was young once when the dinosaurs roamed the earth. There weren't crossrails and 2 fts at the C shows then let alone the A shows. Crossrails were at in barn schooling shows. It never occured to me to be upset that I couldn't go to shows yet. It made me work harder in my lessons until I could show at the level that was offered. And I wouldn't have taken offense because I knew that I still needed to learn more and work harder to get there.

S A McKee
May. 4, 2009, 10:11 AM
No, not when people continue to insist on reading my opinion as something it is not. Over and over, I have repeated that I am talking about riding ability and level of training. And it has been called egotistical, bad apples, stupid, among others. It is merely my opinion, which I have formulated after many years in the business, both "back then" and now. And so, I am as entitled to it as those who like the way things are. And they aren't being called names because they are welcome to their opinions, when stated without name calling, as I am and anyone else is.

My opinion is that cross-rails don't belong at A shows, other than in the schooling area.

Then you run right out and tell Hampton Classic that you don't want them to offer that division. Good luck!!

You are certainly entitled to your opinion but YELLING at people who don't agree with you is a bit 'off'.

We all realize you have been doing this for a long time ( yawn). You tell us that every opportunity you can find.

But you do realize that some of the people you are arguing with have been in this sport just as long as you and and yes, maybe even compted at a higher level than you? Everyone is entitled to an opinion, not just you.

In this economy it is important to make showing as attractive to as many exhibitors as possible and having low level classes at A shows gives everyone an opportunity to participate. In some areas there really aren't any good one day shows anymore so using an A show to get miles is all there is. The low level riders are often the upper level riders of the future.

And if A shows were restricted to 3'6" and above riders ( or even 3' and above) the total entries would decrease and the A division folks would be paying a lot more in entry fees to make up for the shortfall. So you elitist folks that are 'entitled' to show be glad for the lowly cross rail and 2'6" folks. They are paying your entry fees. LOL

imapepper
May. 4, 2009, 10:14 AM
I will most likely be riding a CANTER purchase, and will be enjoying my discount horse, with my discount clothes along with my newfound confidence spurred on by one of the silliest threads I have read in a long time - I do have several folks on "ignore", so pardon me if I have missed any sillier threads ;)

Good for you. It is not about expensive horses or expensive clothes. I do not have either....believe me. I am not the person looking down my nose at the labels on your breeches or the fact that your horse doesn't have a brand on it's butt. I have a TB and bought my last hunt coat for $100 on Ebay :)

This thread was not about how much money people have or how fancy their horse is. It was simply about how much the standard of riding has changed.

rydrzup
May. 4, 2009, 10:17 AM
or...have water fountains for "3'6" riders only"...hotels for " 3'6" riders only".....food tents for 3'6" only....Im getting lazy with the " and making a point.

And yes, it should hit a nerve.

On second thought...2'6 DOESNT belong...3 foot at AA doesnt belong. SEGREGATION is the answer if they are on the same grounds so you dont have to mix. I stand by the idiots statement. And that is a euphemism for undesirable attitudes.

Anyone see AM early show i think? a woman on the show this am said fat kids shouldnt have trendy clothes...they need to work towards education and getting thin....

they shouldnt have these options.....2'6 riders and over weight people.....stay put...stay away. (I agree...the adult riders have the most fun and are great to hang with)...

imapepper
May. 4, 2009, 10:23 AM
or...have water fountains for "3'6" riders only"...hotels for " 3'6" riders only".....food tents for 3'6" only....Im getting lazy with the " and making a point.

And yes, it should hit a nerve.

On second thought...2'6 DOESNT belong...3 foot at AA doesnt belong. SEGREGATION is the answer if they are on the same grounds so you dont have to mix. I stand by the idiots statement. And that is a euphemism for undesirable attitudes.

Anyone see AM early show i think? a woman on the show this am said fat kids shouldnt have trendy clothes...they need to work towards education and getting thin....

they shouldnt have these options.....2'6 riders and over weight people.....stay put...stay away. (I agree...the adult riders have the most fun and are great to hang with)...

My that chip on your shoulder is big.....I guess there should only be blue ribbons too at shows because then nobody would feel badly that they didn't get the same color ribbon.

Parrotnutz
May. 4, 2009, 10:23 AM
Good for you. It is not about expensive horses or expensive clothes. I do not have either....believe me. I am not the person looking down my nose at the labels on your breeches or the fact that your horse doesn't have a brand on it's butt. I have a TB and bought my last hunt coat for $100 on Ebay :)

This thread was not about how much money people have or how fancy their horse is. It was simply about how much the standard of riding has changed.



But it really is about $$$$$. Take a look at entries.....how many are there for the really big hunter divisions versus the 2'6" divisions or "cross rails"
The shows are about $$$$$ and you all who are agast at cross rails I hate to tell ya...wake up, the economy tanked. PLus us baby boomers are O-L-D and personally I want a class called "fossils over fences" :winkgrin:

In all my years of showing in NJ I have always seen a seperate ring with cross rails at the A and AA shows....big deal.
Yes some rings need help when there are 50 puddle jumpers and the big jumpers have to wait....maybe like a lot of dressage shows they should let the higher levels go first when the footing is best. Usually the FEI dressage horses show in AM......but the olny way to change things is not to sit and Bitch at a computer screen....get involved, get something written up and sent to show management at USEF or something.

Just my 2 cents which is now worth 1 cent in this economy

phoenix mom
May. 4, 2009, 10:25 AM
The points are only given to rated divisions so this is the recognition for the more accomplished horses and riders. If USEF starts giving year end awards to cross rail divisions then complain. Everyone just wants to compete and enjoy their horse at a level that is safe and challenging. When my DD can show in her 3' division and at the same show go to the Grand Prix ring and watch Beezie Madden she is inspired. We always watch the pros and try to learn. I would not drive 3 hours just to watch but when she is showing it is a real plus. She will move up to 3'6" but not until she is ready and until then we will go to the shows we choose and have fun.

mvp
May. 4, 2009, 10:32 AM
Not about heights, but about being priced out. If I could afford the 3'6" horse and to go to Devon/Wellington/Spruce Meadows, I'd go. I do ride well enough....By the way, that's because when I was a young sprout, jumping a 3' course was not presented to me as the be-all and end-all of riding. Nor was showing for that matter.

I think the dinky divisions got started this way-- three conversations.

Client to trainer-- "I/my kid wants to learn to ride and we have some dough to spend. But you're never home to teach us. The shows you do attend every weekend look great. How can we get in on that?"

Trainer swallows hard-- "Well, practice hard, I'll find you a horse or pony to lease and we'll see what we can do about showing."

Trainer to show secretary-- "Damn, I could just about fill a long-stirrup division if you offered one." Five more trainers make the same casual remark while they're in the office, and they say the same to each other."

Show management obliges and makes a promising profit at the trial run show that includes all kind of non-rated thises and thats. They can't believe people just starting out will pay the same fees, overpriced stalls, whatever to jump little fences in non-rated divisions. But the checks are good so they say "It's not my place to determine how people spend their money. But if they want to send some my way, I really don't care what we set up in the ring when so long as the money comes."

Trainers are happy, show management is happy, horse owners and breeders are happy since now they have a whole new market for the many horses that will never "walk" gracefully down the lines at 3'6." In my opinion, the only people who lose are the paying-through-the-nose competitors who could have saved so much money had they consented to jump the same 8 fences at a local show.

Thanks God for the democratic lowering of standards, eh?

imapepper
May. 4, 2009, 10:35 AM
Not about heights, but about being priced out. If I could afford the 3'6" horse and to go to Devon/Wellington/Spruce Meadows, I'd go. I do ride well enough....By the way, that's because when I was a young sprout, jumping a 3' course was not presented to me as the be-all and end-all of riding. Nor was showing for that matter.

I think the dinky divisions got started this way-- three conversations.

Client to trainer-- "I/my kid wants to learn to ride and we have some dough to spend. But you're never home to teach us. The shows you do attend every weekend look great. How can we get in on that?"

Trainer swallows hard-- "Well, practice hard, I'll find you a horse or pony to lease and we'll see what we can do about showing."

Trainer to show secretary-- "Damn, I could just about fill a long-stirrup division if you offered one." Five more trainers make the same casual remark while they're in the office, and they say the same to each other."

Show management obliges and makes a promising profit at the trial run show that includes all kind of non-rated thises and thats. They can't believe people just starting out will pay the same fees, overpriced stalls, whatever to jump little fences in non-rated divisions. But the checks are good so they say "It's not my place to determine how people spend their money. But if they want to send some my way, I really don't care what we set up in the ring when so long as the money comes."

Trainers are happy, show management is happy, horse owners and breeders are happy since now they have a whole new market for the many horses that will never "walk" gracefully down the lines at 3'6." In my opinion, the only people who lose are the paying-through-the-nose competitors who could have saved so much money had they consented to jump the same 8 fences at a local show.

Thanks God for the democratic lowering of standards, eh?

Thank you!!!

fordtraktor
May. 4, 2009, 10:44 AM
I would be all for crossrail and 2' classes if they would hold them on Wednesday or Thursday. Instead, they usually get Saturdays, and I can no longer show because managers schedule the COMPLETE AMATEUR DIVISION during the week. Are you kidding? Some of us have jobs. I guess we are not "fancy" enough to compete in the AO classes as working stiffs.

mvp
May. 4, 2009, 10:58 AM
A quarter century later:

The 2'6" horse costs 25K, in part because it will do all the incredible mental work of packing around the rider who never had time to learn to negotiate a course (let alone a schooling ring). Supply and demand, you know. The trainer who originally did want to make better riders and better horses found a way to make a living, thanks to the opportunity to generate commission checks and show fees, and really don't need to actually need to do more than create a swath of under 3' teams.

We wring our hands because we haven't done well in the Olympics since the Betamax era. We breed plenty of 2'6" horses in the US and buy even more of Europe's cast-offs.

Some people do still want to jump big, but with the entry-level being so expensive, they rethink the goal. The gap between the top-- the Big Eq, the peeps who turn pro, the Olympic riders-- and the hobbyist gets even larger and is determined by $$ to an even larger extent than it is today. The requisite for being a good rider at the top is now so tightly correlated with so much money that many don't even want to try. The talent pool shrinks.

Meanwhile, back in the everyman trench, we produce more 2'6" horses and riders and call it a day. Trainers build whole careers catering to these people because they can. Of course their clients have not been able afford to buy a competitive Regular Working Hunter in, say, 45 years. Since there is so much showing to be done (and money to be made) without that kind of standard, why even bother with it?

I see some of this happening now, at least around me. There are whole barns who never do more than turn out 2'6" horses and riders. So, if a horse really just jumps out of stride until the fences are a foot higher, a lot of people genuinely aren't gaining that skill. That's too bad. It's not rocket science and it does take practice. I'm very grateful for having learned to jump at least a 4' course back in the day when the interested but average joe had the hopes of finding a horse who could do that. I'd like to keep that opportunity open.

Lexus
May. 4, 2009, 11:06 AM
I guess even the wussy people need a way to spend their money and have some fun feeling fancy. :rolleyes:

How pathetic!!!

The short stirrups and novices are the future of the sport! I was showing AA's and AO's and needed those classes for my daughter. I could not be at an unrecognized show and at a rated show at the same time. From my perspective it's great bigger shows offer them and way over due.

Vandy
May. 4, 2009, 11:32 AM
A quarter century later:

The 2'6" horse costs 25K, in part because it will do all the incredible mental work of packing around the rider who never had time to learn to negotiate a course (let alone a schooling ring). Supply and demand, you know. The trainer who originally did want to make better riders and better horses found a way to make a living, thanks to the opportunity to generate commission checks and show fees, and really don't need to actually need to do more than create a swath of under 3' teams.

I was just going to post something very much like this. I can guarantee you that the winning 2'6" hunters at the last show I attended cost a heck of a lot more than any of the horses in my barn. And I watched them for hours, first with the trainers doing a schooling division, then with the kids or ammies, many of them with multiple horses, in what seemed like endless 2'6" rounds that took all day.

I am glad to see that there are people here who agree with me...I was starting to feel pretty much alone in my opinions. Please understand that not everyone who wishes the junior, eq and a/o classes were on the weekends is an insufferable snob with an elitist complex. Different water fountains? Are you actually comparing my views to racism?!?! If so, please feel free to visit my farm and check out my rehabbing rescues, cast-off OTTBs and students who are cleaning the stalls, hoping their parents will let them skip school so they can compete at the level they've worked so hard to attain. I can see why shows offer 2'6" divisions, please try to understand why the other divisions are important to some of us too.

Trixie
May. 4, 2009, 11:37 AM
or...have water fountains for "3'6" riders only"...hotels for " 3'6" riders only".....food tents for 3'6" only....Im getting lazy with the " and making a point.

And yes, it should hit a nerve.

On second thought...2'6 DOESNT belong...3 foot at AA doesnt belong. SEGREGATION is the answer if they are on the same grounds so you dont have to mix. I stand by the idiots statement. And that is a euphemism for undesirable attitudes.

Anyone see AM early show i think? a woman on the show this am said fat kids shouldnt have trendy clothes...they need to work towards education and getting thin....

they shouldnt have these options.....2'6 riders and over weight people.....stay put...stay away. (I agree...the adult riders have the most fun and are great to hang with)...

Agree with the "chip on your shoulder" comment. Perhaps you should work at being better able to make a point without such exaggeration.

xabbracadabra
May. 4, 2009, 11:43 AM
For all you self-righteous types-perhaps you have it backwards.

There are plenty of shows without those pesky, dinky little divisions. Perhaps if you worked a little harder and progressed a little more, you could get good enough to show at Spruce Meadows, Aachen or in the hunter world, qualify for Devon, Washington, etc. Then you don't need to be offended or put-off by the lesser riders sharing the experience.

You can wax nostalgic for the good old days when everyone jumped the big jumps. As one old enough to remember and compete in those days, they weren't all good. Fewer horses, riders, instruction wasn't always that great. The fences were bigger, but the riding wasn't always better. I've jumped adult jumper classics recently that were more technical than the 4'6" open class I jumped as a teenager.

We're a healthier sport today, with more participants enjoying, yes ENJOYING the sport. Those adults showing 2'6" are often the folks putting up the $$s for that grand prix horse in the next ring. Why shouldn't they enjoy the weekend, compete in their division AND get to see their big horse go on Sun afternoon? And parents with a kid in the pony ring -- why shouldn't they get to get involved rather than just stand by the rail. Why should we leave the young kids at home getting into trouble while we take our teenager to the rated show.

Really people, lighten up. It's a big tent.

By far the best post on the thread. Could not have said it better thank you for posting that

mvp
May. 4, 2009, 11:55 AM
Vandy-- I'll be first in line to support your program and schooling shows in NM! Amazing (and kind of sad) that "old school" is being kept alive in this state so distant from the seat of the H/J scene in the Northeast.

Should I find myself in your neck of the woods, I'll clean my own stall, help you paint jumps and then enjoy the best thing ever-- a 3'6" division that takes all of the skill without all of the bankroll. If that helps you keep your barn afloat, even better. I'm sure HITS is doing just fine and doesn't need my help, really.

Otherwise, to those of you who say "Lighten up! Showing is supposed to be family-inclusive, compatible with all our desires and schedules!" Your point is well-taken. In fact, trainers and show managers have listened. But don't ignore the well-considered posts that consider an alternative point of view. "Don't worry, be happy" is an answer of sorts, but not one that follows.

magnolia73
May. 4, 2009, 11:57 AM
If I'm not mistaken... there are more AA shows than there once were, and there are still the prestigous shows with no crossrails that one qualifies for. Bottom line, most A shows just aren't that special anymore.... If you like special, seek out the special shows. Upperville, qualify for Devon etc. etc.

I do think we need special shows that highlight the cream of the crop. But week in/week out, its a business supported by those who jump small jumps. And many, many times those are some competitive divisions. Hell- if there are 6 AO horses and you get around, you catch a prize. If there are 60 2'6 horses.... you better be good- talk about competitive!

GreenMachine
May. 4, 2009, 12:02 PM
If there are separate water fountains for the 2'6" riders, does that mean shorter lines for everyone? :lol:

Honestly, I think there are some people on both sides of this argument who need a giant piece of perspective pie. It's horse showing. Letting the lower divisions play is not the end of western civilization--save the hand wringing and moaning over low standards for the American educational system. And not letting the lower divisions play isn't a gross injustice. Enjoy your horse and take a chill pill.

rydrzup
May. 4, 2009, 12:08 PM
that you cant see an analogy and not a literal interpretation? Of course its meant to have a dramatic effect. If you knew me, which I am glad that you do not....I have an amazing horse....we do very well...but that in no way makes me better than anyone else.

A chip on my shoulder? guilty as charged. For people like you. I have been to smaller shows and told my horse is too fancy to be there.....I have been to the biggest shows. I have not had people like you limit me in my enjoyment of the sport.

I have the best time ever . I am lucky to have such a nice guy that the ribbons are just the icing. I was beaten at a huge show by a lame horse (its on tape ) and in no way did that make me less grateful for the priviledge of riding my horse or my enjoyment of the event. Me thinks thou doth protest too much. You folks who dont want lower levels have the chip.

Racist? you said it, not me. I thought the operative word was elitist. Happy riding and you 2'6 folks...dont apologize ever to these people. I think you do not need to answer to them why you ride in the 2'6.

Besides....after the horses are crippled by doing the professional divisions....and at the same fabulous AA shows , the ammy divisions....these poor guys are LUCKY to have someone appreciate them in the 2'6 when they are cast offs. Those are the lucky ones. There are famous horses that are broken that have name changes sent to lesson barns. This is the exception. And there are fantastic 3'6 people out there. In fact the ones who win the most have less of a chip on theri shoulder. Its the wanna bes that are intolerant.....and malcontants.

Vandy
May. 4, 2009, 01:03 PM
are you so limited that you cant see an analogy and not a literal interpretation?Believe it or not, I was able to comprehend your analogy and found it totally offensive.


Racist? you said it, not me.You certainly implied it in your analogy. See if you can find a way to mention the holocaust in your next rant, while you're at it. That would make a lot of sense. In case you are too limited to realize it, I'm being sarcastic.

Trevelyan96
May. 4, 2009, 01:15 PM
I just want to know why anyone cares.

IMHO, having the crossrail and 2' divisions at the A and AA shows makes great practical sense for trainers. They can take ALL of thier clients to one show instead of having to plan their season around 2 different levels of clients.

There are plenty of riders, parents, and owners out there who are willing to pay the extra $$$ to go to an A show for the exposure, and as long as the venue has the ability to accomodate them without putting everything ridiculously behind, why is that a problem?

dghunter
May. 4, 2009, 01:21 PM
We wring our hands because we haven't done well in the Olympics since the Betamax era. We breed plenty of 2'6" horses in the US and buy even more of Europe's cast-offs.



What is doing well to you? Our 2008 Olympic jumping team took home the gold. Perhaps you missed it because you were too busy complaining about all those 2'6" riders?

Vandy
May. 4, 2009, 01:26 PM
I just want to know why anyone cares.
If you read the thread, you'll get a lot of good answers to that question. In short, some folks are upset because the unrated divisions get weekend time slots while the juniors or ammies who want to do the rated divisions are expected to skip school or work to compete in theirs. And take the chance that after skipping school or work these divisions won't fill because not enough other people skipped school or work.

twobays
May. 4, 2009, 01:38 PM
If you read the thread, you'll get a lot of good answers to that question. In short, some folks are upset because the unrated divisions get weekend time slots while the juniors or ammies who want to do the rated divisions are expected to skip school or work to compete in theirs. And take the chance that after skipping school or work these divisions won't fill because not enough other people skipped school or work.

Ok, but that's a scheduling issue that individual shows need to figure out. If we could figure out a way that the JR/AO classes went on the weekend, would you still care?

coriander
May. 4, 2009, 01:38 PM
I'm guessing the reason is that everyone needs a place to ribbon? I've often been to local shows with 5-6 2'6" variations on a basic outside diagonal course.

Please. The word "ribbon" is a noun, not a verb. As is lesson, clinic and trial. When you have mastered the appropriate use of English parts of speech and which words belong to which groups thereof, you may utter whatever view you like about which divisions belong at what level shows.

Trixie
May. 4, 2009, 01:43 PM
Who died and made you in charge of grammar? I wasn't aware that YOU were a moderator.

There are plenty of other posts on this thread that haven't even bothered to run spell check.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ribbon

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ribbon

Trixie
May. 4, 2009, 01:49 PM
If we could figure out a way that the JR/AO classes went on the weekend, would you still care?

I personally wouldn't.

I also found rydrzup's post offensive, but I think some things are too crazy to argue with.

Everythingbutwings
May. 4, 2009, 01:49 PM
you may utter whatever view you like about which divisions belong at what level shows. Please proceed, Trixie :winkgrin:

to ribbon (third-person singular simple present ribbons (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ribbons), present participle ribboning (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ribboning), simple past and past participle ribboned (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ribboned))

to decorate (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/decorate) with ribbon

twobays
May. 4, 2009, 01:55 PM
I personally wouldn't.



Then the entire thing is a scheduling issue...I understand what a PITA is to have the JRs/AOs going during the week, and that's a legitimate concern that individual shows/circuits need to figure out. I think if the OP came on and posted something to that effect, no one would have gotten upset. I think it was the general tone of "Can you BELIEVE they allow incompetent riders to play over the little jumps at the VERY PRESTIGIOUS A-shows I attend?" that bugged people. There's a huge difference between resenting a scheduling problem and resenting/looking down on people who (for whatever reason) choose to jump 2'6"/3'/whatever.

Trixie
May. 4, 2009, 02:01 PM
Like I said - when I was growing up the "A" shows were something that we aspired to, competing at the highest level. And from a personal financial standpoint, it makes no sense for me to compete at an "A" show at 2' when the local show down the road is offering a plethora of 2' divisions.

That being said - I don't actually CARE. It doesn't make a bit of difference to me who plays in which sandbox, what shows offer what classes, or if someone wants to pay $500-1000 to jump around a 2' course - the only hard part is being unable to compete in an AMATEUR class because I have a full time + job that requires my presence, when non-rated divisions are going in key time slots. It also becomes much more difficult for an A/O rider with a 9-5 job to qualify for indoors on 2-weeks vacation time alone.

I think a lot of people have the same issue.

twobays
May. 4, 2009, 02:12 PM
Like I said - when I was growing up the "A" shows were something that we aspired to, competing at the highest level. And from a personal financial standpoint, it makes no sense for me to compete at an "A" show at 2' when the local show down the road is offering a plethora of 2' divisions.

That being said - I don't actually CARE. It doesn't make a bit of difference to me who plays in which sandbox, what shows offer what classes, or if someone wants to pay $500-1000 to jump around a 2' course - the only hard part is being unable to compete in an AMATEUR class because I have a full time + job that requires my presence, when non-rated divisions are going in key time slots. It also becomes much more difficult for an A/O rider with a 9-5 job to qualify for indoors on 2-weeks vacation time alone.

I think a lot of people have the same issue.


Ok...then the title of this thread SHOULD be "Crossrail classes on Saturday/Sunday, Ammies during the week? Really?" If you truly aren't bothered by the mere presence of little-jump classes and the only problem is scheduling, then fine, I don't think there's any debate to be had. This certainly isn't an insurmounatable problem warrenting 12+ pages of debate.

When it turns into a "I don't like 2'6" classes because they make my experience less fun/prestigious/exclusive/like the good old days" that's where I find the OP's arguement to be annoying/nosey/elitist.

Trixie
May. 4, 2009, 02:17 PM
Twobays, I'm only one amateur. I'm sure there are plenty of other riders who would prefer to limit the sandbox.

twobays
May. 4, 2009, 02:21 PM
Twobays, I'm only one amateur. I'm sure there are plenty of other riders who would prefer to limit the sandbox.


:lol: As am I. I'm just saying that I find that argument (that A-shows should only ever be 3'/3'6" +) to be ridiculous. The scheduling problem has nothing to do with the mere presence of 2'6" divisions. Saying that you resent not being able to ride in the JR/AO divisions on Saturday doesn't address the OP's point, which was that no one jumping less than 3' should be competing at an A-show.

Vandy
May. 4, 2009, 02:24 PM
Ok, but that's a scheduling issue that individual shows need to figure out. If we could figure out a way that the JR/AO classes went on the weekend, would you still care?
I would care a lot less. However, it also bothers me that there aren't a lot of schooling shows around because I'd be much happier taking my low-level clients to these, as well as my own young horses because personally, I can't justify paying that much $ to take my own greenies to rated shows. The more beginners and re-riders and yes, timid riders, who insist on going to the A's instead of showing on the local circuits that offer the same divisions, the fewer and farther between those schooling series will be.

Vandy
May. 4, 2009, 02:26 PM
The scheduling problem has nothing to do with the mere presence of 2'6" divisions. The scheduling problem in my area has everything to do with running SEVEN OR EIGHT different 2'6" divisions on the weekends. How can you think otherwise?

twobays
May. 4, 2009, 02:30 PM
The scheduling problem in my area has everything to do with running SEVEN OR EIGHT different 2'6" divisions on the weekends. How can you think otherwise?

You missed my point. I'm saying that just having a 2'6" class doesn't displace the 3'+ classes, running them on the weekends in the same rings does. The problem isn't that the shows offer 2'6" classes, it's that they're scheduled poorly

Everythingbutwings
May. 4, 2009, 02:31 PM
Twobays
Saying that you resent not being able to ride in the JR/AO divisions on Saturday doesn't address the OP's pointAs far as I know, Trixie isn't eligible for the JR/AO's so it's a moot point. :)


The problem isn't that the shows offer 2'6" classes, it's that they're scheduled poorly

That's very different. Poor class scheduling is a problem of the show management. If they offer those classes due to demand, they will soon find the demand shrinking when people don't come back to a poorly run show.

Vandy
May. 4, 2009, 02:32 PM
Gotcha twobays, sorry for misunderstanding your post.

imapepper
May. 4, 2009, 02:41 PM
Who knew that this would bunch everyone's panties up like this? :confused: I really didn't think that it was that big of a deal. I am not calling anyone inferior. I don't really have a problem with the riders who are filling the crossrail classes. I guess I just found it a bit shocking that there is a market for that kind of class. Do I think it's ridiculous to pay for an A show to do crossrails or 2 ft when there are local shows that are cheaper, closer, and have cute prizes and championships for those riders? Yep. When I add up the cost of doing that division and put day fees, office fees, stalls etc.....that is $700-$1000 to do crossrails :eek: Do I think that trainers should be working harder to get their students to the next level or have assistant trainers that take their kids/beginner adults to the local shows? Yep. Do I think that everyone that is saying that their limit is the 2'6" is selling themselves short. You bet! So you might be thinking that I am elitist/nosey and annoying when I am simply expressing an opinion based on how people were taught to ride 20 years ago compared to now. Apparently I need to get with the times.

And....it's been quite awhile since I have been to an A show because...you guessed it....all the classes that I want to enter are during the week and I am a working stiff. And everytime I get a prize list, I page through it hoping to see classes that I can actually enter without killing vacations time. As soon as one does offer a class I can enter on a weekend....I might actually be able to go.

twobays
May. 4, 2009, 02:45 PM
Gotcha twobays, sorry for misunderstanding your post.

No problem...I've gone off into an existential tangent about horse show schedules. :lol:

I think these kinds of topics stir up a lot of heated emotions, including nostalgia, envy, resentment (going both ways) and frustration. We all need to take a deep breath. Ultimately I think we can figure out something that works for everyone...perhaps paring back the amount of speed bump classes and giving them a dedicated ring when possible? Or scheduling a few 2'6" classes on Fridays (rather than over the weekend) so trainers can use them as a warmup, rather than forcing them to do the 2'6" weekend classes as a warmup?

Go Fish
May. 4, 2009, 03:03 PM
I would be all for crossrail and 2' classes if they would hold them on Wednesday or Thursday. Instead, they usually get Saturdays, and I can no longer show because managers schedule the COMPLETE AMATEUR DIVISION during the week. Are you kidding? Some of us have jobs. I guess we are not "fancy" enough to compete in the AO classes as working stiffs.

Several people have mentioned this...where I show the pro days are during the week (usually Wednesday and Thursday) and the shows run the ponies, AAs, AOs, SS, LS, etc. Friday through Sunday. With enough rings, it works. Unless I want to watch the trainer show my horses, I never have to take more than one (or two at the most) days off work.

coriander
May. 4, 2009, 03:36 PM
Folks, it was tongue in cheek. ;) Trixie, I wasn't trying to single you out, or suggest you should be moderated. I knew folks were wound up about this, but I clearly underestinated how tightly.

Though to decorate with ribbon is not the same as to win a ribbon, ebw.;)

*backing slowly out of thread before offending anyone else*

dags
May. 4, 2009, 03:59 PM
Every time I finish reading a page another one shows up and I cannot get to the end of this trainwreck. In the meantime I am flat out appalled at the childish reactions from some posters, and I hate to point it out, but it's coming mostly from those demanding they deserve the opportunity to show at the A level in their 2'6" classes.

- This 'sport' for some of you is a real SPORT for others, and your excuse that it's all supposed to be fun and games doesn't really fly. There are riders out there, pro and nonpro, that are living for the goal of producing the finest horse and rider teams our country can come up with. Fun has nothing to do with it. If you demand a quality venue where you can show crossbars, can they not desire a venue that places every ounce of it's focus on the High Performance teams? It goes both ways.

- As long as the 2'3" Hopeful Jumpers is the biggest class of the show you can kiss your desired sponsor support good-bye.

- If they weren't 300 trips going around the 2'6" we wouldn't need 6 rings, 5 days and however many judges are required for that (plus jumps/jump crews and etc) and shows would not cost so much, time and money wise. The profit these guys are making is going largely to keep these rings up and running.

- It is a lot easier to keep a horse and rider winning in a smaller division, so no wonder you see less people moving up. It has likely strangled the bigger divisions.

So, as a SPORT, with none of that fun crap, can you see why some people are presenting an alternate point of view? Is that not OKAY? Good grief.

dags
May. 4, 2009, 04:05 PM
I personally wouldn't.

I also found rydrzup's post offensive, but I think some things are too crazy to argue with.

Yes. Me too. And I jumped 3 pages ahead to respond, and then did so in a manner I don't usually resort to- with bullets and capital letters!

rydrzup
May. 4, 2009, 04:12 PM
I think it is really nice that you care how people spend their money and that they are being advantage of. I think its wonderful that you want to protect them from being gouged by their evil trainers. Dont blur the truth. You resent those that can afford to spend big bucks

jumping tiny fences. And perhaps...with the intersting stab at the future of the show industry....that the top horses will be in the preadults. Im not backing off .

You are mean spirited . It exists. I dont care what anyone else does but to make people feel unwelcome and apologize for their comfort zone is disgraceful. Shame on you.

Trixie
May. 4, 2009, 04:24 PM
I think it is really nice that you care how people spend their money and that they are being advantage of. I think its wonderful that you want to protect them from being gouged by their evil trainers. Dont blur the truth. You resent those that can afford to spend big bucks

jumping tiny fences. And perhaps...with the intersting stab at the future of the show industry....that the top horses will be in the preadults. Im not backing off .

You are mean spirited . It exists. I dont care what anyone else does but to make people feel unwelcome and apologize for their comfort zone is disgraceful. Shame on you.

Again. What. Are. You. Talking. About?

I'm seriously lost.

:dead:

supershorty628
May. 4, 2009, 04:28 PM
Who suggested that the unrated divisions go one weekend and the rated divisions another? It might be hard to set up, but in theory, I thought it was a great idea. (I'm thinking about this because I am missing 3 full days of school and taking an AP exam at a horse show this week...)

mvp
May. 4, 2009, 04:31 PM
I promise you, this isn't what its about. I certainly have a chip on my shoulder about being priced out. Ask anyone or read my posts! But I'm not jealous of the peeps who demand the right to pay $1,000 to show in a cross-rails division.

I am frustrated that they 1) don't want more from riding and showing than a venue to display what amounts to, let's face it, a very limited set of skills; 2) contribute to inflated prices for horses that get that way precisely because it takes almost very little skill to ride them; 3) don't hold their own trainers to a higher standard in terms of what they ought to be taught for all they pay month-in, month-out.

I just don't see this as a very useful long-term strategy.

Nikki^
May. 4, 2009, 04:41 PM
I don't understand why people are getting so mad about this.

Why do people think that schooling shows = crap?

I go to the ECE schooling shows and they are very well run with very nice jumps, courses and "R" rated judges. The horses that show there are groomed to the nines and it's a like a mini USEF rated show but with the schooling show price (and without those annoying USEF fees). The prizes are great (Coolers for end of year awards) and everyone has a great time. The jumper classes also have prize money.

I think some people think that they have to show USEF "A" rated shows and that the B, C and schooling shows are just for the crappy riders. The big difference between AA, A, B and C shows is the prize money and the points offered for the RATED classes. Those who show in the rated classes benefit from the AA since it gives more points per class.

If you show in the unrated classes, you don't get any prize money or points so why would you drop 700-1000K to show in unrated classes when the schooling shows offer the same quality but at a smaller venue? Is it the fact that some of you think the name "Schooling Show" seems to be synonymal for crap? If you guys really thinks this then that is really sad.

imapepper
May. 4, 2009, 04:43 PM
I promise you, this isn't what its about. I certainly have a chip on my shoulder about being priced out. Ask anyone or read my posts! But I'm not jealous of the peeps who demand the right to pay $1,000 to show in a cross-rails division.

I am frustrated that they 1) don't want more from riding and showing than a venue to display what amounts to, let's face it, a very limited set of skills; 2) contribute to inflated prices for horses that get that way precisely because it takes almost very little skill to ride them; 3) don't hold their own trainers to a higher standard in terms of what they ought to be taught for all they pay month-in, month-out.

I just don't see this as a very useful long-term strategy.

I love you man :) Again....THANK YOU!!! You are putting it so much better than I did. All I seem to be able to do is stick my size nines in my mouth :lol:

imapepper
May. 4, 2009, 04:49 PM
I don't understand why people are getting so mad about this.

Why do people think that schooling shows = crap?

I go to the ECE schooling shows and they are very well run with very nice jumps, courses and "R" rated judges. The horses that show there are groomed to the nines and it's a like a mini USEF rated show but with the schooling show price (and without those annoying USEF fees). The prizes are great (Coolers for end of year awards) and everyone has a great time. The jumper classes also have prize money.

I think some people think that they have to show USEF "A" rated shows and that the B, C and schooling shows are just for the crappy riders. The big difference between AA, A, B and C shows is the prize money and the points offered for the RATED classes. Those who show in the rated classes benefit from the AA since it gives more points per class.

If you show in the unrated classes, you don't get any prize money or points so why would you drop 700-1000K to show in unrated classes when the schooling shows offer the same quality but at a smaller venue? Is it the fact that some of you think the name "Schooling Show" seems to be synonymal for crap? If you guys really thinks this then that is really sad.

And another great post....there have actually been some good points brought up. I actually love most of the schooling shows around here and have judged at some of them. They are great fun and the local circuit here is pretty good. Frankly, there are better prizes than at the A shows like saddle pads and tack store gift certificates. I actually never said that schooling shows were crap. I really wish that more trainers would support them.

beeblebrox
May. 4, 2009, 04:53 PM
"imapepper
Crossrails at an A show? Really? rant
I am going to apologize right up front for the rant. I was looking through a prize list that I just received for a show and was really shocked to see that it had a WTC crossrail division and a 2 ft division Are you kidding me? This is a prize list for 3 weeks of showing. 2 A shows and one AA show. How much more dumbed down does this sport need to get? If you are still doing crossrails, go to schooling shows. I know everyone needs to start somewhere and I am all for kids and beginner adults getting out and starting to show over the 2 ft and crossrail division. It's fun and good experience. But I don't think those classes belong in an A show...much less a AA show. There are plenty of local shows that have appropriate divisions for beginner riders and green horses. I think that A shows shouldn't really have anything lower than 3 ft."
Does anyone else think it's ridiculous or is it just me?"


What I think is that when I was a kid children's hunter were 3 -3'3 and jumpers started at 3'6 but times change get over it. These shows are losing their ass's trying to fill shows, waving late fees and in this economy people are doing what they can. IT is good for business for a trainer to be able to bring as many folks as possible. JUST do not look at those classes but jeese you sound a little like a elitist about this. The long and short stirrup divisions keep people employed, older horses coming down who are still useful working and is a stepping stone into this industry.

chawley
May. 4, 2009, 04:57 PM
[QUOTE=Go Fish;4065241]The classes under 3' are big money makers for the shows, that's why. They charge the same division entry fees, don't have to hand out any money, and the classes are filled to the brim.

QUOTE]

Yes, this is true in many cases. Plus, there are many of us that have done A shows for years that own older horses on their way down. Even though my Adult Amateur horse is now in the Modifieds due to some soundness issues, doesn't mean he and I still shouldn't be able to go to a nice A show and have some fun. I mostly show now at the B and local level due to limited funds, but it's nice to have the option to hit one or two a year if my schedule permits.

And as far as cross rails, if someone wants to spend the money, I don't see why it's a problem. Just my two cents....

dags
May. 4, 2009, 04:59 PM
I don't understand why people are getting so mad about this.

Why do people think that schooling shows = crap?

I go to the ECE schooling shows and they are very well run with very nice jumps, courses and "R" rated judges. The horses that show there are groomed to the nines and it's a like a mini USEF rated show but with the schooling show price (and without those annoying USEF fees). The prizes are great (Coolers for end of year awards) and everyone has a great time. The jumper classes also have prize money.

I think some people think that they have to show USEF "A" rated shows and that the B, C and schooling shows are just for the crappy riders. The big difference between AA, A, B and C shows is the prize money and the points offered for the RATED classes. Those who show in the rated classes benefit from the AA since it gives more points per class.

If you show in the unrated classes, you don't get any prize money or points so why would you drop 700-1000K to show in unrated classes when the schooling shows offer the same quality but at a smaller venue? Is it the fact that some of you think the name "Schooling Show" seems to be synonymal for crap? If you guys really thinks this then that is really sad.

Agreed. To say that the only object to stand between you and a rated horse show is money, not talent or horse flesh, is what makes the A circuit perceived as elitist.

I would hate, hate, hate to see our local circuits shunned and ignored more than they already are in many places. No, most people don't drop a grand to show in the crossbars/2'6", that is NOT common, so if all the crossbar/2'6" riders are filling AA show classes to the tune of 40+, where are the less financially capable people supposed to show?

myalter1
May. 4, 2009, 05:04 PM
wow. i didn't read this whole thread, b/c i didn't want to waste my time listening to 11 pages of crap.

REALLY. PLease, so WHAT if someone wants to spend THEIR money on a cross rail class at an A show. WHY DO YOU EVEN CARE???????

Please get over yourself. You must be wonderful. We should all ride like you. For goodness sake, let people spend their money the way they want. If it's a crossrail class at an A show, or a Grand Prix, it's their money and it's making them happy. The fact that you even bothered to open this can of worms leads me to believe that perhaps YOUR money might be better spent somewhere else...like mental healthcare.