Open or AA?

[Quest52]

I would love for people to weigh in on this.

I'm not asking for what the "rules" are... I know what the rules are, but I want to know what people's personal feelings are of this.

If someone rode in young riders (FEI levels) and is now an adult, do you think they should register themselves as Open from now on in competitions, or do you think they can still ride in the AA classes? I mean... I know they can ride it, but do you think it would be proper???

Personally, did participate in YR, and I think its only fair, as I bring other horses up through the levels, that I compete as Open, but I know other people whose opinions differ.

So, yours???

[ESG]

Interesting question. And particularly timely in my case, as I'm considering petitioning USEF for my amateur card in a couple of months. Can I compete as an amateur? Yes, I can. Should I? I haven't decided. Of course, in my present state of fitness, I wouldn't exactly be much of a presence in the show ring, whatever division I rode, but that's beside the point. :p

I, too, will be watching this thread with great anticipation. :yes:

[merrygoround]

The fact that you rode in YR, should not influence your standing as a amateur, if that is what you truly are at this point in your life.

To ESG, just because your brain knows it, doesn't mean your body can do it as though you are a full time professional rider.

No matter what you decide, go for the score. ;)

[bort84]

I see no problem competing in the AA divisions. If you're not making money working with horses, you get to ride as an ammy. If you'd like to go in the open classes instead, that's fine, but it certainly doesn't bother me to see great riders that maybe could have gone pro stick to the amateur divisions either. They aren't pros and they usually aren't working 10 of their own horses a day either, so no biggie.

Even if you've been a pro in the past and aren't currently, I don't see an issue personally. It might make some others unhappy (which is a bit silly really), but if you aren't actually a pro, you get to ride as an ammy = ) No hurt feelings on my part - bring it on, haha.

[Dressage_Julie]

I think that having the experience of competing at the NAYRC level makes you more than an AA even if by the rules you technically are am amature. As a former young rider now on a young horse, I do not think it was fair that I compete at training level AA. In my opinion no matter how rusty I am, I do not think it would be right for me to compete against AA just getting started in dressage. I have a lot more ring time and practice riding tests, that I think does give me an advantage at that level. Maybe at the higher levels it would be a different story. For me personally, there is probably a bit of a pride issue; I am training my horse my self with just a clinic here and there. It is hard for me to change my frame of mind from very competitive NAYRC to competing against some beginners.

[Equibrit]

It shouldn't make a difference to your score. If you ARE an amateur then ride as one. If you are a professional then ride as one. Why do you imagine that it is somehow unfair? Some of those amateurs have been at it a whole lot longer and probably ride as well, or better than you do ! Why would ANYBODY's frame of mind have to change other than by putting aside their egos ?

[bort84]

I think that having the experience of competing at the NAYRC level makes you more than an AA even if by the rules you technically are am amature. As a former young rider now on a young horse, I do not think it was fair that I compete at training level AA. In my opinion no matter how rusty I am, I do not think it would be right for me to compete against AA just getting started in dressage. I have a lot more ring time and practice riding tests, that I think does give me an advantage at that level. Maybe at the higher levels it would be a different story. For me personally, there is probably a bit of a pride issue; I am training my horse my self with just a clinic here and there. It is hard for me to change my frame of mind from very competitive NAYRC to competing against some beginners.

Well, if on your show circuit most of the AAs are generally quite beginner at the lower levels, than I can definitely see showing in the open class instead. It's not much fun to go in knowing you're most likely coming out with a blue. It's certainly more fun to have the chance to compete against people riding at your level. This would seem to be less of an issue at the upper levels on most show circuits though.

It personally doesn't bother me either way though. I can see the reasoning behind both.

[Movin Artfully]

Not wanting to steal the post...but is there an imposed time limit before moving from Open to AA? 1 month? 6 months? 3 years? etc?

[SillyHorse]

I think that having the experience of competing at the NAYRC level makes you more than an AA even if by the rules you technically are am amature. As a former young rider now on a young horse, I do not think it was fair that I compete at training level AA. In my opinion no matter how rusty I am, I do not think it would be right for me to compete against AA just getting started in dressage. I have a lot more ring time and practice riding tests, that I think does give me an advantage at that level. Maybe at the higher levels it would be a different story. For me personally, there is probably a bit of a pride issue; I am training my horse my self with just a clinic here and there. It is hard for me to change my frame of mind from very competitive NAYRC to competing against some beginners.
Why would you assume that riding at training level means an AA is "just getting started in dressage?" You're talking about riding training level yourself, aren't you? And I'm here to tell you there plenty of AAs who can ride circles around most pros, not to mention former YRs.

[yaya]

Not wanting to steal the post...but is there an imposed time limit before moving from Open to AA? 1 month? 6 months? 3 years? etc?

You have to make sure you have not done anything that would cause you to be classified as Open for 1 year.

[poltroon]

I would have no problem with you riding as an AA regardless of how much FEI you've shown as a YR, as long as you really are one, meaning that you aren't making any money from horses.

Patty Meyer tried out for the Olympic team with her horse Exakt while also keeping her full time job working as an attorney. That's an amateur.

[Quest52]

And I'm here to tell you there plenty of AAs who can ride circles around most pros, not to mention former YRs.

And there are plenty that are not. I would rather ride against all my old competitors than against someone who is truly an AA.

As a former participant in the NAYRC, I feel there is a leg up that I was afforded (thank you great organizations) that should be considered when showing.

[hoopoe]

i feel this discussion is circular since there are some who clearly feel AA= lack of skill / experience / proficiency

There are many AA who are highly skilled and have the $$$ to buy the top horses. We have a system in place that allows them to choose to ride open or AA. I do not feel they are obligated to place themselves in open since it is not a designation of skill and ability in itself ;)

If we start dolling out divisions based on what someone did in the past then we might as well make divisions for some of the real world situations:

for the non-WB owner,
owners who did not ride as kids
owners who only ride once a week
owners who only show 4 or less times a year

Not all YR's going to NAYRC are showing on 100000$ plus horse with olympian trainers

[Quest52]

Not all YR's going to NAYRC are showing on 100000$ plus horse with olympian trainers

nope... I'd put myself in open, my trainer that took my first to YR was just a backyard trainer (that was before Tom Poulin)

and my horse cost less than the used car I just bought... so I guess its skill that I'm assuming it takes, not $$$

[FriesianX]

An AA is an adult who isn't paid for riding/training/teaching. It has nothing to do with skill level, I've seen some AAs who could give top trainers a run for their money! However, it does seem that many (not all, of course) of those top AA riders eventually take on a few clients and give up their AA status. So a Jr/YR who becomes an adult rider can be an AA - I have no problem with that. As long as they aren't paid for riding/training/teaching!

[Ambrey]

Agree with FriesianX. If a person has a GP schoolmaster, and then decides to start over with a young horse, I wouldn't expect them to go open just because they have FEI experience. I don't see why you would either.

[Roan]

I had to make the same decision many years ago for Western showing.

My decision was based on whether or not I felt my horse and I could compete Open and could hold our own against the other competitors.

At the time there was no challenge in showing AA, so I showed Open.

My 2 cents
Eileen

[hoopoe]

i sometimes would choose to show open on the last day of a show when I knew the schedule would have me finished and away home by noon

[Equibrit]

I had to make the same decision many years ago for Western showing.

My decision was based on whether or not I felt my horse and I could compete Open and could hold our own against the other competitors.

At the time there was no challenge in showing AA, so I showed Open.

My 2 cents
Eileen

You were showing against other horses and riders. Dressage is judged against the standard. So - whichever class you enter, given that you ride the same quality of test, should be scored the same.
The only problem the OP seems to be having is that she may be seen as a pot hunter. I think she may be surprised ! For some reason she thinks she may score better than more folks in AA than in Open.

[Roan]

You were showing against other horses and riders. Dressage is judged against the standard. So - whichever class you enter, given that you ride the same quality of test, should be scored the same.
The only problem the OP seems to be having is that she may be seen as a pot hunter. I think she may be surprised ! For some reason she thinks she may score better than more folks in AA than in Open.

I don't think I went far enough in my explanation. I was referring to reining, not pleasure classes.

It was the "pot hunter" label I didn't want. There were a lot of "ammies" that, imo, should have been showing in the Open classes and I felt that was a little unfair of them. Because I could do "okay" in the Open that's where I went.

And I did "okay". Not stellar and nothing to write home about, but okay :D

Eileen

[May the FORCE bwu]

I consider myself a professional amateur........I still take weekly lessons, have one horse, one kid, work full time, do not teach or receive money and try and show as much as possible......I try and qualify for my region championships and have placed...so that is why I consider myself a professional amateur!

[SillyHorse]

And there are plenty that are not. I would rather ride against all my old competitors than against someone who is truly an AA.
What do you mean by "truly an AA?" Abysmal Amateur? You have a pretty low opinion of Adult Amateurs. Your implication is that they are all beginner to mediocre riders at best, and you'll be able to trounce them all quite handily. I don't know where you're located, but in some areas of the U.S. I would advise that you ride against the AAs if you want some real competition.

[Coreene]

Just a caveat, if you were a pro you do need to go through USEF to get your ammy card. There is a specific process to follow.

[ESG]

i sometimes would choose to show open on the last day of a show when I knew the schedule would have me finished and away home by noon

Interesting. And the show management never gave you grief behind it? I would think that some of the other AA competitors might have complained, thinking that you might be a "shamateur". Absolutely not making any accusations, just really curious.

[Equibrit]

Doesn't "Open" mean open to ALL. As opposed to closed to all except amateurs.

[ESG]

It does, Equibrit. But it's just so unusual for an amateur to choose to show Open, that I wanted to ask the question.

Amateur classes almost never get combined with others, so it's the rare amateur that will choose to ride outside his/her customary division. In fact, when there aren't enough junior riders to "make" a division at a recognized show, the juniors are combined with the open riders, rather than the ammies. Why, I don't know.

[slc2]

I think someone who has in the past been in a professional situation, meaning that they were paid to work with horses in the type of riding they want to show in (or in some cases, in any type of riding), they should show as a professional would, in open classes.

I think someone who has been in a professional-like situation, such as a working student situation in which they were at the barn a majority of their time and supported like a professional, or worked in an apprentice or working student role with a skilled trainer, they should show in open dressage classes.

If a parent supported a young person, purchasing expensive horses and extensive coaching for the person, and the person competed in national or regional young rider championships and showed extensively, and were supported much like a professional would be, I think they should show in open classes.

I also think that amateurs who have access to extensive support, horses and coaching, should bow out of the amateur classes if they are consistently winning the amateur classes. I think within reason, if someone is consistently winning the amateur classes, they should show in the open classes.

[Ambrey]

This could get into such a slippery slope issue- what about the people who don't work or have children, and who can afford the best horses and training- should they show open?

Because there are quite a few of those showing AA.

Should it be required that an AA has some other drain on their time and/or financial constraint? Or is it simply enough that they are not making money from their riding?

Because, seriously, if the basis is the amount of support one gets from others for their riding, the person who teaches 1-2 lessons a week just because they enjoy it while also holding a full-time job and training her own horses is much more appropriately an AA than the person who is supported by someone else and can afford the best of everything.

Maybe this is easy for me to say because winning will never really be my goal when I show (see the other thread about the cheap horse and mediocre rider combo ;)), but honestly I don't feel any reason why the OP should feel less entitled to show as an AA than many of the people at the upper level AAs- many of them are people who have a great deal of time and $$ to devote to dressage, and they make the most of it (as in, they are damned good).

[Equibrit]

The main difference I see is that;

Amateurs put money in - and professionals take it out.

Based on that premise I think amateurs deserve all the protection they receive !

[Ambrey]

Amateurs put money in - and professionals take it out.

But based on the rules, a lot of pros put in a lot more than they take out.

[Applecore]

I agree, it's a slippery slope when you start talking about who 'should' show as an Ammy. As you can see, everyone has a different opinion!

I think the ammy rules are kind of bogus since it just comes down to whether you made money, not skill, not experience, etc. It's essentially a financial decision on a sport division? An odd concept. There are definitely AAs who can beat professionals. I also think they should be allowed to teach an occasional lesson - it would help make dressage more accessible to more people because they would presumably not charge as much as a BNT.

The most fair way I can see of dividing divisions, in addition to Jr/YR which is a cut-and-dry, obvious classification, is to have 'novice' and 'open' divisions. You are a novice AT AND ABOVE the highest level you showed at any year prior to the current show year. I'm sure it's too much of a bureaucratic hassle to become reality, but I see lots of advantages to this system. It would help people make smarter decisions above moving up, it would allow, in my mind, the fairest possible division - one based on experience. Almost everyone will do better on the 2nd or 3rd horses they bring up the line than their first. And if you're constrained by $ and time and can't move up very fast - you can stay right where you are and compete against similar people. I've noticed at the higher levels, there is less and less of a point spread between the AAs and the Open riders.

[slc2]

I don't think it's a 'slippery slope' at all if one takes in other factors than just the rules, if people make the decision themselves, based on a sense of fairness. If they're winning all the time in the ammy division, they know what they should do.

[Equibrit]

The most fair way I can see of dividing divisions, in addition to Jr/YR which is a cut-and-dry, obvious classification,


....... is to have no division. You compete against a standard not other competitors. Unless of course you just can't live without a 98 cent ribbon.

[FriesianX]

It does, Equibrit. But it's just so unusual for an amateur to choose to show Open, that I wanted to ask the question.

Amateur classes almost never get combined with others, so it's the rare amateur that will choose to ride outside his/her customary division. In fact, when there aren't enough junior riders to "make" a division at a recognized show, the juniors are combined with the open riders, rather than the ammies. Why, I don't know.

Juniors are in Open classes because the USEF rules clearly state that they may compete in Jr/Yr division or Open division. The AA (Adult Amateur) division is for adults, defined in USEF rules as 22 and older, who do not receive renumeration for professional horse activities (training, coaching, teaching).

I think every region handles the AA/Open thing differently - we do often see the classes combined, especially in smaller classes and smaller shows. On the other hand, we have State-wide championship shows and competitions focused specifically on Jr/YRs (a Northern Championship and a Southern Championship), and a Regional "Competition" (not a championship, but in a championship like setting) only for Adult Ammies, as well as our big CDS Championship that has divisions for AA and Open. So there are some pretty specific show opportunities for each of our divisions.

The USEF chose to make different divisions, then they had to make some kind of "easy" criteria - so renumeration of any kind was the criteria outlined in the rules. Equibrit is right, the divisions could be done away with - but I think they do offer a little bit of a leveling at the big shows - I don't like showing against Steffan or Leslie or Jan or any of the other big name CA riders - it is downright intimidating!:lol: Not the ribbon I really care about, it is the mental game - being in a warm up with someone who should be signing an autographed WEG picture;)

I do see AA riders cross divisions - sometimes the AA divisions are just as competitive as the Open divisions! Not all AAs are beginner riders - many are quite good, and give many of the trainers a good run for the money. And we often forget, Open includes all the local trainers, even those who give pony lessons, and are barely playing with 2nd level themselves. Yeah, if Steffan shows up, he's going to win the Open division, but if Susy Local-Lessons is showing, I figure I can get my 98c ribbon;) And in shows where I KNOW the Open rides will be scheduled earlier in the day, I'd cross divisions - not worried about the ribbon, it is just nice to be DONE before the heat takes over. It really isn't that uncommon.

Was talking to a fairly advanced AA rider a few weeks ago, she said she was going to start showing Open because the thought the judges were actually more generous with the Open rider scores! Interesting take - and I'll probably ask her again after she's done a few shows, see if she still feels that way.

[Ambrey]

I don't think it's a 'slippery slope' at all if one takes in other factors than just the rules, if people make the decision themselves, based on a sense of fairness. If they're winning all the time in the ammy division, they know what they should do.

Seriously? You think someone who is winning all the time in AA, even if they are a valid AA, should move up to open? I just don't understand how that is fair.

[Rival]

Who cares? I just thank god this sport isn't like the Arab circuit where they have a class for everything imaginable so that ribbons have become participation awards rather than earned. The Arab shows are so bad that you can actually pay to put in a class for yourself. I think the dressage system is great so that you can choose to have more competition or not. Yes there will always be ribbon chasers who show A/A when they should move up to open but does a ribbon really matter that much? JMO

[slc2]

Yes, Ambrey, 'seriously'. There is no requirement that I see it the same way as you. I am allowed to have a different feeling about it than you, even if you don't think I am, I don't even have to 'justify it sufficiently to satisfy you', either. ;)

And yes, actually, I do think that people who are a 'legitimate amateur' and are winning all the time, should go to open classes. And generally, I've found that they do. Why? Eventually most people want more challenge, and they start to think that the ribbons they are getting are not that meaningful.

[Ambrey]

Yes, Ambrey, 'seriously'. There is no requirement that I see it the same way as you. I am allowed to have a different feeling about it than you, even if you don't think I am, I don't even have to 'justify it sufficiently to satisfy you', either. ;)

LOL, I never said you did. It was just a surprising opinion, that's all. Not an offensive one that I'd ask you to justify ;) (hint- that's really just a way to get people to lay their prejudices out for everyone to see).

I guess what I'm surprised about is the concept that AA is for less skilled, or is easier to win, than the pro division. If people did as you suggest I guess that would be true- is that what people want? I don't know.

As I said, winning will never be my priority so having an excellent AA rider who sweeps the classes wouldn't bother me, but it might bother others who are more competitive.

[papony]

I show in Region 1 and Region 3 as an AA. My experience has been that there frequently are highly skilled AAs who win consistantly at a certain level (especially FEI) for a season, but they don't stay there - they move over to the CDIs or move up a level. It's not so much that they want a bigger challenge....its that they have bigger dreams! :yes: I can't remember anyone blowing away the competition in AA classes with the same horse year after year at the same level. So I have not seen SLC's concern evidenced in real life. Also, most riders, AAs included, who show often, have a strategy for their season. They may have very valid reasons for entering a certain AA class that has nothing to do with getting a blue ribbon.

I believe that if someone qualifies as an AA, they shouldn't feel guilty about showing in AA classes just because they have done well in the past.

[Valentina_32926]

As long as you meet the rules I'd ride as an AA.

I am an AA but ride for my scores :cool: - NOT for ribbons against other Ammies - so I compete in Open and AA classes. It would not bother me to compete against you (or the rider if it's not you) in an AA class as long as you meet the criteria for an AA. :D

[Gloria]

If I were you, I'd keep my amateur card and compete as an amateur (assuming you really ARE amateur not someone who tries to find a loophole to compete as amateur).

If I readily beat the amateurs I compete with, then I would bow out and compete in open so those ammies can have a chance to get a few ribbons. You have competed extensively so you don't need the vanity of more eay ribbons do you? To me this is just a courtesy. On the other hand, if the ammies I compete with can give me a stiff competition, then I stick with amateurs.

[ESG]

I find it interesting that there are those who say that an ammy should show open if they're regularly winning. A question for those who espouse that theory: since regional qualifying scores are different for ammy and open riders, does one qualify outside one's customary division, or is it PC to go ahead and qualify and compete in championships as an ammy if one is regularly wiping the floor with one's competition?

Let the games begin. :cool:

[Gloria]

Oh if I'm trying to qualify for championships, darn I'd make sure I get qualified first before I worry about wiping out the ammies or "courtesy" as I put it before. Once I get qualified, well, the sky is clear and I will seek out a dance floor that will challenge me. You see, I personally like a stiff competition and win. If I show up at competition and win all the time with easy, it'd get pretty boring. You see, a ribbon is meaningful only if you have to work for it. In this case, I will seek out another venue and give those ammies a chance to win. Now that is IF I'm THAT good...

[ESG]

Fair enough. :yes:

Here's another question: if you're that good, why not just move up a level, rather than changing divisions? As most folks school at least one level above where they're showing, it would make sense to challenge oneself against oneself, rather than cruising over into another division at the same level.

Thoughts, please?

[Arizona DQ]

ESG,

I was thinking the same thing. Why not move up a level??? I thought that was the goal? :no:

[ESG]

I guess it depends what your goal is - improving your riding and your relationship with your horse, or getting more of those 98 cent ribbons....................in a different division. :winkgrin:

[papony]

There are several reasons why riders may not choose to move up:

1) maybe they are winning often in AA classes but with lower scores so they want to tighten up the test before they move on

2) perhaps the horse isn't ready to move up. I do well consistantly at PSG/Int-1 but there is no way my horse is ready right now to move up to Int-2, even though she is "working GP". It takes a lot more strength to move up a level and put all those more difficult movements together back to back plus handle the higher degree of collection. That takes time to build/develop and we can't rush it. At the same time, I want to keep my test riding sharp so we still in show small tour classes for now

3) maybe the riders that out there winning often in AA classes just don't see themselves as all that good. I have found that the more I know, the more I know how much I have yet to learn. We often know our shortcomings better than anyone else, which often gives us a less elevated view of ourselves than that held by our competitors

I guess my questions is...why is this such an issue? since AA status has nothing to do with quality or ability, why is it "wrong" or "unfair" for an accomplished AA to show as an AA?

[ESG]

There I guess my questions is...why is this such an issue? since AA status has nothing to do with quality or ability, why is it "wrong" or "unfair" for an accomplished AA to show as an AA?

I don't think anyone's criticizing anyone eligible for showing AA. After all, that's what the divisions are for - to help level the playing field and give everyone a chance to compete against their peers at a show. I was referring to the AAs here that have stated that they show open as well, to give themselves more competition.

[bort84]

I guess my questions is...why is this such an issue? since AA status has nothing to do with quality or ability, why is it "wrong" or "unfair" for an accomplished AA to show as an AA?

Agreed, it's not wrong or unfair. However, if the AA in question prefers competing with the pros for the challenge, that's understandable. I think it's silly to make a sweeping generalization that all AAs are weak riders though. If that's the case in your area, and you want the competition, go for the open division. I don't see what the big deal is either way. I've done both in a variety of disciplines while an ammy (and a junior). It depends on your ability, your horse's ability, your competitors' abilities, and sometimes your schedule like another poster mentioned = ) I would certainly never frown on a top riding ammy sticking to the ammy divisions, nor would I think a good riding ammy looked silly going in the open division.

[papony]

Ohhhhhh! I misunderstood. I do show both divisions. What division I show in depends on the show. If I am showing in a CDI or selection trial, obviously I am showing open. Otherwise it depends on what's offered on what day.

[rugbygirl]

I just thank god this sport isn't like the Arab circuit where they have a class for everything imaginable so that ribbons have become participation awards rather than earned. The Arab shows are so bad that you can actually pay to put in a class for yourself.

:yes::yes::yes:

I show on the Arab circuit too, and I just wrote to my local club about this. We have over 400 classes at a Regional competition with just over 200 horses. :no: I'd way rather compete against 10 pros and lose than keep winning trophies by myself. Maybe one day I'll get good enough to place against the pros!

That said, if a competition warrants separate divisions (lots of local Dressage shows do here) I think your lifestyle should dictate your choice. IF you "volunteer" with your trainer 6 days a week, riding 5+ horses a day, then in my mind you're a professional rider. I really think "Adult Amateur" should be restricted to people who have access to a limited amount of instruction. This is, of course, completely unenforceable. I also think that people shouldn't be allowed to sandbag in the Intro and Training Level Divisions for years and years, but that doesn't stop them. Neither do the rules. So, *meh*...you've got to be in it for the score and experience or you'd go nuts.

[Gloria]

Fair enough. :yes:

Here's another question: if you're that good, why not just move up a level, rather than changing divisions? As most folks school at least one level above where they're showing, it would make sense to challenge oneself against oneself, rather than cruising over into another division at the same level.

Thoughts, please?

Hehehe. Why? Why not? Yes, IF I'm so good at certain level that I'm constantly beating up my competitors, sure it is probably good time to move up a level. But the OP's question is about divisions not levels.

Or maybe my horse and I are not competitive at higher level. Then I certainly don't plan to donate $$$ just to show. You see, to work hard to win is fun. To work hard and know for sure you will get the last place down right stinks. I like to win. I just don't like easy wins. And I like less to get beaten up every single time either. So, I school at higher level, maybe show at higher level at schooling shows for the heck of it, and show at lower level at tougher shows.

I personally believe a person should show higher level "only" if he/she itches to do so. You know, to try her strength or her horse' fitness. It by no means say that person has to continue to school at lower levels though. It just means that person prefer to show at the level he/she is happy with.

[Valentina_32926]

There are several reasons why riders may not choose to move up:

1) maybe they ...

2) perhaps the horse isn't ready to move up. ...

Great reasons papony - My horse was schooling third level movements while I was still showing training level (getting low 60's :winkgrin:) because she had such a hard time in balancing herself in the canter. Her working gaits just weren't there, although that didn't mean she couldn't perform HP, SI, HI, etc... just that she couldn't yet collect nor perform those movements good enough to show - so we schooled them to help her develop the strength and balance to be able to show at the higher levels.