Your Suggestions For AO and AA Hunter Changes [Archive]

CBoylen

Jul. 19, 2004, 11:54 AM

You know, I have to say, as an amateur I don't really care either way about leaving or removing the "owner" distinction. As you say, it doesn't stop those who really want to show horses they don't own, so I'm not sure there would be a noticeable difference in the division were the distinction removed. In any case, I don't really concern myself with whom I'm showing against. On a selfish level, if they removed the rule I might get some more horses to show, and that certainly wouldn't upset me http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.
Now, what I would like to be able to do is show AA at the same time as A/O in all the zones. I usually have one or two young horses as well as my amateur horses. It's not a huge hardship to do them in the pregreens, but it makes life a lot more interesting to get good ribbons along with mileage, rather than low ribbons or nothing at all. Most shows I go to don't have any type of "low a/o" or "modified" division, although I'm entirely grateful to the KY shows for their unrestricted adults.
I would also really like to see that "rides for someone outside the family" line taken out of the a/o hunter specs. If you're extremely careful with your amateur status, as I try to be, it basically precludes you from doing any division on any horse you don't own. I don't have an amateur jumper right now, and I miss the jumper ring more than anything. I'd be thrilled to show just about any animal, up to and including a mule, in any jumper division right about now. However, I don't want to buy one until I find exactly the right beast at exactly the right price. So, at this point I haven't done a jumper in over a year, and I'm probably going to be too out of practice to ride anything I'd want to buy.

Coreene

Jul. 19, 2004, 12:06 PM

Chanda, exactly. If I have two and one is a 3'6" horse and one needs mileage at 3', be done with the rule.

As for Pet Psychic, I am not playing Jeopardy! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

Ketch

Jul. 19, 2004, 12:06 PM

Totally unrelated, but C.Boylen, check your PT's. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

flshgordon

Jul. 19, 2004, 12:26 PM

I don't know the complete ins & outs of the rule but I would like to see an Amateur 3'6" class out there for several reasons. The main one being purely selfish, though I know I am not alone in it. I currently show my hunter in the 3' and I'm hoping that we can move up to A/O in the fall after it cools off some and we get another show or two under our belts. My goal is to get him to 3'6" myself and then put him up for sale. Actually he is for sale unadvertised for now, but I'd prefer not to sell him until I get to 3'6" because I'm not sure WHEN I will have a chance to show that height again. My personal dilemna is this: say I do sell him, then I want to get back to showing---now it's gotta be 3'0" or the jumpers while I'm between horses. SO if I want to take time to find the next perfect horse and maybe lease in the process, I have to drop back down a division.

I guess I don't really understand why it's necessary to tack on the owner designation. I don't see exactly what it's designed to protect against.

boquieb

Jul. 19, 2004, 01:28 PM

Isn't the real issue how do we make changes for the true amateur vs the not true amateur? Why not have divisions separated not only by age but those which divide the true amateurs-and I mean those who ride entirely for pleasure-not who have spouses or other relatives who ride their horses-and who also have other professions? I am one of those people who have no relatives who ride my horse or prepare it for me. I am a professional who works 5 days a week from 6:45-4:00 everyday at another totally unrelated field. When I get home, I am a wife and mother and then I can go to the barn to ride and have a lesson. This is the true meaning of an amateur not being in some offshoot of the horse world.
It seems so wrong to me that there are others who have spouses who train, ride, breed and judge and they show against me and those like me. These are also the people who can ride the best horses in their barn to do the A/A division. There could also be a division for those people at the 3'0 and the 3'6 fence height. This way maybe the true amateurs would feel they are competing against true amateurs. Please do not feel that I am bashing anyone with these comments. I can be pretty competetive with those other people on any given day but I am working towards being in that A/O division because of just what it is--amateur owner.

Chef Jade

Jul. 19, 2004, 01:41 PM

The intent of the Owner requirement is obviously to keep the true "working" amatuers in the division - and those who have a family horse business with toms of sales horses or clients' horses that need to be show out of the division. However, it has become SO expensive that really, it is precluding all thse who are not independantly wealthy or married rich and don't have to work for a living out of the division. Let's face it, a family with two average incomes isn't going to be able to afford a fancy 3'6" horse. Or if they find a way, they are spending more time working off board bills than actually riding that horse. So the Owner requirement went from keeping professional amateurs out fo the ring, to keeping just about everyone out of the ring. I do think it is time that the rules catch up with the current (extremely expensive) state of the sport and drop the owner requirement.

I know there has also been some dicussion out here about creating small and large A/O hunters with a limit of 1 horse in each division. In an area where the A/O's barely fill except at the largest shows - that seems a bit excessive.

I also wouldn't mind our zone allowing a rider to show in the A/O's and A/A's provided that the horse being shown in the A/A's also qualifies for Pre-Green.

Coreene

Jul. 19, 2004, 01:55 PM

If you had just Amateur Hunters, with different heights, you could keep in a rule where the 3' Amateur horse could still go in the Pre Greens, and so on.

Boquieb's example is another one that really fries me, where Mrs Married To Trainer still rides in the AO. It's all good and well for them to complain that they can't ride other peoples' horses at home, but raise your hand if you really believe that it isn't happening. That's right up there with "amateurs" who give lessons and school horses, and then show in the AOs (Pet Psychic, email me the correct name of that person and I will give you a buck).

This is what I find most irksome:

Ammy No. 1: leases exceptionally nice hunter and gets stuck in the AAs because leased horses can't do the AOs; they are in that division because they are following the rules.

Ammy No. 2: leases exceptionally nice hunter and shows in the AOs anyhow, giving the invisible finger to rules and just doing it anyhow. With a sham $1 Bill of Sale, and then they "sell" the horse back when the lease is up.

Bad, bad Ammy No. 2!

There certainly will be those blessed with enough resources and/or husband to have three or four AO hunters. You go, girls, more power to ya, if you got it via your rich husband then please introduce me to his single brother, LOL. That's life, that's reality. But those who roll up on their leased horse in the AOs, give me a break. Either buy the horse and ride in the AOs, or stay in the AAs.

Go-Go

Jul. 19, 2004, 02:03 PM

I still don't see a problem with just having one amateur division, split by height and age. It's easier to monitor, too - that $1 sale scenario would be moot, and officials could focus on busting shamateurs. Seems a lot simpler to me.

I, too, am a working ammy. I fully expect to be beat by ammys who spend all day at the shows and ride all day - regardless if their spouses are pros or if they have family money and don't have to work. They ride more than I do - it's just the way it is. You know what? I still beat them. And even when I don't it's still fun.

DMK

Jul. 19, 2004, 02:03 PM

Can I just add one more time that I would personally love to lose the age distinction in the A/As and have the class split between 3'0 and 3'3?

OK, I wouldn't mind the age plus height divisions, but there is only so many classes that can fit on the schedule, so if something has to give, this is a good idea (although let's face it, why not lose the entire 2'6 division at the A/AA horse shows first, but I am not so stupid to think that is going to happen!)

And I agree about the A/A and A/O hunter thing - My zone (4) allows it, but Zone 3 does not.

Flycatcher

Jul. 19, 2004, 02:06 PM

There are plenty of amatuers who are married to pros who ride in the A/O divisions as well! In my experience, the majority of these riders know they are under tremendous scrutiny and stay clearly away from doing anything that could be construed as breaking the amatuer rule. Unfortunately, there are those that ruin it.
Anyway, I wholeheartedly agree that the "Owner" in Amatuer Owner restricts a large number of riders who do not, for one reason or another, own a 3'6" horse.
It was a huge disappointment for me after coming out of the juniors that I could not show other people's horses in the bigger classes. Scrapping the A/A and A/O designations would open a world of opportunity for amatuer riders by giving them the option to move up or stay put, depending on their individual goals. These divisions could be further split by age if entries warranted.
Like wise, Amatuer Jumper divisions arranged similarly would be fantastic. Do you think doing a USET style eq class for amatuers would be successful as a building block for those who want to move on to the Amatuer jumpers?

boquieb

Jul. 19, 2004, 02:10 PM

I do agree that it is expensive to show at the "A" level but it is reasonable to show at the "B" level. I do not agree that it is totally impossible to afford a 3'6" horse. Since I am not wealthy by any means and my husband and I do have good jobs, I shop around and buy a young horse and I do much of the training by myself with the help of a trainer. Will I qualify for Devon and Harrisburg without doing Florida for 5 weeks but maybe just for two? That remains to be seen. But with hard work and determination I truly think I have a chance of getting there. I will have to do a bit of traveling to find "A" and "B" level shows but it can and will be done. I am still of the belief that this is why the owner requirement is there. There has not been a better plan yet and I still think there needs to be separate divisions for owners and not owners. That is where the trouble lies.

Go-Go

Jul. 19, 2004, 02:10 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by ZullaRoad:
Do you think doing a USET style eq class for amatuers would be successful as a building block for those who want to move on to the Amatuer jumpers? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I would LOVE to have a USET for amateurs - I think it would be a super class. I miss the fun eqs.

2Dogs

Jul. 19, 2004, 02:11 PM

Hi Chef! Well, Coreene, as an "older" who showed in the A/O's in CA for 7 years, I can think of two owners who bedeviled me for ever (yeah yeah, I know who they ARE... http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif).
But here's my question, and I am not so interested anymore in the outcome as I am now waiting for my own little ones to play with and have pretty much stopped showing - can't afford to anymore (time or money!!):

In the junior hunters, where there is no ownership rule, the best riders are the ones doing the catch riding. Often, they all ready have to top horses in the division and then they ride other owner's horses. Fine, why the heck not? Now in the A/O's, there are dominant combinations - most (but not all) are very wealthy, get the best horseflesh money can buy and are darn good riders to boot, with talent and TIME to ride - you know, the blissful state of no outside job! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
So, the A-A's have become the place that many of the working types or the types that cannot really gear up to ride 3'6" can show and given that we all can make mistakes, find that it is enough of a crap roll that sometimes,that class when for once you don't miss at the oxer or the first fence, brings in a nice ribbon.
3'6" is a different story. Due to all of the above factors, mistakes can just about finish you off. Even a horse like I had that just loved to rub a fence or two was almost always out of the ribbons(and he was very handsome and moved a dream, but but..).
Now I know that there is nothing I can do to equalize the money or work situation - just the way it is. But how does opening up the class to non-owners change any of this? I mean, if I were an owner, I would find the best damn rider in the A-O bunch and put that person on my horse. Now that I think about it, it might make me want to be a owner of A-O horses, but I am not sure it would make it any better for me as a rider of A-O horses. On the other hand, maybe opened up, the classes would fill enough that rider x could not have more than one of their horses in a section...... (I am thinking as I write). But the deck will still be stacked.
I dunno - ask me why I switched to jumpers for my last two years in CA!!!

Coreene

Jul. 19, 2004, 02:12 PM

You could, say, have three Amateur Hunter divs: three foot, 3'3" and 3'6".

Isn't Long Stirrup 2'6"?

Go-Go

Jul. 19, 2004, 02:14 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Coreene:
You could, say, have three Amateur Hunter divs: three foot, 3'3" and 3'6". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Perfect. I like it. Let's do that, and similar for the jumpers, too. If the classes are huge, split them further by age.

boquieb

Jul. 19, 2004, 02:15 PM

DMK,
Explain further please your idea of the 3'0 and 3'3 divisions. I think I like that one and would like to hear more about it.

Duffy

Jul. 19, 2004, 02:16 PM

I like the idea of the three heights, with no Owner restriction. But, I'd also like to see a limit put on the number of horses a rider could ride at each height. Isn't the Juniors' limit 2 per size?

boquieb

Jul. 19, 2004, 02:19 PM

Or wait maybe you need to explain it more Coreene!!!!! Some things are posting so fast that I can't keep up with my typing!!!!

Go-Go

Jul. 19, 2004, 02:23 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Duffy:
I like the idea of the three heights, with no Owner restriction. But, I'd also like to see a limit put on the number of horses a rider could ride at each height. Isn't the Juniors' limit 2 per size? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

oooh - also a good idea.

Coreene

Jul. 19, 2004, 02:23 PM

I'm looking at it from height and from ownership at the same time. Say I, Miss Fits Her Fat Butt Back Into Show Clothes, am leasing a very fancy hunter who could easily do the 3'6". It's this ownership rule that's keeping me out of a division that A) has a hard time filling in many places and B) has riders in it less honest than me who are ignoring the ownershop rule and doing it anyhow. I can't afford to own the horse, but I can swing a lease. Yet I, playing by the rules, stay in a lower, unrated division.

As for putting a great rider on my 3'6" horse if it was an Amateur Hunter division, without an ownership rule, that's always going to happen. If it is that way for the juniors, keep it the same for the amateurs.

2Dogs

Jul. 19, 2004, 02:23 PM

call me silly but hasn't there been a modified 3"3" division? Are we saying make that a rated division?

Coreene

Jul. 19, 2004, 02:33 PM

No, I'm suggesting an Adult Hunter division, with three foot, 3'3" and 3'6". Keep the 3'6" rated. Put a cap on the # of horses someone can ride at each height.

Jezebel

Jul. 19, 2004, 02:40 PM

I like the fact that the A/A's are "c" rated, no matter where you show.
Being an ammy who has to work, I can't always take time off to travel and go to the bigger shows.
I think the A/A's should remain as a seperate division.
I do agree that the A/O's should allow non owners to compete, heck maybe it would fill at the local level.

Coreene

Jul. 19, 2004, 02:48 PM

If you let non-owners show in AOs, then it's not an AO class; if you got rid of the ownership rule and ran an Amateur Hunter division different heights, then you'd have amateurs showing at the height that best suited them and their horse. Many of the AOs here also work full time and can't take the time off, save for the odd Friday. Too often, in Zone 10 at least, you have AOs being forced to do the AAs or nothing, because the AO division doesn't fill; at the same time you have AA horses who would do great in the AOs but are restricted by the ownership rule.

wanderlust

Jul. 19, 2004, 02:52 PM

Oh, Coreene, just found this thread. I know several people who compete in the A/O's in California, and they know that their only chance of placing above 5th (used to be above fourth, then the aforementioned wealthy A/O bought a 4th horse) is if the aforementioned wealthy A/O circles because she can't see a distance. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/sigh.gif

I mean seriously, how do you compete against someone who has 4 A/O horses, and the horse who consistently places behind the other 3 WON the IHF as a 3-year old and holds a HOY title for working hunters? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif The amateur rule doesn't help one bit... hell, I could be a pro who rides 8 horses a day and not be able to beat that.

Coreene

Jul. 19, 2004, 03:05 PM

If you place below those four, and the judge is fair, then could it be because they are better horses? Certainly if I rolled up with my AO and she was doing the same division with her quadrille, I would think twice and do the modifieds. We have the Low AOs in Zone 10 because of this quadrille. But if I had some ****-hot horse I was leasing, who could go head-to-head with that quadrille and win, I would be unable to unless I was cheating. And cheating, well, this it be wrong.

I don't mind being beaten by a better horse. I also realise that hunters are subjective, and if you have a WB and a TB doing IDENTICAL rounds, the judge who favors TBs is going to pin the TB first etc. But for those leasing to be restricted to AAs or Modifieds, when they have a horse that does the 3'6", well, this is one of those "this it be wrong" moments.

Make it about the horses, and make it the same for juniors as amateurs. Don't make a talented junior be relegated to the AAs because of an ownership rule when they move up to the adults; don't make the talented leased horse stay over the lower fences because of an ownership rule. But the USEF has known about this shamateur and I'm Leasing It But I Have A BS Bill Of Sale stuff for far too long, and it's time for a change.

Doubleeez

Jul. 19, 2004, 03:08 PM

Coreene -
I heard just recently that the FED had formed a committee to work on the rewriting of the Amateur Rule. Contact sdotson@usef.org and find out who the Chair is and then send all of these ideas for consideration by the Committee. It's a rather cumbersome way of getting things done, but unfortunately, it's the only way it can happen.

Coreene

Jul. 19, 2004, 03:09 PM

Thanks!

wtywmn4

Jul. 19, 2004, 03:27 PM

Just have to throw my .02 cents in. I'm with Duffy. Throw out the ownership part. Have three different fence heights. With restrictions such as, cannot cross enter from one height to another at the same show. It allows the horse to be moved up, if they can. And allows the amateur who wants to stay at 3 foot to do so..

Bet many can remember when there were only small and large divisions. Or the lightweight, middleweight, and heavyweight divisions. But of course the number of people showing horses then, was a whole lot different.

Coreene

Jul. 19, 2004, 03:32 PM

My .02 on top of that: let the rider cross enter, but not the horse. That way, if your 3'6" horse and your 3' horse go to the same show, you can ride both of them.

The hunter classes in England are still the weight divisions, and there's nothing more divine than the heavyweight hunters. JMHO, but I do loff those big fatties.

Hopeful Hunter

Jul. 19, 2004, 03:47 PM

OK...I'm not even up to the A/A level yet, but I have to say I loff the idea of an Amateur Hunter division; 3' 3'3" and 3'6", split by age if entries warrant; rider may cross enter any divisions at show but horse may not enter any class at a height higher than another (ie do only all 3' classes); limit 2 horses per rider per height division.

Why would that be so hard? In what way would it demeen the idea of an amateur division? Heck, why not run two -- Amateur Hunter and Amateur Equ? From my perspective, it would mean MORE entries for the show managers, not less, and a greater opportunity for talented riders to move around as they need or as life circumstances dictate -- and wouldn't that be MORE in keeping with the idea of an amateur sporting contest?

Coreene

Jul. 19, 2004, 03:50 PM

And then do a corresponding thing for the non-amateur classes. So, for example, your 3' in the Amateur Hunters is still eligible for pre green, but if he's doing the 3'6" Amateur Hunters he is not.

Lord Helpus

Jul. 19, 2004, 05:02 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Hopeful Hunter:
limit 2 horses per rider per height division.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The very wealthy ammie with the 4 top horses would have a fit and would throw her considerable influence into defeating the entire plan, no matter what its merits are. As would any ammie with more than 2 horses who show atthe same height.

Instead, why not say that no adult may ride more than 4 horses, total, in the amateur divisions at any show?

This way the ammie with the 4 3'6" horses stays happy, yet it limits the catch riders from taking over the different divisions.

The two horses per height level allows for one person to ride 6 horses per show -- that is a lot of influence for one rider -- she could be champion and reserve in every single division. Seems like 4 horses out of 3 divisions is plenty for one person to be allowed to ride.

And, of course a pregreen cannot show higher than 3' -- it would blow its pregreen status.

I love the idea of doing away with the "Owner" rule. Lets get the really good ammies out of the 3' division and into the 3'3" or 3'6" where they really should be. Let talent determine the competition, not who owns the horse.

Another thought: I was talking to a friend who rides reining. She has a horse for sale now and she was saying that it is almost impossible to sell a horse in the middle of a show season. I know that she has been doing very well this year and is on track for going to World's (their version of The National Horse Show) so I was surprised that her horse wouldn't be snapped up by someone who wanted to go there since he must be already qualified.

Much to my surprise, she told me that it is the pair (horse and rider) that qualify. If she sells the horse, no points go with it to the new owner.

If something like that were added to the hunter world, it would do away with catch riders who prep horses or qualify horses for their owners.

Interesting concept, eh? I am sure it would never happen -- so I am not suggesting that we even waste time discussing it seriously. Its just an interesting idea to play with.

boquieb

Jul. 19, 2004, 05:04 PM

AHH! Coreene in your infinite wisdom---thank you for your further explanation of the 3 divisions. These 3 separate divisions do sound good but what are the pitfalls? I can see some good things coming from them but what aren't we seeing. What about the mileage rule in all of this? There are some interesting happenings in some one part of Zone 2 because of the mileage rule and some new show managers are putting in shows where there was only one previously. As has been said before, may the best footing and best run show win.

DMK

Jul. 19, 2004, 05:09 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by boquieb:
DMK, Explain further please your idea of the 3'0 and 3'3 divisions. I think I like that one and would like to hear more about it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right now, here in Zone 4, our A/A specs actually allow for a 3'3 division:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> The Adult Amateur Hunter Division may be offered in two height sections: one at 3’ and one at 3’3”. If only one height section is offered, it must be 3’. Height sections may be combined in one division with both heights offered. The same horse/rider combination may only exhibit in one height section at a given show. Any section determined by rider age will be considered separately for purposes of the heights offered. Zone award will be presented annually as one section. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now I think this has been in place since 2000 (?), but go ahead, ask me if I have ever seen a 3'3 A/A class. Not one. Not anywhere except WEF, where it existed prior to the zone specs and runs on wed/Thurs where no normal working A/A could show in it (and there are darn few of those at WEF). And while it is a great idea, it is undercut by that last sentence limiting it to one award. Never mind the point hungry competitors, the entire spec is written as a disincentive for show managers.

So the Modified A/O class (3'3) lives on. You know, the one that is one day only, usually on Friday and means I have to compete against all the A/O folks using it as a warm up. Sigh... I'm not especially ribbon hungry, but I like to feel like I'm legitimate, and quite frankly competing in a class where a bunch of seasoned 3'6ers are warming up doesn't quite inspire that feeling. And I'd feel like an even BIGGER heel showing in 3'3 on Friday then back down in 3'0 on the weekend!

So damnit, we have given the stamp of legitimacy damn near every AA horse show (except a few like WEF and Devon) for !&#$ 2'6 classes, but 3'3? Apparently this must be the crime of the century. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

On the 3'6 lease issue, if folks wanted a trial period on the non-owner isse, maybe they could make it a requirement that the lease was for 1 year or 6 months - this could eliminate the catch ride aspect that dominates the junior ranks. Or at least pretend to in the same fashion as the $ sale pretends to! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

J. Turner

Jul. 19, 2004, 05:43 PM

Perhaps a rule change proposal is in the works ... I'll help.

Peggy

Jul. 19, 2004, 05:44 PM

Like the idea of dropping the AO and having three AA divisions at different heights. As others have said, seems like you would have to put some sort of restriction on the total number of horses one person could show in the division and also some sort of cross-entry restriction for the horse (or horse/rider combo) with respect to fence height. I would vote for this to include eq classes--someone showing in 3'3" eq and medal classes (we have these for adults in CA) should show in the 3'3" hunters with the same horse.

Not sure I agree that the horse should be restricted to the pre-greens to go in the 3' AAs--seems like the same rider or the trainer should be allowed to school in other open 2'9" or 3' divisions.

2Dogs

Jul. 19, 2004, 06:27 PM

good luck guys! I hope that whatever you want is put into practice. However, as an old timer, I don't see what all the changes you propose will affect the way things are. You all seem to think that by opening up the A-O card, the divison will be full of folks. Maybe! And maybe I am out of touch with the concept that there are whole lots of 3'6" horses out there that are competitive but are just not getting ridden because an A-O owner doesn't have them? Wow, I hope so.
I would love to see the A-O divas get some competition, but they are the divas because they can buy the best money can buy and they ride damn good. So now they can ride my horse they don't own. So maybe you need to think about this as being a B and C rated show change?? Really, what is it that is wanted here? A bigger A/O class? That's great, but does it change the results? If that doesn't matter, go for it. But if I were the person with the four stellar horses, it wouldn't be no never mind if the non-owners came in. So have at it.

CBoylen

Jul. 19, 2004, 06:41 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by 2Dogs:
Really, what is it that is wanted here? A bigger A/O class? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

God, no thanks. 50 of them in each age group in FL, 30 something in Lake Placid, 15-20 just about everywhere else I go. There are quite enough A/O hunters. Even if we do manage to go somewhere without a lot of competition my barn can manage to fill the youngers all on its own, and most of the time my ass still gets kicked http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.
However, I don't think getting rid of the owner distinction is really going to bring in that many more, but it would help out a few people, and it would take care of a lot of the grey moral areas.

Madison

Jul. 19, 2004, 07:12 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by DMK:

Right now, here in Zone 4, our A/A specs actually allow for a 3'3 division:
Now I think this has been in place since 2000 (?), but go ahead, ask me if I have ever seen a 3'3 A/A class. Not one.

So the Modified A/O class (3'3) lives on. You know, the one that is one day only, usually on Friday and means I have to compete against all the A/O folks using it as a warm up. Sigh... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm with you on this one DMK - would love to see a 3'3" division offered so that working amateurs aren't limited to two trips on Friday afternoon as the only stepping stone/trial run for moving up.

wtywmn4

Jul. 19, 2004, 07:16 PM

LHU, that is an extremely interesting concept. Points of horse/rider combo not being transfered when the horse is sold. It sure would end all those catch riders beefing up the points. However, thats one I think will be squashed so fast heads would swivel. Too much industry $$$'s going out the door on that one.

Maybe rating the heights. Keeping the C rating for the 3' & 3'3". Making the 3'6" A or AA. This might be able to have people step up for the bigger classes.

Beezer

Jul. 19, 2004, 07:54 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by C.Boylen:
However, I don't think getting rid of the owner distinction is really going to bring in that many more, but it would help out a few people, and it would take care of a lot of the grey moral areas. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now, see, this is a KEY point to me. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif Taking care of the gray moral areas. As Coreene has already so eloquently stated, a person either has to be big enough to play by the rules or not so big and not.

Generally speaking, one can't legislate morality. And while I'm not often a fan of giving in to the bad guys, in this case I think it's warranted. Eliminate the word "owner," offer three fence heights and restrict the number of rides, and -- BINGO! -- you have some great amateur divisions. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif

Linny

Jul. 19, 2004, 08:29 PM

Some time ago I mentioned here that I thought that the A/O's should be opened to include long term leases. IMO in this hi-tech era, if the USEF can keep track of millions of points each year, as well as ownership etc of thousands of horses, why not allow "registered leases" in the 3'6 Ammy hunters.
The rule could require that the lease be for a minimum of one year. The amount or value of the lease is not important, the term is. During the term of the lease, only the "official leasor" could show the horse in any ammy classes. The idea is to treat the leasor as the "owner" for show purposes. The restrictions are to prevent horses from being "leased" by the show or the week.
The value is moving some of the current 3'0 riders/horses up to 3'6. There are many out there who could if only they had a sales receipt. There are plenty of young riders, who leased as juniors who have to drop back to the A/A's when they turn 18. They might keep leasing their Jr horses if they could do the 3'6's.

boquieb

Jul. 20, 2004, 05:46 AM

Now I am really confused on this issue. You say that the divisions fill in Florida and I know that the divisions fill on the east coast, so what is the issue? If you want another division for the 3'6" so the juniors can ride, petition usef for another division which allows the juniors to ride. I do not believe taking the O out of the A/O division is a good idea.
I have a question about the woman who owns the 4 A/O hunters. Is she wealthy or does she make her money doing horses? She certainly gets prize money from all of her placings (although I know it's not that much, but then again, maybe it is!!! for her). Does she have another job or is this all that she does? And how should I, who is a true amateur, try to compete with her who is riding 4 horses at least 3 times a week? I think this is still the true problem. Also, does anyone know how the AQHA handles the amateur problem? I think it has been discussed before but I'm not sure.

Duffy

Jul. 20, 2004, 06:11 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by C.Boylen:
However, I don't think getting rid of the owner distinction is really going to bring in that many more, but it would help out a few people, and it would take care of a lot of the grey moral areas. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I think the idea of recorded long-term leases is a viable option as well - i.e., to get rid of the catch-ride situations. But, if the A/O division is already not monitored as it should be, I don't know how that rule could be monitored. (In other words, who is going to challenge the possible offender?)

july

Jul. 20, 2004, 06:32 AM

For the ammies in general...

I would like to see a rule that limits the number of horses you can show and remain an ammy. There are plenty of top amm. riders out there that spend the entire day at the barn, riding a fleet of horses. They are clearly within the ammy rules of the USEF, but I am sorry if you have a fleet and more then one barn staff on your payrole I don't consider you a true ammy.

Right now I am living / riding / have an office job in Holland. For the most part they don't distinguish between am/prof. but they do have a new competition called Jumping Jackpot which DOES seperate the two.

Their rule?
1)If you have a start license for more then 5 horses (regardless of owner) in one year you are a professional.
2)If you have personally started the horse in more then a national 1.30 class you are a professional.
3)If you have a universal start card (meaning that you can show any horse at any level you want) you are a professional.
If none of these rules affect you...you are in the Jumping Jackpot as an Ammy http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif.

I think this sounds pretty fair and would have no problems with this. What does everyone else think?? could it be modified/adapted by USEF or am I crazy?

Janet

Jul. 20, 2004, 06:35 AM

What is as "start license"?

DMK

Jul. 20, 2004, 06:49 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by boquieb:
Now I am really confused on this issue. You say that the divisions fill in Florida and I know that the divisions fill on the east coast, so what is the issue? If you want another division for the 3'6" so the juniors can ride, petition usef for another division which allows the juniors to ride. I do not believe taking the O out of the A/O division is a good idea.
I have a question about the woman who owns the 4 A/O hunters. Is she wealthy or does she make her money doing horses? She certainly gets prize money from all of her placings (although I know it's not that much, but then again, maybe it is!!! for her). Does she have another job or is this all that she does? And how should I, who is a true amateur, try to compete with her who is riding 4 horses at least 3 times a week? I think this is still the true problem. Also, does anyone know how the AQHA handles the amateur problem? I think it has been discussed before but I'm not sure. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not about filling the divisions. Quite frankly the # of horses probably only really matters to the show manager. But right now there are people showing in the division on horses that really are leases. Temporarily sold as it were, and everyone goes by with a wink and a nod. But there are a great many more people who would like to be able to lease and show at 3'6, but because they are the sort that follow the rules, they don't. So who exactly is being punished here? I think that is the issue that bothers most people.

If you are talking about that certain older ammie, she is a true ammie, she worked hard all her life and now she can afford some really nice horses. Which is certainly nice, because she is one really nice rider. And if you clean up at a big show (excluding any big money classics) you probably clear enough money to pay your show bill, your braider and maybe some of your day care expenses.

Flash44

Jul. 20, 2004, 06:57 AM

The Adult and Chidrens divisions should get more prize money, but not national recognition.

There should be Adult and Childrens eq divisions that get zone recognition.

july

Jul. 20, 2004, 07:13 AM

A start license/card is basically aproval for a horse/rider combination to enter a show. You must have a start license before you can compete in the equivalent of USEF shows.

Example: I own 4 horses (one retired horse I used to show, one 4 yo my trainer shows and two horses I am showing) and I show my neighbors horse because she is pregnant this year. So I am showing 3 horses, my two horses and my neighbors horses = 3 start licenses for me.
My trainer has one start license to show my 4 yo (I don't have a license because I don't show it, when I want to show it then I get the start card). My trainer would also have other start licenses for other horses she shows.

Is that a clear example?
I can explain more if you need me to...

I think my example could also eliminate the 'professional ammies' that school horses around in the 3ft division for other people.

Duffy

Jul. 20, 2004, 07:17 AM

july's scenario sounds very intriguing, have to admit!

Midge

Jul. 20, 2004, 07:28 AM

This year at WEF, the adults were limited to two rides and you had to own or lease one in order to show the second. The juniors are limited to two per section. There would have to be a pretty strict limitation situation or the catch riding would be overwhelming.

There would be year end point situations to work out. The 3'6" section would still be the Indoor qualifier and perhaps there would have to be a declaration of which section one is using to collect year end points.

C. Boylen, at the biggest shows, the AO's are a big division, but not at the smaller shows. They've been combined at every show I've been to and at one, the division didn't fill, so the AOs showed in the adults.

july

Jul. 20, 2004, 07:37 AM

Need to add more to my start license example:

If one of my two show horses needs to be tuned up from my ammy rides, then my trainer can show it too, with her start license for the horse. The horse can have a start number for each of it's riders.

Someone like a trainer has a 'universal' license meaning that they can show any horse in any division that they want. They have a set number (like USEF number) and add the horses' number to their entry.

july

Jul. 20, 2004, 07:43 AM

This would include the total number of hunters AND jumpers you could show per year, and still remain an ammy, not just per show.

DMK

Jul. 20, 2004, 07:59 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Midge:
This year at WEF, the adults were limited to two rides and you had to own or lease one in order to show the second. The juniors are limited to two per section. There would have to be a pretty strict limitation situation or the catch riding would be overwhelming. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Trust Gene Mische and co. to come up with a good solution.

And I totally agree that 3'6 ought to still mean something more special than the other divisions - I think it should stay special.

But I was thinking more like it is truly 3 different divisions. I mean just like the A/Os can show in the A/As, and their points don't cross over, the same should hold here. You show in 3'0, you get points in that division. You move up, you start from 0 all over again, same as if you had moved up a horse from pre-greens to 1st years in summer.

Sunday

Jul. 20, 2004, 08:27 AM

Ok, I saw J. Turner mention it.

Will someone here pursue filling out the Rule Proposal Change Form? There is a nice brochure available on USEF's website on how and what to do.

Ok, so a Rule Change is submitted. How many of us will go to whatever meetings are necessary to back up our proposed change?

I'm all for revamping. But I get tired of reading threads where people want change and then I look on USEF's website and there has been no Rule Change submitted!!

So I'm talking the talk. And I'll walk. I'm willing to get involved with a group of people here to write a decent Rule Change, submit it, and then follow thru in person where needed.

Coreene, J Turner, others? PT if you want help.

Coreene

Jul. 20, 2004, 08:31 AM

Yes, I will PT you. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Nadonyalife

Jul. 20, 2004, 10:42 AM

Testing...

Nadonyalife

Jul. 20, 2004, 12:34 PM

Okay...Had to make sure my anonymous post was going to be anonymous!

It never ceases to amaze and amuse me how we, as Americans, love to complain about excessive laws/lawyers/lawsuits/bureaucrats--but whenever anything happens, we rush out to write new laws/rules. We always forget about the oldest and most constant law of all--the Law of Unintended Consequences.

At the very least, I don't think we should go around fixing rules until we identify a specific problem--and as I see it, this thread has identified seven or eight, all with different solutions.

So here's my two cents. By way of background: I show as an AO somewhere in the south central flyover states (you'll be able to figure it out). I am a "true" AO; I have a daytime job (NOT horsey), a husband and offspring (one of whom rides), AND I did not ride as a Junior, but started this insane sport as an adult (and NOT a young one!!!).

Oh, yeah, and the worst part: I can't afford six-figure horses.

Despite these disadvantages, I manage to do okay in the AO division--meaning, I am currently accumulating points at a clip that would qualify my horses for indoors if I could manage to fit in 15 shows by mid-August (unfortunately, thanks to thanks to the damned job & injuries, looking a little dicey this year).

At "A" & "AA" shows in my part of the world, half of the AO division will generally consist of either the AO "divas" or their cousins, the shamateurs; the other half will be women alot like me. Most of the divas, and at least one of the shamateurs, have "strings" of anywhere from three to five AO horses. Which means, depending upon who shows up and how many of their horses are sound, I'm generally fighting for ribbons in the bottom half of the class.

Despite this, I really don't think that the "AO" rules need fixing. Oh, sure--whenever my "78" round doesn't pin, I fantasize about a special division for AOs who (1) have ridden for less than ten years, AND (2) have a net worth of less than ten million. But the reality is, it ain't gonna happen--and how would you enforce it anyway???

So I just don't let the divas bother me. The way I see it, there's always gonna be someone richer/skinner/prettier/smarter than me, and that's life. The fact is, they ride GREAT and have superior horseflesh, but they still miss from time to time (and, fortunately for the rest of us, one is addicted to circling on the first day!). It gives me something to aspire to--and makes the RARE blue ribbon I get over fences MUCH more special than theirs!

Believe it or not, with ONE exception (see bottom of this post), the shamateurs don't bother me, either. You know the sort: they've done nothing with their lives but ride--no job, no advanced degree, no children, nothing but showing horses. Some of are trainers'/judges' wives and former professionals; some still teach/board/make a living off of what they do. Either way, they "buy" the fancy ones with a screw loose that the other trainers couldn't sell for a dollar, and, when scrutinized by the usef (yes, rumor has it that one of them was actually questioned by The Authorities), claim they paid cash.

Actually, I'd rather face these folks than the divas. So long as the drug testers show, no matter how well they ride, that time-bomb is likely to explode in one (or two, if I'm lucky) of those rounds. So long as I find eight and am semi-slick on my not-so-fancy-but-dependable boy, I'll do fine.

Of all the solutions discussed, the "own or lease-for-a-year rule" seems most likely to do no harm. Problem is, I don't see much of an upside. Yeah, it might open the division up to the poor-and-honest true ammy; better yet, it might create a market for your older-but-can-still-do-the-job AO horse.

Other than that, tho, I don't see a benefit. Yeah, it might make a few of the shamateurs more honest, and would, IN THEORY, keep the trainers' wives from showing the fancy CONSIGNMENT sale stock. They'd still be able to show what they own, though, just like they do now.

Frankly, I don't see how making three AA divisions at different heights fixes ANY of this.

There is one scenario, however, that sticks in my craw, and that needs to be addressed by the rules committee, because, IMHO, it is a REAL black eye for the USEF. In my neck of the woods, there are AOs who are married to horse show managers, and WHO SHOW AT THEIR HUSBAND'S SHOW, where THEIR HUSBAND HAS HIRED THE JUDGES.

Talk about the appearance of impropriety!!!

And for those insiders tempted to argue that it doesn't make a difference....well, pull their show record, and compare how they do at their husband's shows to how they do at the others, and decide for yourself.

Ketch

Jul. 20, 2004, 12:55 PM

I like you, Nadon. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I'm not saying we're in the same boat (I've ridden all my life) or in the same area (I don't know what a flyover state even is http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif) but I'm just saying, I like your thinkin.' http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif

Nadonyalife

Jul. 20, 2004, 01:11 PM

Thanks, Ketch. Eager to see if anyone takes the bait on that last part....

P.S.--A "flyover state" is anything between the eastern seaboard and El Lay.

Janet

Jul. 20, 2004, 01:16 PM

Rule changes

Rule change proposals from individual memebers (as opposed to USEF officials and committees) need to be completed before the end of May- which has already passed.

Any individual rule change proposal submitted now would be considered a 2005 rule change, to be addressed at the January 2006 meeting, and go into effect Dec 1 2006.

Smiles

Jul. 20, 2004, 01:18 PM

I'll join you in your 2 cents Nadon.

You don't need a super fancy horse to go out and do the a/os. Find eight jumps and have decent form and you're going to get a ribbon. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif No matter how you bend the rules their is always going to be shamatuers and trainers wives, I mean somebody has got to marry these guys. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gifYes, it does stink that you can't ride a leasee in the a/o, but if you can afford a nice leased horse, chances are you can afford a nice horse of your own, solves that one. As far as the 3.3ft division goes, why would any AA rider want to do those classes when all the classic and points come from the 3ft. There is no incentive for people to move up, so there would be little interest in those classes.

nycrider

Jul. 20, 2004, 01:20 PM

I'm in if you guys need more people involved to actually do the work, i.e. write a rule and show up where I need to show up!

Pet Psychic

Jul. 20, 2004, 01:21 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Nadonyalife:
In my neck of the woods, there are AOs who are married to horse show managers, and WHO SHOW AT THEIR HUSBAND'S SHOW, where THEIR HUSBAND HAS HIRED THE JUDGES. Talk about the appearance of impropriety!!!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh, Pet Psychic doesn't even need a Eukanuba crystal ball to agree with that statement, as those sorts of "improprieties" occur at shows, well, in places other than flyover states. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Weatherford

Jul. 20, 2004, 01:26 PM

Here in Ireland, there aren't any Amateur Hunters (except in the Riding Club classes, perhaps), but in the Jumpers the only determination is that you don't show higher in ANY CLASS for a period of two or three years that is higher than 1.2M (3'11") Since they do NOT give money in the Amy classes, most people would rather not be there (but, boy, do they tend to give NICE prizes!!)

Pros simply don't have time to saunter over to the Amy ring and jump those fences, AND they do NOT want to be limited to only 4' fences.

It is an interesting concept, and seems to work. I would like to see a similar restiction in US shows - that is, if you are jumping the GP's, you can't show A/O or anything lower, in cluding in the Hunter divisions. IMHO, if you can jump the GP's, you can certainly jump the 4'0 Open Hunter classes.

I don't think it is approptiate for an A/O rider to also be showing the A/A classes - find another division, find other classes for your greenies. Or move them up a little faster than most people do nowadays - we did in the "old days"!

Just thoughts.

nycrider

Jul. 20, 2004, 01:43 PM

I'm also an example of someone who would benefit from these rule changes...I cannot afford to lease or own a horse but I do ride well enought that someone might lend me one to show on occasion. I'm no pro nor do I ride frequently enough where I'm a threat but since I did ride as a junior it would be nice to be able to show at a similar level as an adult. I agree with the above posts that these proposed change won't change the fact that I'd be showing against some of these unamed 3'6" ammies who are bending or walking the line of current rules etc. but quite frankly, I think you're also right in that no rule change is ever going to change that. I see this proposed change as a means to make the ammies more like the juniors....There will always people who have more who might do better but at least there isn't any mandated financial constraint on being able to show, which IMO, is what the owner rule is.

Chef Jade

Jul. 20, 2004, 02:04 PM

in nycrider's example, the rule change would benefit the A/A rider, too.

Consider a former talented Junior rider who sells her horses so she can conventrate on college. She may on occasion have the opportunity to show a nice horse that is being lent to her. She would have to do the A/A's. I am sure those showing in teh A/A's wouldn't appreciate having to compete against her. But IMO, at the highest levels of any age group - "alls fair". i.e. This is the division where the best compete against the best. By dropping the Owner requirement, you will get to see the best compete against the best. I am not necessarily even in favor of limiting the horses one person can show, either. At some point, if you put in the rounds, and have a great horse (borrowed, leased, or owned) you are going to beat Mrs. Marriedwell http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif on all her 4 horses. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

DMK

Jul. 20, 2004, 02:52 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Nadonyalife:
There is one scenario, however, that sticks in my craw, and that needs to be addressed by the rules committee, because, IMHO, it is a REAL black eye for the USEF. In my neck of the woods, there are AOs who are married to horse show managers, and WHO SHOW AT THEIR HUSBAND'S SHOW, where THEIR HUSBAND HAS HIRED THE JUDGES. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yawn... I'll call you on your manager's wife and raise you a wife AND daughter in law.

Just a few points of clarification. Adding a 3'3 division isn't supposed to "fix" much of anything and actually isn't remotely related to the issue of the "O" in A/O (not quite sure where that idea came from), it's just there to address those folks who have an honest desire to MOVE UP, and are trapped in those silly things like non-diva or non-shammie status, with horses that are good, but you know, 6" is a lot, especially what with having to give up your practice string after you failed to pay pocket trainer and all that.

Smiles, of course there isn't an incentive to have 3'3 classes when all the points/classics are in 3'0 and 3'6. That's sort of the reason behind the idea to formalize them as an A/A division... I'm just thinking instead of adding another under 3'0 class, what say we go the other way?

Last but not least, I don't think anyone who shows regularly thinks that changing the A/O rules will magically open up the doors to blue ribbons at WEF. Most of us are pretty realistic about how we and our horses stack up against our competition. But if a few more honest folks got to play on the same level ground as people who bend the rules, and a few more people had an opportunity to show, and even if that was really the ONLY goal we were talking about here, then what is wrong with that?

Sometimes this discussion seems to get a tinge of "what can we do to improve my chance of winnin" to it, and I really believe that most people come to the discussion thinking "what can I do to make this sport better and fairer for most people?"

Peggy

Jul. 20, 2004, 03:22 PM

IMHO, changing the AO's to a 3'6" AA division isn't going to get rid of the shamatuers, the TFK's (are you still a kid if you show in the older AO's?) or whatever. What it would do is allow an ethical someone who has the talent and a horse (not theirs) to do the 3'6".

It might skim some of the top off the 3' AA's, but probably not if you let people cross-enter the various heights. Requiring ammies showing one horse in the 3'6" to show their young horses only in the open division isn't going to work real well for those who work and can't necessarily show in the middle of the week (when the open classes are).

A point in favor of restricting the number of horses per show is that it can actually be enforced right there at the show. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to count the number of different horses a person is showing.

BTW, just got a premium where they had a 3'3" division, but it was AO, not AA.

wtywmn4

Jul. 20, 2004, 04:44 PM

Restricting the number of entries for a AA or AO division at a show will not fly, unless management is for it. You are talking $$$'s here, and no one will pass that one.

And DMK you are right on. We all truly know how our horses stack up against the competition. At least I hope we all do. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Think realistically most people want a level playing field, no matter what the division. When someone blatantly points the fickled finger of fate (for wont of a better euphoriusm) at the rules, it makes all of us extremely heated. Fixing it properly is the key.

2Dogs

Jul. 20, 2004, 06:08 PM

uh Chef - he married well, not she http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Coreene

Jul. 20, 2004, 06:09 PM

Well, that's the whole reasons my panties were in a wad in the first place, the people leasing horses and giving the proverbial finger to the rules. Get rid of the owner thang at 3'6" and make it the top height of Amateur Hunters. Like Chef said, by dropping the owner requirement, you see the best compete against the best.

BTW, just as an aside, I do not do the hunters and Oliver would never be a hunter, by any stretch of the imagination. He desperately wants to be a jumper and/or dressage horse.

Duffy

Jul. 21, 2004, 06:39 AM

I dunno, Coreene. I think Oliver would make a loffly hunter! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Moesha

Jul. 21, 2004, 01:59 PM

I have a lot of problems with the AO rules...simply the discriminatory anit-gay bias in ownership...but Coreene if the ownership goes away then it will be even more of a problem for true Amateur riders who have worked hard to get to the highest levels.

As it is now, riders routinely flaunt selling horses out of the Amateur ring...fine we all have our days...and especially in the A/O jumpers nothing is finite. However by saying the horses do not have to be owned by the rider or family member..means that pros will have catch riders ride horses in the A/O's as a sale base.

Janet

Jul. 21, 2004, 02:11 PM

I think the trick is to keep the A/O (both hunter and jumper) the way they are, but add another amateur division at the same height (e.g., 3'6" for hunters, 4' for jumpers).

If it becomes a place for the pros to demonstrate that their horse can be successfully ridden by a (catchride) amateur, I think that is an acceptable tradeoff for giving the Amateur "rider but not owner" a place to show without competing against the acknowledged pros.

findeight

Jul. 21, 2004, 07:17 PM

At least from my experience in zone 5...we have at least one drop dead talented former Medal Finals winner catch riding in the A/As because she no longer owns her horse nor does her family privide her with one. Catch riding sale horses for good trainers...and No renumeration because she is honest and values that Ammie card...she is stuck on these against the rest of the 3' A/As because she has no horse.
Obviously she wins and just as obviously, that is not the intent of the division.

If you combine both A/O age groups at the last AA I attended you'd get about 25 horses...that wouldn't even make up the smallest A/A age split..total A/As was about 80 in 3 splits...and that was a smallish AA rated.

The whole horse show world has changed and become both more accesible to all income levels yet more expensive at the top.

I favor dropping the ownership rule and going by height, splitting by age if number of entries support it.
I, for one, at 55 do not relish competing against a 19 year old.

Lucassb

Jul. 22, 2004, 07:32 AM

It seems to me that the main problem to be solved here is for those riders who don't own their horses to have a division at 3'6"... I gather these are mostly lease situations.

While I don't condone those who flout the rules with sham sales... I guess I can appreciate that paying the money to lease a nice 3'6" horse only to be limited to the 3' divisions based solely on the type of check you wrote (renting not buying) would be kind of galling, too.

Allowing registered leases (maybe for a min. duration as others have suggested) would seem to solve this issue without creating a field day for the sale arena pro rides - which, let's face it, was the circumstance the amateur rule was designed to prevent.

Linny

Jul. 22, 2004, 08:57 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>As it is now, riders routinely flaunt selling horses out of the Amateur ring...fine we all have our days...and especially in the A/O jumpers nothing is finite. However by saying the horses do not have to be owned by the rider or family member..means that pros will have catch riders ride horses in the A/O's as a sale base. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is why I propose a long term, registered lease. Treat those leases as "ownership" for the duration. Requiring a year (or 6month) term means no catchriding in the 3'6 ammy ring. If I am the registered leasor, only I may ride the horse in the A/"O" ring. I may not "sublease" or transfer him to any other rider for the A/"O" in my "proposal."

J. Turner

Jul. 22, 2004, 09:30 AM

Linny -

That's a good start for a rule change, I think.

nycrider

Jul. 22, 2004, 09:33 AM

i think the problem with changing the rules to just accomodate leases, although helpful to many, still doesn't address those who might not be able to afford a lease. I am probably akin to one of those catch riders someone mentioned in the above who a trainer might put on something to give it mileage in the 3'6"...I am not anywhere close to being a professional in that I have a full time non horse realted job and only ride once and even sometimes not even that! a week...Instead of being open and honest and showing at the 3'6" i guess under the supposed change above I could get a dummy lease for $0 - in my mind that's still not very honest! I'm hoping the rule change could allow me to show fair and square at the 3'6" and in a recognized division that might allow me to show at indoors etc...I can show in the 3' now, but as the person above stated, that doesn't seem very fair either? As someone who has always enjoyed riding and showing and continuing to push myself, i find it so frustrating that I worked so hard as a junior to develop skills that allow me to show at 3'6" and higher and there is virtually no place for me go after turning 18?

Sunday

Jul. 22, 2004, 10:25 AM

I see Linny's point and I also see nycrider's point.

Someone before mentioned only keeping track of points for horse + rider combos. So nycrider could compete without the lease and possibly go to indoors if she lucked out riding the same horse enough to accrue the points needed.

Now maybe there's another rider who catch rides at 2 shows, wins everything, and the trainer sells the horse. Ok, so maybe I couldn't be Ch at those 2 shows, but I know that combo has no chance of going to indoors or probably getting a year end award, so ok fine, I was beat those 2 shows.

Does that make sense? It does to me.

We could make everyone happy, those who can't afford to own or lease, and a couple happy trainers out there that get to sell horses.

Opens the door for me to compete a horse I'm trying at 3'6" before I buy it too.

Coreene

Jul. 22, 2004, 10:31 AM

For me, the thing would be an Amateur Hunter division with height and age splits. If the 3'6" is the cream to where the best horses rise, that's cool.

There are always going to be amateur riders who spend their entire day at the barn riding endless horses, and there are always going to be those who work hard all week to be able to grab a few rides before the show. That's life, and whether that part is fair or unfair, it obviously can't be legislated because our governing body can't even legislate/turns a blind eye to $0 bills of sale.

There is never going to be a level playing field. And there are many, many ammies who would be referred to as "pro ammies" by a lot of people, who are in fact taking two lessons a week during the week and are extremely gifted riders.

So either an Amateur Hunter division with three heights and the 3'6" is rated, or a 3'6" AA; however if they keep the AO as well then I hope it's policed for real. What we have out there right now, with the $0 bills of sale etc., is just bogus.

And Amen Brudda to Moesha about the AO having an anti-gay bias; that has got to go as well. Thank you for bringing that up, darling. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif

Jul. 22, 2004, 10:58 AM

Nadyonlife - good post.

Okay folks, here's the thing -- I know this is going to shock you.

Life is not fair, and neither is horse showing. Someone is always going to have a better eye to the jump or a better-funded checkbook. There is always a judge who likes TBs over WBs, or viceversa. There is always a little kid throwing sand at the end of the ring, or a loose horse running down the road when I'm on course. Not fair, and there are no do-overs.

I can't afford a $200,000 hunter and keep it on the road showing. Because I'm working a gizzillion hours a month to make $$ to pay for this foolishness, I can't ride 5 horses a day and, thus, somedays I just don't find the jumps as well as Ms. greatriderwhoalwaysfindsthedistance.

So what?

I go to the shows I like that fit into my schedule, I don't embarass myself, my horse and I have fun, my trainers are SO fun, nice, and patient, and if I have a good ride I usually get a ribbon. Sometimes its a primary color ribbon, sometimes its more pastel (or the dreaded brown!) That's life!

I think it's more important to set realistic goals (they're just goals -- not minimum standards), and then come up with a plan to meet them. This year, my plan was to give my 5 yo great mileage at nice shows with good footing and pretty jumps, all the while I hadn't been in the hunter ring in about five years. I stuck with my plan, and the results have been like a dream come true.

Maybe it's about perspective? I'm not saying that we shouldn't advocate changing rules, but just know that changing some of the rules is not going to solve some of the concerns raised in this interesting topic.

DMK

Jul. 22, 2004, 11:29 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by LH:
Okay folks, here's the thing -- I know this is going to shock you.

_Life is not fair, and neither is horse showing._ <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LH, here's the thing, and it may shock you. Many of us are pretty much on board and living that philosophy. And most of us are cognizant that changing the rules isn't going to make it all better or solve all the problems that ail us. I mean that hasn't happened in the History of the World yet, so no reason to think this case would be different.

But life is about change, right? And just because people advocate change, it isn't necessarily because they are dissatisfied with their lot in life and need a good talking down to to get that proper perspective. It's just that for most of us, in business and other aspects of our lives, it gets down to evolve or die. It's always good to keep evolving, ya know? http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif

Kestrel

Jul. 22, 2004, 11:30 AM

How about:

Keeping the AO as it is for those who can legitimately play there.

Adding a 3'3" AA division to help riders move up.

Add a AA 3'6 division, open to leased/borrowed horses, rider cannot show more than 2 horses in any division (including jumpers), no cross entry with 3' AAs. Hopefully that would limit the shamatures a bit.

If the point of all this is to have a fair set of rules to meet the needs of the vast majority, rather than the special needs/desires of a few, I think it's possible. It's not perfect, but maybe it's a start.

Jul. 22, 2004, 12:23 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by DMK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by LH:
Okay folks, here's the thing -- I know this is going to shock you.

_Life is not fair, and neither is horse showing._ <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LH, here's the thing, and it may shock you. Many of us are pretty much on board and living that philosophy. And most of us are cognizant that changing the rules isn't going to make it all better or solve all the problems that ail us. I mean that hasn't happened in the History of the World yet, so no reason to think this case would be different.

But life is about change, right? And just because people advocate change, it isn't necessarily because they are dissatisfied with their lot in life and need a good talking down to to get that proper perspective. It's just that for most of us, in business and other aspects of our lives, it gets down to evolve or die. It's always good to keep evolving, ya know? http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not disagreeing with you, and I did say in my previous post that I'm not opposed to change. These same issues have been the topic of discussion for 25 years (hence the evolution of the A/A division, which didn't exist until some time in the 1980's). It's a valid and very interesting discussion, constantly evolving, and at the same time the issues remain the same.

BUT, I honestly think that even the proposed changes suggested on this post (which are very creative and thoughtful) will not resolve the frustrations of most. Just my opinion -- that's all I'm expressing.

DMK

Jul. 22, 2004, 12:31 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by LH:
BUT, I honestly think that even the proposed changes suggested on this post (which are very creative and thoughtful) will not resolve the frustrations of most. Just my opinion -- that's all I'm expressing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, I totally agree with you, it's just I think most people really do understand that. You know, the 80/20 rule? Where 80% of the people can see the strengths and weaknesses of the argument and know it only changes things a little bit, and 20% are split between not having a clue or thinking it's the magic bullet.

But I just hate to not give credit to the 80% while trying to give the 20% a clue. Besides, you know the 20% won't buy that clue even if it was a vowel. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Linny

Jul. 22, 2004, 01:33 PM

As for "fair" there is no such thing. Some of us are smart and can make more money. Some of us were lucky and married money. Some of us have the natural talent, some have to work much harder to attain success. Life ain't fair. You'll never even the playing field between Mrs. Rich Marriedwell and someone who works 50 hours/week to afford to ride at all.

I would just like to see more riders competing at 3'6 and feel that the GB should make it easier, not harder to move up. There is a bottleneck at the 3'0 level. Just like older horses, many older riders eventually feel more comfortable dropping back to the 3' divisions. Meanwhile there are young adults who couls (and maybe should) be doing 3'6 but they have no place to go unless they own the horse.

As for the price of leasing a 3'6 horse, yes it's usually expensive but not ALWAYS. First, not all of us ride in A shows but we all abide by the same rules. I free leased a 3'6 horse to ride mostly in "C" shows, and some "A's". Was he bound for a WEF championship? NO! But I still was bound by the rules that apply to all members of the Association. I showed in "Local Working Hunter" against pro's at 3'6 because many times it was an easier division than the 3'0 and because the horse was a true 3'6 horse and showed himself better over a bigger fence.

Maybe what we need is to open the A/O to "registered leases" and offer a 3'6 Open Working division for non-greens. I do feel for the pro who is trying to sell a 3'6 horse to an ammy but has no way to show him at 3'6 unless he's green or the trainer has a kid ride him in Jr's. Maybe an open division would help.

Jul. 22, 2004, 01:42 PM

Linny -- good idea.

Now, there is a 3'3" A/A division at WEF -- wonder why it's not offered at more shows?

I wonder if show schedules would allow another division -- a 3'6" A/A division? or a 3'6" open division (although it would pit amateurs against pros). With the "unrestricted Childrens/Adult division" now offered in Zone 5, could shows do this? It may be attractive if there's no prize money because it's an unrecognized division?

Coreene

Jul. 22, 2004, 01:47 PM

Kestrel, the problem is that, as it stands now, there are many more in the AOs than just those who can legitimately play there.

J. Turner

Jul. 22, 2004, 02:12 PM

I know two horses right now who would probably go for a free lease. One is more of an eq horse but would be respectable in most company; the other is a little more hot and needs finesse ride and wouldn't ribbon at the A shows where the divisions were more than full (WEF, Upperville, Devon,), but at smaller As like Westbrook, summer Jacksonville, some Atlanta, would get a piece of the action. More a horse just to get honest 3'6" experience on.

I think there are more situations out there than one might initially imagine for the adult poor 3'6" rider. Unfortunately, I am not a 3'6" rider, but it is my goal!

I don't think anyone's asking for the divisions to be handicapped or to be dumbed down. It's more like the Olympics - it's more important to have competed than won. (Or something to that effect.) Even though Nigel will never win against fancy hunters, I would do him in A/O just for the experience. If I only had the nerve ... a heart ... a brain ...

Kestrel

Jul. 22, 2004, 02:17 PM

Coreene, that's why I would add an Un-AO, for leased and borrowed horses. Let the real AOs compete against each other and let the others ride in their own division. Though at many shows in the West, I'm sure that all the 3'6" Am divisions would get combined for lack of entries, at least until programs changed to support the division. We would probably lose an age group or two in the AAs as well.

radio talk Aefvue Farms RCA

Jul. 22, 2004, 06:12 PM

I for one would love an AA division at 3'3". But I think for many shows having the modified's at that height does it for them. With all the classes managers are trying to put into shows, maybe there just isn't room for a whole nother division, or time.

We all would like a level playing field, but sometimes it just isn't going to happen. Human nature being what it is. Possibly evolving something that gives people a place to step up, with out the 6 figure horse, and riding 24/7 would be a benefit.

findeight

Jul. 22, 2004, 06:13 PM

Zone 5 right now combines Jr and A/O at many smaller shows and offers only a single combined A/O at others.
Same shows host over 100 in the A/A with 3 splits.

Life may not be fair but how long are shows expected to offer the A/O division, that loses money and attracts a handful, while the barns are a busting with Adult Hunter riders....many dying to, and able to, do the 3'6" but lack a horse.

Times change. I think it's time for a change in ownership rules to allow good riders to rise instead of dummying them down to 3' because they cannot afford the horse for 3'6".

Again, with 100+ in 3' and 12 in the 3'6"???????? I think this cannot continue.

Other

Jul. 22, 2004, 10:21 PM

I am all for modifying the A/O requirement, as I would have a bunch more to show if I weren't required to own them.

But regarding this 3'3 division-there was a post above that said most shows are fine with the modified division, set at 3'3. Why wouldn't you all be ok with this? Or maybe you would? I know the HITS circuits (for example) offer these modified, "move up" divisions, and I think they're great.

It's not as if one has anything to gain from attaching the title "AA" to the class. There are no indoors to qualify for based on A/A points. Is there just a stigma against riding in an unrated division versus a "C" division? Because, in my mind, they aren't that different.

Sunday

Jul. 23, 2004, 04:32 AM

I do believe they now use A/A points to qualify for the National Horse Show (or at least they did last year). And there are the classic finals at Harrisburg and WIHS, for those who chose to be members of NAL and WIHS. And there is WCHR at Capital Challenge too.

It gives the opportunity to have a goal (in regards to indoors) and you have to ride in the A/A's to get the points (most of the time based on shows' rules).

DMK

Jul. 23, 2004, 05:08 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Other:
But regarding this 3'3 division-there was a post above that said most shows are fine with the modified division, set at 3'3. Why wouldn't you all be ok with this? Or maybe you would? I know the HITS circuits (for example) offer these modified, "move up" divisions, and I think they're great. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

an earlier post:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> Right now, here in Zone 4, our A/A specs actually allow for a 3'3 division:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Adult Amateur Hunter Division may be offered in two height sections: one at 3’ and one at 3’3”. If only one height section is offered, it must be 3’. Height sections may be combined in one division with both heights offered. The same horse/rider combination may only exhibit in one height section at a given show. Any section determined by rider age will be considered separately for purposes of the heights offered. Zone award will be presented annually as one section.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now I think this has been in place since 2000 (?), but go ahead, ask me if I have ever seen a 3'3 A/A class. Not one. Not anywhere except WEF, where it existed prior to the zone specs and runs on wed/Thurs where no normal working A/A could show in it (and there are darn few of those at WEF). And while it is a great idea, it is undercut by that last sentence limiting it to one award. Never mind the point hungry competitors, the entire spec is written as a disincentive for show managers.

So the Modified A/O class (3'3) lives on. You know, the one that is one day only, usually on Friday and means I have to compete against all the A/O folks using it as a warm up. Sigh... I'm not especially ribbon hungry, but I like to feel like I'm legitimate, and quite frankly competing in a class where a bunch of seasoned 3'6ers are warming up doesn't quite inspire that feeling. And I'd feel like an even BIGGER heel showing in 3'3 on Friday then back down in 3'0 on the weekend! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

jumpsalot

Jul. 23, 2004, 05:24 AM

Call it the AOL division(Ammy Owner/Lessor)

BUT make sure the Leases are for the whole year. No catch riding by others.

Free leases could be registered- IF for the duration of the year.No open ended leases allowed.

What about Mrs. Trainer's Wife who rides the consignment horses. Could she not "lease" the horses and then "quit leasing" them during the year? If points stayed with the horse/rider combo(ammys only) and not just the horse, it would curb that behavior.

I think that if you limited the # of horses not owned by a rider that they could show in a year(hack classes not to count)you would put a damper on the "catch riding ammy".

I am sure these thoughts are somewhat jumbled, but I AM typing before coffee. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif

nycrider

Jul. 23, 2004, 07:21 AM

i'd like to push everyone on the catch rider ammie phrase...what does this really mean? The term "catch rider" usually means that you ride for other people but if you're an ammie there are very specific rules about not taking any remuneration...assuming that most catch riders are good, otherwise why would someone put them on their horse, is it really a problem to let them show? i mean they are still amateurs after all? is it really the catch riding we have a problem with, or the people who ride well? i know very few people who, given the very strict amateur rules, could subsist on being just a catch rider – not to mention unlike when you’re a junior most adults are expected to support themselves! I know that there are some ao riders now who do nothing but show and also ride very well and they might be a prime candidate to be a catch rider but I think these cases are the exception not the rule. There have also been several great suggestions that would curtail the aggressive use of catch riders to promote horses, such as limiting entry to indoors to points with the same horse/rider combo, or limiting the number of horses you can ride...I don’t think it’s the catch riding we have such a problem with, it’s the idea of allowing people with like experience to compete against one another…This is something the sport has yet to really look at…I think someone pointed out that the AAs started in the 80s – I don’t think the sport ever anticipated the number of adults who would show interest in riding etc. This has meant that we have all sort of adults with varying degrees of riding ability trying to show against one another on the basis of height. Maybe we need to rethink the whole adult divisions. Unlike being a junior, where you have more time etc. to ride, most adults face tremendous challenges in riding, the more prominent ones are probably time, money and family priority (maybe this comes into time?!) Maybe we need to figure out a way to rethink the entire thing that allows for us all to show in division that challenge us and allow us to compete against like peers? Perhaps amateur isn’t enough of a distinction anymore??

nycrider

Jul. 23, 2004, 07:35 AM

I should add the caveat to the above that I am mainly talking about the A circuit and the ability to show at indoors etc. - i recognize that the dif. degrees of circuits are supposed to address some of the above points

DMK

Jul. 23, 2004, 07:57 AM

nycrider - I think primaily people wouldn't like to see the division become a stomping grounds for ammie spouses/clients of trainers showing sale horses on an as needed basis.

But I think simple things like a lease with a minimum time length (like maybe longer than 12:02 to 12:15 http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) would address that issue.

Although the idea of a 3'6 A/A division and a 3'6 A/O division isn't a bad one - best of both worlds. The only problem is that there are only so many classes a show manager can add to a schedule at the average show (2 rings). So I suppose something has to give. Although I haven't noticed any shortage of 2'6 options, so maybe those could drop off the schedule?

nycrider

Jul. 23, 2004, 09:00 AM

DMK - completely agree - particularly re: the ability to fit in any more divisions...i guess what i'm thinking is that no matter waht we do re: the division it won't prevent these people from showing whether it's an owner/leasee requirement, # of rides, or pt/rider option so what we're really talking about are people who might be able to technically claim amateur status but for all intents and purposes really fall into the professional division. Are there ways we could change the amateur rules to prohibit these types of ammies from being there? i guess that's why i thought about rethinking the whole way the aas are looked at might be a better option. I'm guessing that those few people who do this really see themselves as ammies and for wahtever reason have decided not to go professional so are making a very concious decision not to break the technical ammie rules...maybe we need to find a way to accomodate them so they all show agains one another? Maybe the point systme supports some sort of categorization and only finals have all these extra divisions? i'm jsut thinking out loud here so am not sure how clear this thought is! sorry!

Coreene

Jul. 23, 2004, 09:16 AM

DMK, they could run both the AO and 3'6" Amateur classes at the same time, on the same course, the way they run the age splits.

But there will of course still be cheats who lease the horse and ride in the AOs. That's never going to go away; people you would think are the most honest people in the world otherwise are flounting that rule and riding on their leased horses in the AO now and will keep doing it.

Midge

Jul. 23, 2004, 09:19 AM

I think often times, people are trying to legislate luck...or excellence. I often read a phrase people are fond of using. 'I am a 'real' amateur.', which usually means they have a job. Sorry. Everyone who is within the amateur rule as it is written is an amateur. Are there cheaters? Sure! No matter how you write the rules, there will always be cheaters.

Here's what I know. There will always be soemone with a better horse, a better leg, a better eye and a better wallet. There will be people who can ride maybe once a month and still ride better than I do.

I do not want my ribbons to be legislated, I want them to be won. I don't want to ride in the 'everyone who rides better than me is in a different division' division. I want to step into the ring and win not step into the ring and be the best of the worst.

Do I think the amateur rule could be tweaked? Sure! Will it stop cheaters from cheating? Nope.