PDA

View Full Version : What does it mean when a trainer says they "produced" a horse?



LeeB10
Dec. 4, 2009, 02:14 PM
I've seen this many times but don't quite understand what it means. Does anyone else?

tidy rabbit
Dec. 4, 2009, 03:05 PM
Bought it. Trained it. Showed it. Sold it.

LeeB10
Dec. 4, 2009, 03:34 PM
so did they buy it green or not going? And then they taught it everything that it knows?

tidy rabbit
Dec. 4, 2009, 03:38 PM
:cool:

Or they bred it, but yes that's the idea. The trainer /owner/ rider made the horse what it is today. Or at least gave it it's start in the world.

Ajierene
Dec. 4, 2009, 03:39 PM
Usually produced implies that it came from not broke or very green broke.

I say implies because some trainers have slightly different meanings and some trainers like to use 'produced' so that people think the trainer brought the horse up from not knowing anything when in reality the horse knew a lot and either just did not show or only showed in local shows, so no real 'evidence' of what the horse knew before it got to the trainer.

Galadriël Fëfalas
Dec. 4, 2009, 03:39 PM
bred it, trained it, brought it on to a certain level - whether or not they sold it after that depends on the person!

LeeB10
Dec. 4, 2009, 03:44 PM
last question, and thanks for the answers, would the trainers have actually ridden the horse themselves or ??

tidy rabbit
Dec. 4, 2009, 03:53 PM
I'd hope a "trainer" was riding horses. If the "trainer" isn't the one doing the riding, I wouldn't consider them a trainer. A coach maybe, in which case they produce riders, not horses. The rider produces the horse, whether or not they are a pro is not important.

Of course I'd venture to guess it's a term that is used pretty loosely in the horse world so I'd just try to take it in the context it's used or ask the person when they say it.

Clarence
Dec. 4, 2009, 04:07 PM
Yeah, but doesn't have to be a green horse. One could say that McLain made Sapphire as she wasn't what she is today when he bought her. Same for Beezie Madden and Authentic.
Although they were good horses in the Netherlands, they became top horses only after being trained by the above-mentioned riders.

Galadriël Fëfalas
Dec. 4, 2009, 05:03 PM
last question, and thanks for the answers, would the trainers have actually ridden the horse themselves or ??

I would have thought so!

CBoylen
Dec. 4, 2009, 05:05 PM
It means they made it a winner. And no, I don't agree that they need to be the one on it. There are many good trainers who have developed great horses from the ground using multiple riders.

HunterRider992
Dec. 4, 2009, 05:21 PM
I'd say that as long as the horse was made a winner in said trainer's program, the trainer could say they produced the horse. Because, if you think about it, they produced the riders who produced the horse, and it is their methods being used on said horse, not Ammy Amy's.

YankeeLawyer
Dec. 4, 2009, 05:31 PM
It means they made it a winner. And no, I don't agree that they need to be the one on it. There are many good trainers who have developed great horses from the ground using multiple riders.

Ditto.

Some of the very best trainers rarely ride themselves - and some are much better trainers than they are riders.

tidy rabbit
Dec. 4, 2009, 05:33 PM
In my opinion the rider is the one who produces the horse. A trainer who doesn't ride may be managing the horse but they certainly are not getting it done ON the horse.

There are many instances where the "trainer" who owns/runs the facility is managing the horses but has pro-riders doing the actual training rides and never actually gets on the horse him/herself.

In my estimation this "trainer" who is managing the horse is not the one who is producing the horse. I'd rather see the rider who is on board and training the horse get the credit.

YankeeLawyer
Dec. 4, 2009, 06:16 PM
In my opinion the rider is the one who produces the horse. A trainer who doesn't ride may be managing the horse but they certainly are not getting it done ON the horse.

There are many instances where the "trainer" who owns/runs the facility is managing the horses but has pro-riders doing the actual training rides and never actually gets on the horse him/herself.

In my estimation this "trainer" who is managing the horse is not the one who is producing the horse. I'd rather see the rider who is on board and training the horse get the credit.

Respectfully, I really disagree on this issue. In my experience, top show horses are frequently developed by a number of pro riders who do exactly as told by the trainer - whether that is Geoff Teall, George Morris, Andre Dignelli, or whoever. I grew up riding with Judy Richter at Coker Farm, who discovered many greenbeans and diamonds in the rough in the field in outer nowheresville and made them champions - with their owners and/or pros up. She unequivocally was the trainer who produced them. Pam Baker, another example. Don Stewart. Or how about Scott Stewart and his young protegee Victoria Colvin. Would people say a horse is produced by Scott or 11 year old Victoria under his watch?

And what about racehorses? According to your theory, Michael Matz was not the trainer of Barbaro because he was not his jockey.

Even the ones that can and do ride competitively sometimes only wear a trainer hat with particular horses.

Hauwse
Dec. 4, 2009, 06:34 PM
Respectfully, I really disagree on this issue. In my experience, top show horses are frequently developed by a number of pro riders who do exactly as told by the trainer - whether that is Geoff Teall, George Morris, Andre Dignelli, or whoever. I grew up riding with Judy Richter at Coker Farm, who discovered many greenbeans and diamonds in the rough in the field in outer nowheresville and made them champions - with their owners and/or pros up. She unequivocally was the trainer who produced them. Pam Baker, another example. Don Stewart. Or how about Scott Stewart and his young protegee Victoria Colvin. Would people say a horse is produced by Scott or 11 year old Victoria under his watch?

And what about racehorses? According to your theory, Michael Matz was not the trainer of Barbaro because he was not his jockey.

Even the ones that can and do ride competitively sometimes only wear a trainer hat with particular horses.

I think I have to agree with YankeeLawyer's definition. If a trainer breeds or procures a horse, dictates their training/development/campaigning program from baby to successful competitor, they produced the horse, regardless of who's hands touched the horse along the way.

I rode a lot of green horses under my fathers direction coming up, but I was as interchangeable as the saddle, it was his program and direction that made them what they were, definitely not my riding skills.

Clarence
Dec. 4, 2009, 06:46 PM
Hauwse,

Who is your dad? You have made me curious with all your references to him. He sounds like someone I would like to meet.

- C

toomanyponies
Dec. 4, 2009, 06:46 PM
I think I have to agree with YankeeLawyer's definition. If a trainer breeds or procures a horse, dictates their training/development/campaigning program from baby to successful competitor, they produced the horse, regardless of who's hands touched the horse along the way.

I rode a lot of green horses under my fathers direction coming up, but I was as interchangeable as the saddle, it was his program and direction that made them what they were, definitely not my riding skills.

Couldnt agree with y'all more!!!

GilbertsCreeksideAcres
Dec. 4, 2009, 07:01 PM
It sounds like a high-falutin,' yet confusing, way to say "trained."

hntrjmprpro45
Dec. 4, 2009, 07:28 PM
To me it means they took a horse that was a "diamond in the rough" and turned it into a quality riding horse or winning show horse. So usually I think it refers to starting either unbroke or very green and finishing the horse but of course some trainers like to get credit for "producing" a horse when all they did was clean up its lead changes. As to whether the trainer must actually the be the rider, thats debatable. If the trainer is the main influence in how it is ridden then I think they can say they produced it. Its kind of like a puppet master.. the puppet may be the one who is dancing but the pupper master is pulling the strings (lousy analogy I know...).

MILOUTE55
Dec. 4, 2009, 07:58 PM
It sounds like a high-falutin,' yet confusing, way to say "trained."

Exactly how I feel :yes:

Sugarbrook
Dec. 4, 2009, 08:16 PM
In my world "produced" means "gave birth to". As in what a brood mare does. I find that a strange word. I would think that "I Made" that pony, horse sounds better. As in Made It What It Is today.

STABLESWOT
Dec. 6, 2009, 03:41 AM
Respectfully, I really disagree on this issue. In my experience, top show horses are frequently developed by a number of pro riders who do exactly as told by the trainer - whether that is Geoff Teall, George Morris, Andre Dignelli, or whoever. I grew up riding with Judy Richter at Coker Farm, who discovered many greenbeans and diamonds in the rough in the field in outer nowheresville and made them champions - with their owners and/or pros up. She unequivocally was the trainer who produced them. Pam Baker, another example. Don Stewart. Or how about Scott Stewart and his young protegee Victoria Colvin. Would people say a horse is produced by Scott or 11 year old Victoria under his watch?

And what about racehorses? According to your theory, Michael Matz was not the trainer of Barbaro because he was not his jockey.

Even the ones that can and do ride competitively sometimes only wear a trainer hat with particular horses.


One detail yankeelawyer mentions here is compelling me to ask a question. I know this thread is discussing the definition of production of a horse by a trainer, but I am curious about something that yankeelawyer said. How much longer in the future do you think this collaborative production style of diamonds in the rough will be preserved? I think it is the best way to produce a horse but I fear with the increased technology and ease of horse international transport today, more and more of these top trainers will simply purchase an already fully trained horse to reduce the time and risk involved with training.

So the trainers who "discovered many greenbeans and diamonds in the rough in the field in outer nowheresville and made them champions - with their owners and/or pros up"- is this written in past tense because sadly it is no longer done? I hope sincerely that this training method is still currently being used. Of course I am not intending to be critical of the post I am referring to, I am just making sure what is mentioned here is still something an owner can currently get involved in. It will make a difference to breeders just starting out to find options for how to make sure they get the best possible performance record for their stallions, mares and progeny.

Clear Blue
Dec. 6, 2009, 09:46 AM
Young horses have been coming over from Europe for a long time in the hunter world.

The slowly improving "modern technology" (record keeping and tracking) will hopefully give the US breeders the recognition they deserve and help them get their fancy stock sold as decent prospects - before they lose their shirts and have to throw them out in a field.......

YankeeLawyer
Dec. 6, 2009, 09:58 AM
I agree with Clear Blue.

Stableswot, the horses I had in mind were purchased for relatively modest sums and ended up 6-figure horses. Their owners would not have purchased them at the higher price here or abroad. Other barn clients were importing horses at the same time - different owners did different things.

I am a breeder and I do buy here in the US as well as abroad. But I only go abroad if I am looking for something that cannot be obtained here, and I am not particularly inclined to spend an extra 10K in shipping and quarantine (for mares) if I can avoid it :).

Janet
Dec. 6, 2009, 10:46 AM
How much longer in the future do you think this collaborative production style of diamonds in the rough will be preserved? I think it is the best way to produce a horse but I fear with the increased technology and ease of horse international transport today, more and more of these top trainers will simply purchase an already fully trained horse to reduce the time and risk involved with training.

Supply and demand.

When/if the supply of "fully trained horses" is less than the demand, then the trainers/suppliers/buyers will find it more profitable to find the "diamond in the rough" and invest the time and risk in training.

Plumcreek
Dec. 6, 2009, 02:15 PM
"What does it mean when a trainer says they "produced" a horse? "

You also have to pay attention to exactly *who* is saying this. For some, it means varations of what everyone has said above. But, I have known some "equine politician" type trainers to refer in this way to a horse to which they added nothing besides finding a good finished but anonymous horse for a client, showing it, and placing lots of advertising to make it a known horse.

rwh
Dec. 6, 2009, 02:22 PM
I am not particularly inclined to spend an extra 10K in shipping and quarantine (for mares) if I can avoid it :).

Question: why are mares more expensive than geldings to import?

YankeeLawyer
Dec. 6, 2009, 03:19 PM
Question: why are mares more expensive than geldings to import?

Breeding animals (fillies over 2.5 years old and stallions) must do an additional period of quarantine, called CEM quarantine, in an approved facility upon arrival in the US to test for Contagious Equine Metritis, a sexually transmitted disease that does not exist in the US. Because it is sexually transmitted and spread by breeding animals, sexually immature horses, geldings and spayed mares are exempt from CEM Quarantine upon arrival in the United States. (Horses originating from countries that do not have CEM would also be exempt).

CEM quarantine costs around 3K for mares, but much more for stallions as their quarantine period is significantly longer. That cost is in addition to the import fees that would apply to all horses (approx. $7,000).

Horseymama
Dec. 6, 2009, 08:32 PM
CEM quarantine costs around 3K for mares, but much more for stallions as their quarantine period is significantly longer. That cost is in addition to the import fees that would apply to all horses (approx. $7,000).

This only applies to horses being imported from Europe. We import horses from Argentina where there is no CEM. Stallions, mares and geldings all quarantine for the same amount of time, 7 days.

YankeeLawyer
Dec. 6, 2009, 09:34 PM
This only applies to horses being imported from Europe. We import horses from Argentina where there is no CEM. Stallions, mares and geldings all quarantine for the same amount of time, 7 days.

Note I stated that "Horses originating from countries that do not have CEM would also be exempt." That apparently includes Argentina.

mvp
Dec. 7, 2009, 09:25 AM
The "producer" of a horse is the one who puts in the most brain-work and engineering.

For young stock, or those taken all the way to the show ring by their breeder, it's clear and they deserve all the credit.

For trainers, it ought to mean bringing the horse a long way from where it was. I don't care who does the riding, but the producer is the shot-caller. I also don't care how rough the diamond was, but I do want to know how much it was polished by someone taking credit for having "produced" the horse. It sounds like a very full term to me.