PDA

View Full Version : Should the A/A division be "A" rated?



Lord Helpus
Dec. 7, 2002, 03:27 PM
I read the article in the Amateur issue of COTH which discussed this issue -- and I can see both sides:

Pro: Gives people who win at AAA shows more points than people who win at Local shows. This seems fair. But will this mean the death of Local shows, as some people argue?

Pro: Us A/A types are the [acknowledged] backbone of the horse shows now. Why should we be second class citizens and support the other divisions without a hope of ever winning back a penny in prize money? If the division was recognised, shows would have to offer prize money to the A/A's. (This, to me is the MAIN reason that horse show managers are fighting this idea.)

Anti: If the division becames recognised, horses would have to jog for soundness. I have no trouble waiting around to jog (some people do though, it seems) as long as there is a standby list announced every X number of horses. But what about the old campaigners who won't pass a jog? Should they even still be showing? They are the BEST teachers and to take them out of the A/A division means that they have no place anymore when they can be great teachers.

The article brought up more arguments [and assumed that, if the A/A's were recognised, then Children' Hunters would be also], but these are the ones that stick in my mind.

What say you all?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So I lied. Horses ARE my whole life. I have no other life at all.....

Lord Helpus
Dec. 7, 2002, 03:27 PM
I read the article in the Amateur issue of COTH which discussed this issue -- and I can see both sides:

Pro: Gives people who win at AAA shows more points than people who win at Local shows. This seems fair. But will this mean the death of Local shows, as some people argue?

Pro: Us A/A types are the [acknowledged] backbone of the horse shows now. Why should we be second class citizens and support the other divisions without a hope of ever winning back a penny in prize money? If the division was recognised, shows would have to offer prize money to the A/A's. (This, to me is the MAIN reason that horse show managers are fighting this idea.)

Anti: If the division becames recognised, horses would have to jog for soundness. I have no trouble waiting around to jog (some people do though, it seems) as long as there is a standby list announced every X number of horses. But what about the old campaigners who won't pass a jog? Should they even still be showing? They are the BEST teachers and to take them out of the A/A division means that they have no place anymore when they can be great teachers.

The article brought up more arguments [and assumed that, if the A/A's were recognised, then Children' Hunters would be also], but these are the ones that stick in my mind.

What say you all?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So I lied. Horses ARE my whole life. I have no other life at all.....

brilyntrip
Dec. 7, 2002, 04:42 PM
requirement that AAs and childrens jog at least their opening circles isnt there ??

Little Indian
Dec. 7, 2002, 05:49 PM
by jogging for soundness, I think it's meaning that all tack except for the bridle must be off and the horse must be trotted in front of the judge(s)

Blue Devil
Dec. 7, 2002, 06:06 PM
In some zones/areas, judges can ask for children's hunters or A/A to jog OR it is already a requirement.

In MS, I used to have to jog my children's hunter at "A" shows.

If a horse won't pass a jog, it isn't sound and should not be pinned in the first place, in my opinon.

My karma ran over your dogma.

swansong
Dec. 7, 2002, 06:23 PM
where I show we always have to jog for soundness. When we don't jog it seems to me the same as showing in a low hunter division. I don't even feel like I'm competing at the same level. If my horse can't pass the jog than he shouldn't be there. I think the a/a division should be recognized as we are becoming the backbone of the show. The fact that there were only 4 horses in the older amateur division at the National Horsehow should tell us that.

Jess
Dec. 7, 2002, 06:56 PM
I AM IN THE FAVOR OF IT BEING AA RATED! when i moved to texas and they jogged the 3ft it made me laugh.. it was so odd, but this year they don't jog 3ft.

~Jess~
www.catchride.com (http://www.catchride.com)

SpringBreak
Dec. 7, 2002, 07:19 PM
y did u laugh??? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

*Spring Break*
*Simon*
*Homie S*

Jess
Dec. 7, 2002, 07:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SpringBreak:
y did u laugh??? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

*Spring Break*
*Simon*
*Homie S*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

alot of places don't jog 3'.. so i came from a place that didn't and thought it was bizzar and silly.

~Jess~
www.catchride.com (http://www.catchride.com)

JustJump
Dec. 8, 2002, 04:11 AM
Problem w/making it rated is that the one day option would likely be scrapped, ie most people who now show on one day would be looking at 2 days of showing, braiding, vanning, day care, training, etc...entry fees would go up if prize money were awarded, and as for soundness....oh brother.

Then there is the discrepency factor between zones that would have to be resolved...not to mention the domino effect as the demand to "go A rated" trickles down to the children's hunter horse and pony divisions.....

I kind of like the fact that my one-day budget clients have a shot at qualifying for some of the nicer year end awards and shows because "all points are equal."

I don't think many of those mega-$$$$ AA horses who turn up at the AAA shows have much to fear from us though. So I don't see much point in them not only beating us, but beating us "worse," point-wise.

Too many cons, not enough pros.

JinxyFish313
Dec. 8, 2002, 09:57 AM
i think the aa' & childrens divisions should def b A rated for severall reasons: the competition is often just as serious as the rated divisons, there are def A quality horses in these divisions and making them A rated will eliminate some of those horses that certainly dont belong there and just make these divisions take ALL DAY, the ppl that show in these divisions do deserve some opportunity to make their money back and ppl get more pts for doing these divisions @ AA shows anyway since theres more ppl

http://radiofinderizer.net/cgi-bin/columbia.cgi?sf=1&s=yes&u=infamous3136&a=Nas

Moonriver
Dec. 8, 2002, 10:41 AM
I believe it should be since both divisions (esp. childrens where we are) were always much larger than Jr or A/O. I pay almost the same entry fees for childrens & wonder why the jrs. would pay back with 5 or 6 entries & childrens could have 20 + and not payback a cent. Childrens & Adults would pay for most of the show (except for the lows of course). Riding well is riding well, whether you've got a 3' horse or a 3'6"er.

AAJumper
Dec. 8, 2002, 10:42 AM
I completely agree with JustJump. All the reasons she stated are exactly why I wouldn't want to see the A/A divisions get changed to A rated.

visit www.victorianfarms.com (http://www.victorianfarms.com)

plottwist
Dec. 8, 2002, 10:47 AM
Whatever happened to "if it ain't broke, don't fix it!"?

Snowbird
Dec. 8, 2002, 11:14 AM
In the 1980's shows gave out twice the prize money for less entry fees and were all very successful and financially secure. Life was good! There were tons of entries in all the A Rated Divisions, so many we couldn't finish a show before midnight.

I would love it if the Childrens and the AA were A Rated but with a provision, I would like all those divisions that are A Rated which means they must go on two days and into the increment system back home at the A Shows.

I would like to see how short a time it would take to bring back the 3'6" horses if all those divisions ran on one day and all were equally C-Rated. I believe then we would see the shrinking of the 3'0" divisions and the re-growth of the other rated divisions.

You want the 2 day rule and the incremented system that makes it impossible for real folks to qualify for anything. So, most people have all opted not to move up at all. Is that really what you wish for? Is that really what you need to feel important and recognized?

Since most people would not stable their horses in tents in the winter, it pretty well concedes the non-existence of all A shows north of the Mason-Dixon line.

Today you can win as many points as a bad 3rd at a AA Show with only 3 entries as you would get if you won a blue in a class of 30 at a C Rated Show. So if you really want to be competitive plan on a permanent life on the AA circuit.

Will the extra costs, the extra inconvenience and extra time you would have to spend get you to move up to those shows or would you then drop down to 2'9".

Kestrel
Dec. 8, 2002, 11:24 AM
I don't think I've ever been to a show where the AA's ran in only one day. Around here, it's at least 2 if not 3 days for the division. We still have enough entries to split 18-30, 31-39, 40-49, and 50+. All my associated show costs are the same as the Jrs except enteries are a bit lower, but not really that much. AA's and Children's carry the show. It would be nice not just to have the chance to make a few $ back, but just to have a little respect. Oh, yea, I know, 3' isn't real riding, blah blah blah. Get over it. Horse shows could no longer exist without 3' and below divisions.

Hoagie
Dec. 8, 2002, 01:25 PM
I would like to see the A/A recognized. But I do have a question, why is it that if it were recognized it would have to take place over 2 days? Just wondering... Most shows I go to have the division on one day, but I have been to a few where they are held on Sat. and Sun.

ponyjumper4
Dec. 8, 2002, 01:38 PM
Like Kestrel said, around here I've never seen any that were done in one day, unless they were at C shows. Even though they are offered at A shows and are split over two days, they are still unrated, or at least C rated.

"God forbid that I should go to any heaven in which there are no horses."
~R. Graham

monalisa
Dec. 8, 2002, 02:05 PM
I think the A/A division should be AA rated. In Zone 3 we job for soundness anyway and typically if there are alot of horses they give you a stand-by order.

We pay enough money already and at the better shows the quality of the A/A horses is very high - as high as in many AA rated divisions.

The show managers don't want it as the A/A divisions and the Childrens carry the shows - we pay for everyone else. But why shouldn't the A/A division be recognized? It is a legitimate division. Many riders like myself are in it not because we can't ride at 3'6 or we don't have the horse, but because we work full-time and don't ride enough to do the the 3'6 division.

Giddy-up
Dec. 8, 2002, 02:26 PM
about all this 1 day show stuff? Where does this happen? Around where I live/show, all the divisions except like short stirrup are spread over at least 2 days. I am curious as to what the rules are: do you have to get a stall, are there ship in charges if you don't, how many classes are in the division? I think that would be really nice to be able to show & not have to dedicate 3 days to it or take off from work. Also, I think jogs would be a good thing in the Children's & A/A's. Some of the horses really aren't sound & if they can't trot sound without a rider or saddle, I wonder if they should be jumping 3' still? Just my opinion.

Elmo
Dec. 8, 2002, 03:45 PM
I'm curious, in Canada the A/A's and Childrens are treated the same as the juniors and A/O's, what is the difference in the US???

Lord Helpus
Dec. 8, 2002, 04:04 PM
Snowbird: When have you seen 3 entries in the A/A division at an AA show? I have seen that in the A/O division, but, even with the A/A's split 3 ways, there are almost always 20+ per section.

Perhaps I should not have labeled this topic as I did. As I understand it, C rated/local shows are still free to hold C rated A/A and Children's divisions in one day. It is only if the show gives these divisions an A rating would they have to be held over 2 days. And I have NEVER seen an A/A division at an A show held in one day. So, to me, this would not be a change at all.

According to the article in COTH, zone 3 is the only zone which requires jogging for these division right now. That is why the BB'ers from zone 3 would not see a change.

I just hate supporting all the other divisions. We are a huge factor at horse shows, and yet they don't have to reward us with a penny in prize money. It goes to subsidize the "recognized" divisions who do not have enough entries to pay their own way.

I started showing in the 1950's. MSG did not have a junior division (but it had ponies). My 14 year old sister had to show 4' against the adults. Then MSG included a junior division because there was a lot of demand for it. A/O's did not exist until the late 60's. Then they were added in and the junior division and ponies were deleted. Now MSG is held in Fla and is entirely different.....

My point is that shows CHANGE. Showing changes over the years. To divide the A/O's into 3 divisions with a 50+ division with 5 people in it is ludicrous. Yet they earn full AAA money. I saw a class at an AAA show in which an older ammie got a 4th with a refusal!!! And she made money doing it.........

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So I lied. Horses ARE my whole life. I have no other life at all.....

findeight
Dec. 8, 2002, 04:12 PM
Honest answer to PamM's very good question?
/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif I dunno.

I show in this division but we really only have the multi day AA and A level shows around here, I consider 3 days at a show a cheapie.
I suppose it won't effect me all that much either way. I have a very nice horse, she won't beat some of them but gives a good account of herself most of the time. But I'm not going anywhere fancy with her-I work and have financial limitations.
Feel free to accuse me of burying my head in the sand, it does not effect me. I'm being honest here.

BUT......I don't think jogging is a bad idea and, face it, Adults hang around to see if they got a ribbon most of the time plus anybody can jog the horse so "I don't want to jog because I don't want to stay" is a non issue IMHO.

Soundness is an issue however. Even the treasured old campaigners ought to be able to jog in as serviceably sound......not models.....just sound enough. I don't care if it's a 2 foot short stirrup pony, if they are too lame for a simple jog even with the allowable level of meds-which should make most quite comfortable-they shouldn't be showing over fences. Period.

I would be pleased to stay and jog my mare.

The Horse World. 2 people, 3 opinions. That's the way it is.

just for kicks
Dec. 8, 2002, 04:25 PM
I am very split on this subject. Part of me thinks that the A/A and Childrens division should be A rated and deserves some sort of prize money, because lets face it they are the back bone of our sport.

But the other part of me thinks, should the 3' divisions be rated the same as the 3'6" divisions. Granted the riding abilities between the two are not all that different but I think the quality of the horse differs a lot, that's why there arent that many of them.

I would be happy seeing prize money given to the A/A and childrens divisions but I dont think they sould be the same rating as the 3'6" divisions.

Personally, I think that the huge numbers you see in the 3' divisions shows that most divisions need a revamping. Should we have an extra large pony division (3'3"), should the junior hunters be small (3'3"), medium (3'6") and large (3'9"), should we have an open amature division for people that want to jump 3"6" but cant afford to own a 3'6" horse?

I love .......... Cake

[This message was edited by just for kicks on Dec. 08, 2002 at 08:31 PM.]

clearound
Dec. 8, 2002, 04:34 PM
I agree with all of the rest of you that believe that the A/As should be "AA" rated. First, most of us who compete at, what I consider to be, the big "AA" circuit are required to pay as much money as those showing in the A/Os for a stall, training, braiding, etc. Second, all of the shows that I go to have the A/As spread over two days and sometimes three is you want to show in the classic. Third, in most cases, the horses in the A/As are as nice, if not nicer, than the horses in the A/Os. Last, at most of the shows I go to there are at least 30+ in the older A/As. In fact, in the middle A/As (35-50) at WEF there are generally 80-100 adults every weekend. So, if the A/As (and the C/H) are the backbone of the show, why not give us the same respect, i.e. money and national recognition, that is given to the A/Os.

Although I will admit that having the division run over two days might limit some people in showing as often, I think that if those people were offered incentives to show, i.e. prize money, nicer shows, they will still show.

Don't get me wrong. I am neither a trust fund baby nor have a sugar daddy who supports my habit. Rather, as most A/As I work hard to support my "habit" and as a result of wanting to compete with the "big boys and girls" make certain sacrifices. One of those sacrificies is that I generally only ride when I show. Although I could probably ride more if I attended shows where the A/As were held only on 1 day, I would rather have the A/As rated "AA", provide prize money and receive national recognition.

In addition, any horse which is not serviceably sound to pass the jog, should not be showing.

plottwist
Dec. 8, 2002, 04:50 PM
Will someone explain to me why, where, and how the awarding of prize money came about.

I show for the fun of it. I do not demand nor expect prize money. It's not my "right" to win money.

I wonder what would happen if money was not awarded in the hunter divisions. Would they lose popularity or would the become finally more affordable because entry fees would (or should) drop.

This whole money thing and people expecting to make money at shows is a joke. I think those kind of people need some therapy. This is a sport. It's supposed to be fun!

clearound
Dec. 8, 2002, 04:59 PM
PLOT TWIST - I think that you are missing the point. No one that I know of shows to make money. It is supposed to be fun. But if the A/As and the C/Hs are the backbone of the horse show, which they are in most cases, why not give them the same recognition as the JRs and A/Os. There is nothing wrong with that.

Also, speaking from experience, showing is even more fun when at the end of the day, the your entries are minimal or the show owes you money. Unfortunately, the prize money came about as a result of classics and not the A/A division.

findeight
Dec. 8, 2002, 05:03 PM
couple of points here.

On the split issue as well as who supports the show.......KHP in August had about 35 youngers, 80+ middles that were split and 26 50+ olders. Tons of A/A Jumpers too. We do support the shows.

Second point...........is it time to drop the O from A/O??????????? Lots in the 3' are stuck there because they don't own the horse and cannot afford one..........please understand not everybody has the time, money or talent for developing a greenie here. 3'6"ers are muy expensivo.

Time for change? I think so.

The Horse World. 2 people, 3 opinions. That's the way it is.

Snowbird
Dec. 8, 2002, 05:57 PM
I have never understood why winning $25 would make anyone ride better have better horse or feel more competitive.

If there is prize money the costs will be passed on to the exhibitors in the division getting prize money. C-Rated means no Prize money in any C-Rated Division.

First we have a dialog that says the reason people don't show in the A Rated divisions is because they are on two days and cost too much! Then you say that you want money so they want the childrens and the AA hunters to win money.

I know that there are sections of the country where the only shows are 3/5 days because it takes so long to travel there. That's fine if it's what you do then enjoy it.

Yes! the Childrens and the AA's are the backbone of any Recognized show. But, just suppose that it was the Pre-Childrens or Preliminary Adult that was the largest division in a show, is that a reason to award cash and make them A-Rated. There has been talk about rating the Mini-Short stirrup and the Short stirrup should they too be rated and get annual awards? Where do you draw the line?

What exactly is the benefit of being A Rated? Do you want it to be a National Award? What are you going to qualify for if it is A Rated? The whole Increment system is included with the Rating. Do you expect your horse to be able to win enough money to pay his own bills?

If you do have nice big cash awards do you have any doubt at all that those very wonderful fancy horses who win everything at 3'6" won't be there to cash in? Someone with an excellent horse is always interested in a profit. It changes the entire attitude and purpose for the division. It was never intended to be an end unto itself but an appetizer to go up the ladder.

If the reason that you don't show in the rated divisions is because you don't have the opportunity to be a full rider, or you can't afford a great horse or you work for a living how is this going to make competition better for you? It hasn't made any of the existing A Rated divisions better, how would this be different?

When you pay your lower entry fee why not consider it a bonus in itself, the difference in cost between the A Rated Diviisions and the C Rated divisions is already your reward.

AAJumper
Dec. 8, 2002, 06:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Giddy-up:
about all this 1 day show stuff? Where does this happen? Around where I live/show, all the divisions except like short stirrup are spread over at least 2 days. I am curious as to what the rules are: do you have to get a stall, are there ship in charges if you don't, how many classes are in the division? I think that would be really nice to be able to show & not have to dedicate 3 days to it or take off from work. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here in So.CA there are a fair amount of shows that are 2 days long, and usually one day is USAEq rated, and the other day has the jumpers and divsions such as 2' stuff, 2'6"etc. Now, a particular series of shows is being held over 3 days instead of 2, with some of the classes being spread out over 2 days. Not an entire division, but classes that sort of "go together" that previously may have been on the same day. Like all the 3'+ hunters/eq were on one day and the under 3' was the next day. But now at these shows, the entire A/A jumper division now goes over 3 days and the 2'-2'6" stuff is spread out over 2 days. For example, the ponies are on Sat, and the short stirrup is on Sunday. So now it is set up so that everyone wants to go for 2 days, and here come all the extra expenses....stall, bedding stalls, feed, tack stalls, etc. It now turns the inexpensive one day show into an expensive multi-day show.

When I started showing 10 or so years ago, we'd get up early, load, trailer, get to the show and ride or hang out at the trailer, etc. I see those types of shows going away, and being replaced by the giant, expensive multi-day shows, and I don't like that the option of the cheaper one day show is slowly disappearing. I just somehow see making the A/A level an A rating would contribute to the death of the one day shows. Maybe I am wrong, but I can see more of those shows (where you can do all your classes either Sat or Sun) turning into shows where you have to stay the full two days, if not 3. Because now that you are showing on Sat-Sun, of course you have to show up on Friday, etc etc.

I am not really sure what the solution is, as I myself do like to go to A shows. However, I also like the option of going to one day shows if I so choose. I would hate to see that option start disappearing.

visit www.victorianfarms.com (http://www.victorianfarms.com)

RockinHorse
Dec. 8, 2002, 06:14 PM
Well said Snowbird. I agree with all of your points.

I do not see any reason to make the A/A and childrens "A" rated, but for me each show is its own reward (or challenge. /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif). I do not have the time or desire to chase points or awards so except for raising the cost, I do not think it would have a big impact on me.

But I do have to wonder where it will end. At many of the shows I have attended it is actually the pre-adult and pre-childrens divisions that are the largest so should they be 'A' rated also? The hopeful hunters at 2'3 or 2' are pretty popular too, should those be rated?

~One day my mind just wandered and it never came back~

clearound
Dec. 8, 2002, 06:35 PM
I think that those of you who think this is about money are off the mark. The money would only come into play if the division was AA rated. Then it would be a requirement. However, I have been to shows where they do in fact offer the A/As money. It was the shows way of recognizing how valuable the A/A are to the show. It was a nice feeling.

Question for SNOWBIRD - Do you reward your A/As or C/Hs with prize money or anything other than a 10 cent ribbon. If not, curious as to why not. Is it because you are not required to? Even though not required to, why don't you do it anyway? Just curious that's all.

Snowbird
Dec. 8, 2002, 06:38 PM
Is it our goal to make the 3'6" divisions the ultimate for a horse? or do we want to be like the Burger King and feed the most the fastest? Yes! there is talk about rating all the intro divisions, it's started already now there is a Pre-Green award in the zones.

You're right about the demise of the one day C/B Show becuse there won't be much reason to invest in jumps and good footing or expensive officials. We'll have unrecognized, unsupervised schooling shows which are tenuous at best, depending on your location and the proximity to people who keep their horses at home. That will be in the rural areas and the in the suburbs probably no horses at all.

I really think it would a pity, that is not the way to go if you really want this sport to be recognized and pulled out of oblivion like they have skating, tennis and even golf.

AAJumper
Dec. 8, 2002, 06:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RockinHorse:
Well said Snowbird. I agree with all of your points.

I do not see any reason to make the A/A and childrens "A" rated, but for me each show is its own reward (or challenge. /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif). I do not have the time or desire to chase points or awards so except for raising the cost, I do not think it would have a big impact on me.

But I do have to wonder where it will end. At many of the shows I have attended it is actually the pre-adult and pre-childrens divisions that are the largest so should they be 'A' rated also? The hopeful hunters at 2'3 or 2' are pretty popular too, should those be rated?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I also agree with all of your points and Snowbird's as well. Where does it end? Are the rusty stirrups (2') going to be wanting to be A rated since they are now offered at all the A shows?

visit www.victorianfarms.com (http://www.victorianfarms.com)

Snowbird
Dec. 8, 2002, 06:54 PM
A Rated Leadline,

Bi-i-i-g-g-g cash awards coolers the whole thing. I understand there were parents willing to pay $500 for a Leadline Class at the National when it was in New York. I mean really the biggest market there is would be for kids (no age Limits)who don't know how to ride. Sure more of them than us. Maybe we could get a national sponsor to give away a 4 year college scholarship.

To be judged for appearance only on an immobile horse or pony.

clearound
Dec. 8, 2002, 07:01 PM
SNOWBIRD - I take great offense at your mockery. For those of us who take this matter seriously, it is disrespectful at best.

Is there a reason why you haven't answered my question.

Elmo
Dec. 8, 2002, 07:08 PM
American showing sounds so much more complicated and expensive than Canadian, one more reason to freeze and stay here!!!

Daventry
Dec. 8, 2002, 07:42 PM
I should stay away from this off-track topic but I just can't resist!

I agree with Elmo. This is one instance of being thankful for showing in Canada. The A/A's, Childrens' and A/O's are all recognized equally up here, as well they all should be.

Prize money, I'll take any day. Don't care if it's only $25. That at least pays for the class and I don't see anything wrong with that!

If you comdemn the ethics of prize money then you condemn all sports. Sorry but, I think an NHL hockey player getting $10 million a year is getting something out of competing. Figure skaters regularly attend the Grand Prix series in search of prize money to further their expensive 'hobby'. Why shouldn't we?

I agree that this is getting off topic but ranting and raving that the rest of us are immoral if we end up getting prize money in the end...come on! I ride any class like any class. I don't ride it in search of money. I ride it in search of a good ride. If I get money in the end, I get money in the end. If I don't, I don't. And I'm sure it's like that for most of us and I've been to many B and C shows that have actually offered considerable prize money, not just at the A's. Actually, there are several B's up here that run just as well, if not better than the A's, have great judges, awesome show facilities, etc.

Snowbird said that someone with an excellent horse is always interested in a profit but, at the same time, she contradicts herself and says that there's no profit and benefit to be made at the A shows as it ends up evening out in entry fees. Which is it?

I enjoy showing, whether there's money or not and I often end up winning my entries back in prize money but I can't help it, or feel sorry for the people that don't and I haven't gone out and spent $30,000+ on a show horse either. It makes it that much easier for me to continue my expensive hobby if I do get something back in return.

Instead of cranking about the demise of the B & C rated shows, maybe it would be beneficial to get off your butt and volunteer to help, any way you can, to make the shows run just as well as the A's and help keep the sport progressing like it should instead of allowing the smaller shows to fall through the cracks!

Daventry
Dec. 8, 2002, 07:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> In the 1980's shows gave out twice the prize money for less entry fees and were all very successful and financially secure. Life was good! There were tons of entries in all the A Rated Divisions, so many we couldn't finish a show before midnight.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are still tons of entires. There are lots of times that I've had to ride at 8 or 9 o'clock at night. God, even at Indio the classes run until late.

Over twenty years later, air flights have sky-rocketed, making it more expensive to fly in good judging. The cost of feed, shavings and renting stalls has gone up in that time, land prices have gone up making suitable show grounds more expensive to rent, sponsorship can be hard to come by at times due to other business' financial constraints and rising costs and...

...in the age of sueing anyone for anything, the cost of show liability insurance has gone through the roof!

I wonder why shows are so much more expensive twenty years later and offering less prize money?!?

AAJumper
Dec. 8, 2002, 08:25 PM
Everyone talks about wanting prize money, and sure, that would be wonderful, but where do you think it is going to come from? It's certainly not going to come from the show manager's profit. It's going to come in the form of higher entry fees. Is that what everyone really wants? Even higher entry fees? And if you started giving prize money to the A/A jumpers, you can bet we'd have to pay the $100 or more nominating fee rather than the $50 non-money classes fee.

visit www.victorianfarms.com (http://www.victorianfarms.com)

clearound
Dec. 8, 2002, 08:25 PM
pleeeez - the costs of holding a horse show have nothing to do with the reasons that the A/A are not a AA rated division.

any of us who are in business for ourselves can discuss the increase in costs of doing business over the past twenty years. The difference however is that we exhibitors have to hear the rhetoric from the managers who have to justify their fees. My clients (no I am not in the horse business) would leave me in a nanosecond if they had to put up with that.

Lets get back to the topic please. There are some very good reasons pro and con and since I am for it, I would like to hear from people who would not show or show as often if the division was AA and was held over two days.

Liverpool
Dec. 8, 2002, 08:27 PM
Posted by Clearound:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I think that those of you who think this is about money are off the mark. The money would only come into play if the division was AA rated. Then it would be a requirement. However, I have been to shows where they do in fact offer the A/As money. It was the shows way of recognizing how valuable the A/A are to the show. It was a nice feeling <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess I was surprised to see the comments about money also ... many if not most of the shows around here offer $$ in the A/A division.

For instance, I am sitting here now with the prize list for the Gulfport, MS (AA) shows.

A/O division, split youngers and olders; 51 & over "if entries warrant": $225 per section, individual classes may NOT be entered.
Pays $150, 110, 70, 40, 20, 10

A/A division, spit youngers, middles and olders with the caveat that the olders will be split again with 8 or more entries; $150 per section or $35 per class. Pays $50, 40, 30, 20, 10

Not bad. But of course this series is being run by Bob Bell and the Classic Company, IMO the most exhibitor friendly show management on EARTH and the one who brought us the $25,000 C/A Jumper Classic!

Bob knows which group keeps him in business and he caters to them, er... I mean US.

I choose my friends for their good looks, my acquaintances for their good characters, and my enemies for their intellects. A man cannot be too careful in the choice of his enemies.
Oscar Wilde (1854–1900)

Lord Helpus
Dec. 8, 2002, 08:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clearound:

Question for SNOWBIRD - Do you reward your A/As or C/Hs with prize money or anything other than a 10 cent ribbon. If not, curious as to why not. Is it because you are not required to? Even though not required to, why don't you do it anyway? Just curious that's all.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I, too, would like to have Snowbird respond to this question. Although she has posted twice since it was asked, she has yet to repond to this thoughtfuly worded question.

May we all assume that the answer is "No" and the reason is that offering money to the backbone divisions of your shows would cut into your profits? (And, please do not say that you do not make a profit -- no one is going to keep holding horse shows if they lose money doing it.)

Running horse shows is a business. At the Ocala shows this winter, entry fees in the 3' divisions is $150. In the 3'6" divisions it is $210. But the 3'6" divisions are vyeing for $2500 in prize money for the extra $60 they pay.

as an aside, I DO agree with the poster who suggested that it is time to take the "Owner" restriction out of the A/O division. It would allow a people to move into the division in which they truly belong.

And, let's face it: a fair number of horses are "sold" for a downpayment of $100, with the balance to be paid when the new "owner" sells the horse. This is just one subterfuge which make the A/O division a mockery anyway.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So I lied. Horses ARE my whole life. I have no other life at all.....

Snowbird
Dec. 8, 2002, 08:52 PM
I wish there was just a little support for the level of difficulty instead of money but so be it. Just a voice in the wilderness.

The reason those athletes get so much is they are crowd pleasers. The money rolls in from the seats and then the sponsors so they get their share as a draw for mass appeal. I don't object to them being paid at the top of their sport getting compensation for a very short career. I have no objection to $100,000 Grand Prix Classes, I wouldn't object to a $100,000 hunter class or even $100,000 for the best open junior rider for a scholarship. That's not what we're talking about.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Snowbird said that someone with an excellent horse is always interested in a profit but, at the same time, she contradicts herself and says that there's no profit and benefit to be made at the A shows as it ends up evening out in entry fees. Which is it?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The syndicates that have invested in the spectacular horse did it for the money. Whether in our sport or at the race track it does even out when you put the cost of entering higher so it out prices the market.

There will always be a dozen or more special wonderful horses that can do it all, but that will not support an industry, it takes all horses.

The question is should it be for 6" down from the top, which is a comfortable height for majority of horses and riders. While I fail to see the logic it must be my flaw and I'm the one that's wrong.

In team sports 50% are winners and 50% are losers. In the classes you describe only 20% at most will be a winner and 80% have paid the same price worked just as hard and maybe are just as good but they'll go home losers. I do not understand the logic of how it improves the sport to pay out cash instead of beautiful ageless trophies.

But, with the vehemence you all have for the idea, I'm sure it's me that's wrong. I apologize for the Leadline joke but just where would you stop? Should we be paying money out in all classes? Why isn't it just as good to give it back to everyone with lower costs?

OH! and yes all costs have gone up for equipment staff etc. but in proportion to the cost of living increases. I'm not talking about the increased cost of maintaining real estate or even the equipment. I'm simply taking about the prize money which is the issue here. Each class has a definitive base cost without added cash giveaways. That base cost was relatively just as high 10 years ago but we awarded twice the Prize Money in those same classes than we do today.

What I said was that the Prize money awarded was divided by 10 as the minimum ratio in case of a disaster where as now it is divided by four in Rated Classes.

I happen to have been one of those who wanted these divisions recognized. Jogging by the way is at the decretion of the judge so you may or may not be required to jog at any show anywhere even with a C Rating.

Daventry
Dec. 8, 2002, 09:23 PM
If you'll exchange and give me cash, I'll give you all of my beautiful, ageless trophies that are collecting dust and doing no one any good. I'll take the cash to further my riding and help me improve the sport I'm in.

Snowbird
Dec. 8, 2002, 11:16 PM
I've been known to trade in undated trophies for entries or cash if they are my trophies. By the way before you get up tight all my show trophies are undated.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Question for SNOWBIRD - Do you reward your A/As or C/Hs with prize money or anything other than a 10 cent ribbon. If not, curious as to why not. Is it because you are not required to? Even though not required to, why don't you do it anyway? Just curious that's all.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I give out what is far from a 10 cent ribbon to everyone, most people think they're really nice and yes every blue ribbons gets a trophy this year so far we've had latte cups which are as large as a soup bowl and very popular in ceramic with gold edges, and matching luncheon plates, coffee mugs and apothecarie jars with not yellow but gold emprinting.

I understand from some of my exhibitors that members of their staff are enamored of our trophies, they think they are fine china because of the gold, you may be surprised and find yourself sitting down to luch with a place setting from Snowbird anywhere in the world because they send them home for safe keeping.

But, I do better than awards because it's inclusive for everyone in that for a $25.00 Snowbird Membership once during a 15 month cycle you can have a $5.00 discount on every class at every show that you choose to attend and that includes our A Rated Shows.

On top of that for no extra charge your points can make you eligible for at least four different awards programs that are either statewide or national. And we also provide at our expense from all the money we collect with those memberships a banquet where the champions are our guests and we usually have about 300 people applauding your victories and everyone down to 10 places in some divisions gets a trophy.

If you are skeptical please feel free to see our faciltiy on my website and the pictures from our dinner including the trophy table. You will also see all of our rings and the parking. By all means take a tour.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I, too, would like to have Snowbird respond to this question. Although she has posted twice since it was asked, she has yet to repond to this thoughtfuly worded question.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hope that Erin will forgive me but it has never been my intention advertise here rather just to participate, your question leaves me no other choice. I think the above reply covers it, and no I do not think that amateurs should have cash as the incentive, not do I believe in cash for classes where children may participate.

Actually we did offer for two years at our Halloween show a $1,000 cash award class for hunters but there was so little interest in the class we soon dropped it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>May we all assume that the answer is "No" and the reason is that offering money to the backbone divisions of your shows would cut into your profits? (And, please do not say that you do not make a profit -- no one is going to keep holding horse shows if they lose money doing it.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry wrong again, as I said all show managers even when the classes are sponsored increase the entry fee to compensate for the expense, therefore you are actually giving yourself the award not me. It has no effect on the net costs of operation of the show. The judges charge the same, the jump crew charges the same the insurance is not more expensive so it would cost me less to have awards classes than to reduce the prices by $5.00 a class for all our regular exhibitors..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Running horse shows is a business. At the Ocala shows this winter, entry fees in the 3' divisions is $150. In the 3'6" divisions it is $210. But the 3'6" divisions are vyeing for $2500 in prize money for the extra $60 they pay.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I personally think it would be wiser to go to the same classes at other shows where the entry fee is only a 30% of that $150 for the whole division. Smaller classes trophies and beautiful ribbons included no extras. Come to New Jersey and enjoy a lot of nice shows at $20.00 a class for the same thing and have room to have a tailgate party.

But then I think a lot of our horse people are a lot like some horses, herdbound.

Lord Helpus
Dec. 9, 2002, 06:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snowbird:
I personally think it would be wiser to go to the same classes at other shows where the entry fee is only a 30% of that $150 for the whole division. Smaller classes trophies and beautiful ribbons included no extras. Come to New Jersey and enjoy a lot of nice shows at $20.00 a class for the same thing and have room to have a tailgate party.

But then I think a lot of our horse people are a lot like some horses, herdbound.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ummmmm, what about the temperature in NJ in Jan and Feb? I was born and grew up in NJ and I would not want to tailgate in NJ in the middle of winter.

Also, although I understand that the Fla. circuits are expensive, they must offer more classes per division, since individual classes can be entered for $40 each. While I acknowledge that $20 is 50% of $40, it is not 30%.

When I rode in California in the 80's, add-backs were the norm in the recognized divisions (A/A was just getting started and was truly an informal division at that point). A certain % of each entry fee went into a pool and was added back to the prize money. The more horses entered, the bigger the pot. Even people who rarely won a top ribbon (they were known as "add-backers" because they increased the pot without drawing from it), seemed to like this system; on a good day they at least had a chance of winning decent prize money.

I don't know if Ca. still has that system, but if not, its too bad. Exhibitors knew exactly how much of each entry fee would be available for potentially winning. I never heard a complaint about higher entry fees because we all knew that we had the chance of winning that money (and more) back.

And Snowbird -- I don't agree with you about more money in hunter divisions bringing in the spectators. We are talking about class money, not huge sweepstakes and special events.

Day after day, I sit at AAA shows at the Kentucky Horse Park, looking at the second years and regular horses go. Even at KHP, which has hundreds of people come daily to view the horse park, the spectators at the shows are almost completely comprised of other exhibitors and trainers. Any casual visitor who stops by the rings does not have the foggiest idea of which classes give out prize money. Prize awards have absolutly no bearing on spectator attendance when we are talking about regular division money. It is ingenuous of you to discuss $100,000 classes and sponsorship when that is not the topic at all.

And on the issue of trophies, you have already acknowledged that certain people win consistently enough to have a full set of your trophies. Great for them. But what about the people who come in 2nd - 5th? Do THEY get trophies? Of course not. With prize money, it is distrbuted throughout the winning rides.

Take a poll of your exhibitors (ALL of them, not just the people with sets of china) and ask if they would rather have money awards or a trophy for first place..... I think I know what the overwhelming answer will be.

Problem is, it will cost you more, because the 3' divisions could no longer subsidize the 4' horses. Even with the same entry fees that are charged to the recognized divisions, the 3' people should have the chance of winning back at least an amount which is close to the same % of those entry fees as the 4' horses do. And that means less of the 3' money available to pay for the 4' division. Which is money out of management's profits. So why not increase the entry fees for the other divisions commensurately, not just the entry fees for the 3' people?

Funny -- when I started this thread, I thought I was ambivalent on the issue. But Snowbird has shown me management's point of view, and that has put me squarely on the side of giving money to the A/A division....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So I lied. Horses ARE my whole life. I have no other life at all.....

Smiles
Dec. 9, 2002, 07:32 AM
Snowbird A polite question for you. Why would making the a/a and childrens AArated make people want to move back up to the 3.6ft??? It is my understanding from trainers and riders the reason there are fewer people showing the 3.6ft is because the 3ft offers much more now... Let see marshal/sterling, Nal, and Washington oh yah now the National is going to be holding something. Now as I recall a/a and childrens didn't have that option 10 yr ago, but now you can qualify for finals, win money and jump 3ft what wrong with that??? Does anyone honestly think by making these divisions AA rated that people would move up and on, hardly.

For those of you that feel the O should be taken out of a/o because people can't afford a nice horse.. Maybe the aa ride thats goes to 15 shows plus finals on full service with a leased horse, could save herself enough money by not showing one year to buy herself a pretty nice horse for that money. Lets do the math 20/30% asking price for lease of horse plus insurence, board $700 to $1000 or more a month full service, 1 or 2 shows a month $1000 plus day fee, trailering, and braiding, Vet and shoeing, and the list keeps going. Hmmm now my think is depend on the lease of the horse and shows this leaser could buy herself a nice horse if she wasn't paying all that money. Just some foood for thought!

Just another day!!!

plottwist
Dec. 9, 2002, 07:34 AM
See, it really is about the money. Winning money and paying more money to win said money. Spending more money at shows where you have to pay to overnight your horse, yourself and all that goes along with it.

I guess we're really spoiled out here in zone 2. I can go to a show, see my kid play her sport and have dinner with my family all in one day. It is time and money affordable for me this way. I can't possibly be so unique here.

I'm an amateur, obviously, and I could not show if my division was consistantly run at shows where they were held over two days. I did show at a few shows this year, where I stabled over my horse, but it was close enough for me to DRIVE HOME to make sure my family didn't have to be punished for my having a good time. And I trimmed my budget in order to afford to show at these "big" shows.

So, I would not be interested in all this money and A rating for the amateurs. When it becomes so outlandishly expensive, it's no longer fun.

Reggie
Dec. 9, 2002, 07:55 AM
not a good idea. It will make it unaffordable for the working amateur to continue showing.

findeight
Dec. 9, 2002, 08:02 AM
All I know is that my bill at the shows that are available to me is only about $60 less then my A/O friends for the same # of classes. She gets money even for low placings and bad trips because nobody is in the class. Where is that money coming from???? Me, and LordHelpus and the rest? Hard to believe it is coming from anyplace else, sure can't get it out of the A/O entries.

I don't buy the argument that if we do this we will soon have to go down and down and down. We A/As are already here.

Gee, guess I'm not neutral anymore either. Rate em.

The Horse World. 2 people, 3 opinions. That's the way it is.

Blinky
Dec. 9, 2002, 08:08 AM
Slightly off topic but my issue is the fact that many shows hold their A/A and A/O classes over two days and during the week. I, for one am a working amateur. Wonder how many others are as well? Why can't these divisions be held on the weekend?

Giddy-up
Dec. 9, 2002, 08:21 AM
Thanks AAJumper for your answers. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I would LOVE to go to 1 days shows, but they are not in my area. It sounds like I could show more with less of the expenses. And to Blinkey--I totally am with you. Why are the adult classes being held during the week days? I for one only have so many vacation days & it puts a big limit to what shows I can attend. /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

AAJumper
Dec. 9, 2002, 08:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Giddy-up:
Thanks AAJumper for your answers. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I would LOVE to go to 1 days shows, but they are not in my area. It sounds like I could show more with less of the expenses. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I realized that I forgot to answer some of your questions. At some of the B or C shows, you have to pay a $25/day grounds fee if you don't get a $30/day stall, so you might as well get the stall for your horse to hang out in. Not all shows have a grounds fee though. Also, you can enter your classes on the morning of the show. Some charge a $25 late fee (same show that charges grounds fee) if you don't pre-enter, others give you a small discount for pre-entering but don't charge a late fee. The class fees run about $20-25. These shows were affordable for me when I had just gotten out of college, so it was a good deal.

visit www.victorianfarms.com (http://www.victorianfarms.com)

AAJumper
Dec. 9, 2002, 08:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Smiles:
Snowbird A polite question for you. Why would making the a/a and childrens AArated make people want to move back up to the 3.6ft??? It is my understanding from trainers and riders the reason there are fewer people showing the 3.6ft is because the 3ft offers much more now... Let see marshal/sterling, Nal, and Washington oh yah now the National is going to be holding something. Now as I recall a/a and childrens didn't have that option 10 yr ago, but now you can qualify for finals, win money and jump 3ft what wrong with that??? Does anyone honestly think by making these divisions AA rated that people would move up and on, hardly.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, I think her point was the opposite...that making the A/A's A rated would even further diminish the 3'6" division.

visit www.victorianfarms.com (http://www.victorianfarms.com)

ponyjumper4
Dec. 9, 2002, 11:51 AM
I've always thought the "O" in A/O was absolutely ridiculous. No reason people shouldn't be able to ride a leased horse. I also think that one of the dumbest show fees ever is the ground fee if you trailer in and it's only rated shows that do that. It's like they are charging you for coming and spending your money at their show. I understand renting a stall and I would understand like a $5 or maybe even possibly $10 fee for say grounds keeping, like going behind at the end of the show and cleaning up the manure and whatnot, but $25+? That's ridiculous.

"God forbid that I should go to any heaven in which there are no horses."
~R. Graham

sss
Dec. 9, 2002, 12:40 PM
The reasons I want to do A/O this coming year:

1. smaller classes -- better chance at ribbons/points and #2
2. prize money -- why show lower and get zero?
3. help me to move up to 4' and above.

According to most here, they don't have an interest (for various reasons) in moving up above 3', so there seems no incentive for "the industry" to promote the 3'6" A/O division with enticing prize money. I can understand encouraging future Team riders in the Junior 3'6" divisions, but most adults aren't going to become future Olympians. (This isn't to say we should forget aspiring to the skills required to clear the bigger jumps). Like someone earlier said, trends change.

Also, I have a question. Does being "recognized" require a division to be held over two days, even at a "C" show? I don't follow the concern that one-day shows will disappear. Or is it presumed that people will skip lower-pointed one-day "C" shows and opt for larger ones?

findeight
Dec. 9, 2002, 02:57 PM
I had another thought...

I sense some posters want to preserve the rated divisions for the 3'6" and above......some kind of utopia for the truly gifted to show their talents.

Well lets get real here. Horse showing has opened up for the not so elite. Folks show now who could never have done so under the old rating system. Plus we have a whole new class of good recreational riders who cannot devote the time necessary to the 3'6"+ stuff. In fact they have no illusions about the Olympics or even indoors, they just want to spend good money(often 30k+) for a 3' horse to enjoy. These folks ante up all the extra charges at rated shows just to enjoy the sport at a lower level.

So lets stop with seeing rated shows as a sacrosanct bastion of elite level riding and look at them as they actually are. 80% 3'.

Times change, lets change with them and allow our sport to be accessible and attract more $$$$. Not postulate 3'6" or up is all that matters and yearn for an exclusive and elitist past long gone.

Airlines and other ventures are now remaking themselves or dying. Horse shows need to do the same. Bend or break for the times they are a changing..........change with them or get left in the dust.

The Horse World. 2 people, 3 opinions. That's the way it is.

AAJumper
Dec. 9, 2002, 03:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by findeight:
Well lets get real here. Horse showing has opened up for the not so elite. Folks show now who could never have done so under the old rating system. Plus we have a whole new class of good recreational riders who cannot devote the time necessary to the 3'6"+ stuff. In fact they have no illusions about the Olympics or even indoors, they just want to spend good money(often 30k+) for a 3' horse to enjoy. These folks ante up all the extra charges at rated shows just to enjoy the sport at a lower level.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess what I don't understand is, if the above is true, why does it matter if it is A rated or C rated? If the 3' is a division where people want to just enjoy the sport, then why does the rating matter? Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand. Is it because people want to go outside their zones and still be able to get points? Does it have to do with wanting to get prize money? Or is it because people want to be able to compete against everyone in the nation for points?

visit www.victorianfarms.com (http://www.victorianfarms.com)

findeight
Dec. 9, 2002, 03:26 PM
In a way it doesn't matter. But in others it does.

Many of us pay the same with no return of even entry fees as the A/Os can usually count on. I did a mediocre First Year Green Hunter and paid about the same for entries as I do now. But that mediocre Green usually paid his entry fees at the office, my much nicer A/A Hunter costs the same at the same shows with no opportunity to recoup squat. I am not talking about big money, just a modest credit on the bill for my efforts at a top rated show.

Now I will show at the same shows whether they get National sanction or not BUT I am tired of thinking I support all the prize money in divisions that don't get enough entries to pay their way but show anyway..........I mean 5 or 6 in the A/O 50+ versus 26 in the A/A 50+ yet they pay out in the former and zero in mine, even tho the 5 don't add up to the prize money they get..

So if you have A/O folks paying about $200 for their division and there are a total of 20 in 3 splits and the show gives out $4500 in prize money split across the divisions, $4000 in entries versus $4500 in prize money???

Yet the A/A has 125 total split into 3 or even 4 divisions and at $150 each to enter. Thats...well..$12000+ in entries and they give out??? Nothing. $20 worth of ribbons and a $30 dollar plate if you win.

Something has gotta give.

The Horse World. 2 people, 3 opinions. That's the way it is.

AAJumper
Dec. 9, 2002, 03:41 PM
I definitely see your point, Findeight. But knowing the way some show managers are, that prize money is not going to coming out of their profits...it will come from higher entry fees. And if the entry fees are raised across the board to support the A/A divisions, I can definitely see other divisions then wanting a piece of the prize money. So now everyone has to pay more so a select few will now win money. I've noticed that in many cases, it is the same people winning. Sure, others can get a piece of the action, but in general, I think it is a relatively small group doing the majority of the winning. And I'm not too interested in funding those people's prize money. Since I don't win much in the way of ribbons, I know I'll be paying more, and getting nothing in return because the horse shows for me are just for the experience right now. I suppose if I were more competitive, I'd feel differently. I know we are talking about hunters here, but I would think the same thing would apply to the A/A jumpers.

visit www.victorianfarms.com (http://www.victorianfarms.com)

just for kicks
Dec. 9, 2002, 05:45 PM
Both findeight <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> All I know is that my bill at the shows that are available to me is only about $60 less then my A/O friends for the same # of classes. She gets money even for low placings and bad trips because nobody is in the class. Where is that money coming from???? Me, and LordHelpus and the rest? Hard to believe it is coming from anyplace else, sure can't get it out of the A/O entries.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

and AAJumper (this being really true if there are 50 in the division) <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> So now everyone has to pay more so a select few will now win money. I've noticed that in many cases, it is the same people winning. Sure, others can get a piece of the action, but in general, I think it is a relatively small group doing the majority of the winning. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
are right.

So would it make more sense to develope some sort of system for prize money. Where everyone in the class puts in say 10 bucks and at the end of the class 20% (no matter how many are entered)of the entries get some money back (of course the amount of $$ would depend on the placing).

Smiles: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> For those of you that feel the O should be taken out of a/o because people can't afford a nice horse.. Maybe the aa ride thats goes to 15 shows plus finals on full service with a leased horse, could save herself enough money by not showing one year to buy herself a pretty nice horse for that money. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But what about all the people who dont do this. What about the people who only do a few shows but want to jump the higher fences. And last why should the person who does 15 plus shows a year take a year off so she can buy a horse, when it would cause no harm (that I can see) to just add an open amature division.

Honorary member of the Red Party, the revolution is coming. Muahahahaha!!!!!

Lord Helpus
Dec. 9, 2002, 07:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by maggymay:
/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif why not have "C" rated, "B" rated and "A" rated A/A and Children's divisions? they're split anyway right? .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But that is exactly what recognizing the A/A's and Childrens would allow for! Right now, all of these 3' divisions are C rated. By recognizing them on a national level, the bigger shows could offer A rated divisons.

But the smaller shows would still be free to offer C or B rated divisions. I am sorry if my title to this thread gave the wrong impression. It probably should have been "Should the A/A division be a recognized one?" Recognizing the 3' people doesn't mean that ALL shows would offer the A rating in A/A's just like they don't all offer A ratings in other divisions.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So I lied. Horses ARE my whole life. I have no other life at all.....

Lord Helpus
Dec. 9, 2002, 07:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AAJumper:
I definitely see your point, Findeight. But knowing the way some show managers are, that prize money is not going to coming out of their profits...it will come from higher entry fees. And if the entry fees are raised across the board to support the A/A divisions, I can definitely see other divisions then wanting a piece of the prize money. So now everyone has to pay more so a select few will now win money. I've noticed that in many cases, it is the same people winning. Sure, others can get a piece of the action, but in general, I think it is a relatively small group doing the majority of the winning. And I'm not too interested in funding those people's prize money. Since I don't win much in the way of ribbons, I know I'll be paying more, and getting nothing in return because the horse shows for me are just for the experience right now. I suppose if I were more competitive, I'd feel differently. I know we are talking about hunters here, but I would think the same thing would apply to the A/A jumpers.

visit http://www.victorianfarms.com<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But you have it backwards, AA Jumper: Entry fees would not be raised across the board to support the A/A division. The A/A division is big enough to support itself (with money left over). If entry fees get raised in the "recognized" divisions, it is so they can support themselves!

And, don't forget, everyone: Shows will NOT be obligated to hold an A rated A/A division (which requires a certain level of money paid out). Even AAA shows could still choose to hold a C rated A/A division (with no money, just as it is now). However, I think you will find that the shows with A ratings in other divisions WILL make the A/A's "A" also. Otherwise, they might lose entries to shows that DO offer an A rated A/A division.

By recognizing the A/A's, it just gives shows an option to offer prize money and offer an A rated division.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So I lied. Horses ARE my whole life. I have no other life at all.....

Snowbird
Dec. 9, 2002, 07:58 PM
I made two points:

1. I would be in favor of the change if we switched and all those other A Rated 3'6" divisions were held on one day C-Rated like the Childrens Hunters and the AAs. I know that all of a sudden we would discover a lot more 3'6" horses because a good percentage of the Childrens and AAs would be able to afford to compete in Pony Hunters, JUnior Hunters and A/O hunters.

2. If the AA's had cash awards then I believe that the 3'6" A-Rated people would drop down because the entry fees were lower and money as good and the winning easy.

We all agree that TS is a smart business man, if so then he has his eyes set on the 3'0" crowd. All his Equitation classes are at 3'0".

Is our purpose to encourage the largest market share or to inspire the ultimate skills?

It seems to me that rather than further delute the system to a lower denominator you should put your efforts into the extra $20.00 a class that is being charged for the 3'0" classes. If you all are right that earns with 80 entries in a class $1,600 per class over the market value.

How does it make sense to say well I'm over-paying so I want some back, but only 10 of the 80 in the class get some back? And, 70 go home bigger losers?

OH! I forgot Maggiemay I'm on your side, what you are describing is Rating by level of difficulty. You qualify out of one and earn your right to compete in the next level. The levels have to be accomplished and you wouldn't be able to start at the top.

I get really frustrated when our short stirrup riders go from there to the Medal Classes.

[This message was edited by Snowbird on Dec. 09, 2002 at 11:11 PM.]

AAJumper
Dec. 9, 2002, 08:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lord Helpus:

But you have it backwards, AA Jumper: Entry fees would not be raised across the board to support the A/A division. The A/A division is big enough to support itself (with money left over). If entry fees get raised in the "recognized" divisions, it is so they can support themselves!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I understand what you are saying, but do you really think that show managers are going to charge the same amount for the A/A's once they start including prize money? I agree with you about how it should be, but I can more easily see a show manager saying "well, we are going to pay out prize money for this division, so we should raise the entry fee." So now the A/A's will be paying the same entry fees as the A/O's. I just somehow can't see the managers NOT raising the entry fees of the A/A's even a little bit....maybe I'm just a pessimist.

I see how the A/A's could support their own prize money with the entry fees they pay right now. I see how it isn't fair that the A/A's support the prize money for the A rated divisions. But if the managers were to now give out an extra $1000 or so in prize money per division, that money has to come from somewhere. It's just a matter of whose entry fees they will raise.

visit www.victorianfarms.com (http://www.victorianfarms.com)

[This message was edited by AAJumper on Dec. 09, 2002 at 11:24 PM.]

Snowbird
Dec. 9, 2002, 09:05 PM
Look the Jewelry Factory sells a necklace for $99.00, Tiffany has the same necklace but they sell it for $1600.00, what's the difference? an empty Tiffany box for the gift.

If the show managers are already getting $40.00 a class for no prize money, you bet they're going to up the entry fee to cover the prize money. You can also bet they're not going to bump up the other A Rated Divisions because they're already covered and they are very important people to keep happy.

What's to keep someone from showing in both divisions? AA and A/O? Junior Hunter and Childrens Hunter Horse? They're there already it doesn't cost them a penny extra. How long before the rule against cross-entering gets changed? What happens if it's a different rider?

The question is really how long will people in the AAs continue to show if they are constantly losers and the price is higher? Where will they show?

Look a simple fact of life...cream floats to the top unless the milk is homogenized.

We fought hard for the right to keep these divisions for the real working class amateurs and not to make them too attractive for the Professional Amateur. The reason for O in Am/O is to try and keep that division for Amateurs and we all know what's happened. How much easier will it be in the AAs?

The biggest problem is that we still don't have a definition for "Amateur". The other problem is there is no way to win out of AAs so it becomes and end for itself. The more you elevate it the more attractive it becomes for those who are already winning everything, and they will say to you why should we be penalized for excellence, or why should we be penalized just because we don't have to work for a living.

Let me give you a comparison, in New Jersey we want horse farms to pay for open green acres. I was a Comissioner for the Sire Stakes totally unrelated to hunters or jumpers right? But, it was the same problem, we tried to set up a circuit for the horses too slow to win at the pari-mutuals because you can't run an industry with only 20 some horses that win all the time. And, they don't need that many green acres.

We got letters all the time to the effect above because they wanted to win all the big stakes and weren't opposed to picking up some easy bucks in the Green Acres Races.

Peggy
Dec. 9, 2002, 11:57 PM
Agree with AAJumper that entry fees will increase if prize money is offered in the AA's. This is has certainly been my experience at the rare dressage shows where prize money is offered, unless they have VERY generous sponsors. So, people with horses that don't win, or don't win as much, subsidize the prize money for those who do win.

Whoever asked about add-backs. I don't think these exist in regular classes any more, only maybe in some classics or special classes. I vaguely remember some controversy regarding these when the organization then known as the AHSA wouldn't count the add-back money the same way as up-front money for the purpose of determining points and/or ratings. Maybe this was responsible for its demise? Someone here is bound to have a better memory than me...

stevie
Dec. 10, 2002, 06:25 AM
The Problem isn't so much with the money, the amount of days the AA's would have to show or the height of the jumps. The problem is with the adults themselves and the horse show managers. Until the adults stop paying to enter the crappy little c rated shows(just to get points for a meaningless year end award,) the AA's will never become a rated division.It is these riders who go twice a week to these poorly run horse shows (if you can call them that) just so they can chase points and win a stupid little trophy at the end of the year. These are the riders that keep the little shows in business and make it impossible for anyone else to get the date to run a better horse show.
I've talked to the leaders in my zone and no one wants to change this issue. Therefore, I have resigned myself to show a lot less and go to only the nice shows. I have no year end goals now and all I want to do is have fun and go to horse shows with good footing, nice jumps and nice people. I don't want to show at 11pm against one other rider in my division and I don't want to put my horse in danger.
It doesn't matter what zone, state or anything anymore. I am in this sport for the fun and don't care whether or not the AA's become rated or not.
Unfortunately, this sport is all about money. And rarely does the person with the least win. Thus, for those of us who aren't billionaires, why not do what's best for your horse so you won't have to go buy another one so fast? Skip the poorly run shows and save your horse. Who cares what it is rated!!!!!
And really, who shows for the prize money anyway?
You would have to win every class in order to win your entries back, how about all of the other expenses? Yeah the prize money would help, but I don't think that is the reason why the AA's aren't going to be a rated. The real reason is the Adults themselves...

Lord Helpus
Dec. 10, 2002, 07:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stevie:
Until the adults stop paying to enter the crappy little c rated shows(just to get points for a meaningless year end award,) the AA's will never become a rated division.It is these riders who go twice a week to these poorly run horse shows (if you can call them that) just so they can chase points and win a stupid little trophy at the end of the year. These are the riders that keep the little shows in business and make it impossible for anyone else to get the date to run a better horse show.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stevie, since there are virtually NO C rated shows in my area (occasionally, but not often enough to chase points at), I had not even realized that this was an issue in some areas.....

Don't you think that recognizing AA's will "solve" this problem? If a hore can earn 3x the points by winning at an AAA show, then there is no way for these people to chase points at "crappy little C rated shows" and win a year end award.

I have heard the counter argument: that, by recognizing the 3' divisions, it will be the end of the C rated shows, because people will not go to them to chase points. The people who espouse this argument think that the death of C rated shows is a bad thing.

Interesting that you think it would be a good thing -- to open up dates for shows who would be safe and exhibitor friendly.

It really shows that there are 2 sides to each argument, given the exact same set of facts.....

And, as for the comments about the same old people winning all the time and earning the prize money which comes from higher entry fees (and I do agree that the entry fees will be raised) ---- isn't one goal of showing to improve and to try to become one of those ribbon winners? Not to whine that you can never win a ribbon and are paying for those who do?

It may well be that these very people, who cannot win ribbons at AA shows, WILL drop down to local shows where the costs are less and the competition is less. Because the point chasers who *must* dominate the ribbon winners at the local shows, will no longer be there trying to win cheap points. They will move up to the A shows where points are double or triple.

I see this as a way of sorting out the people who should and should not be at each level. I would get really discouraged if I had a horse which belonged at Local shows, only to see top riders show up at these shows chasing points.....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So I lied. Horses ARE my whole life. I have no other life at all.....

Smiles
Dec. 10, 2002, 07:56 AM
Justforkicks well they can always show the horse in the greens if they want to show higher then 3ft depend on the horses green statis!!! Oh but then most green classes go over 2 days and during the week /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif my bad!!! Look folks the useeq isn't burgerking so you can't have it your way!!! This is a reason why we have a billion rules because no one can agree to disagree.

Finghteight, now I don't know where your showing, but our 3fters get money back. I do the a/o hunter and have never payoff or pay for half my entry fee with winnings being champ or res. My entries at a AA rate show for the division are $250 plus I have to pay a nom fee if I want to do a classic. Now if I did the aas the division would be $125 plus 3 classics which all give money back to 8th place. They also can pay by the class so if they don't want to do the flat class they don't have to and won't get charge for it. The lady that goes to shows with me does the 50 and over aa division and they only see maybe 6 to 8 people in that section all year. She has a cheaper bill at the end of the show then I do. /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

If you guys think the hunters are paying for these shows what about the jumpers??? AAjumper and I can tell you that with a nom fee, $100 to $200 per classic, and 50 to 75 just a/a equals big money for shows...

Just another day!!!

AAJumper
Dec. 10, 2002, 08:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lord Helpus:
And, as for the comments about the same old people winning all the time and earning the prize money which comes from higher entry fees (and I do agree that the entry fees will be raised) ---- isn't one goal of showing to improve and to try to become one of those ribbon winners? Not to whine that you can never win a ribbon and are paying for those who do?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Couldn't the argument also be made that the goal of showing is to improve to a point where you can do the 3'6" hunters and be competitive? Not to whine that your division isn't offered any prize money and are paying for those that do?

Sorry, I couldn't resist...this makes for a very interesting debate. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

visit www.victorianfarms.com (http://www.victorianfarms.com)

ponyjumper4
Dec. 10, 2002, 09:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I have heard the counter argument: that, by recognizing the 3' divisions, it will be the end of the C rated shows, because people will not go to them to chase points. The people who espouse this argument think that the death of C rated shows is a bad thing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't see why people would feel it will be the end of C shows. Around here, if you want A points, you go to A shows and they count for the A year end awards. If you want C points you got to C shows and only those count in the C year end awards. Sometimes when the A's offer the A/A's and Children's, those classes are C rated, so they count towards the C pts. A lot of people can't afford A shows at all so the C shows will still have a need and demand.

"God forbid that I should go to any heaven in which there are no horses."
~R. Graham

Skipper
Dec. 10, 2002, 10:02 AM
seems to me that the smaller more local C shows are not getting the entries. The places I went to last summer('01), I was often the only one entered in the a/a classes. Sometimes I "showed" just to get my horse around but mostly I ended up not showing. But maybe I was going to all the wrong places....

Merry
Dec. 10, 2002, 10:24 AM
I'd love to return to the AO classes again (providing my filly continues to develop). My main motivation: The prize money. Personally, I'm fed up with paying a small fortune to show A/A, winning, and coming home with a $1.50 ribbon and some glorious "prize" like pocket-sized flashlights or brass keychain fobs. It's kind of insulting to pay what I pay to compete and be handed a prize that's not even equal to my entry fee.

On the other hand...The nice lure of the A/A hunter division as it is now is that it's a haven for so many riders who wouldn't otherwise be in the sport for various reasons. And I would NOT want to deter them from participating, either due to rising entry costs or an onslaught of shamateur ringers swooping in for prize $.

So what's the solution? If we don't want to pay out cash and rate the A/A division, beyond the occasional $1,000 A/A stakes class, how about some really nice, tangible prizes for the amateur adult classes? Is it that hard for such a money-making division to support prizes like a decent bridle or jackets or ________ ?

EqChick
Dec. 10, 2002, 10:36 AM
Fist off, you guys, this has been a great debate - give all of yourselves a pat on the back for solid exchange of opinions, facts, and experiences!

I like certain aspects of both arguments.

Regarding prize money:

I think the Add Back system is great, and means that the larger a class you win in, the larger your prize money is. Makes sense to me. Not sure about the calculation issues brought up earlier- they might get in the way. I think winning the money would be great, and a real boon to people who mainly work their butts off to pay for each show - even if it is only $25. For most A/A's, $25 is 25 more than you had. What about "B" rating the division so that the prize money doesn't have to be so high? E.g. if there is $1,600 in prize money for A/O, have $1,200 for A/A's. Sort of a step-up approach.

Regarding people moving up to the 3'6":

I completely agree that the O makes a difference. Consider this example: someone's been showing in 3' for a few years, has a great 3' horse, but the animal isn't really A/O caliber. She might be interested in moving up, but doesn't want to spend the $$ until she realizes that SHE can do the 3'6".

I propose a split to the A/A's to make it more like the Juniors, and have a Low A/A, and High A/A. Have the Low's be 3' and the High's 3'6". The highs would still be unrecognized, or recognized at a slightly lower level becuase they aren't the truly uniquely talented individuals that can TRAIN and show a 3'6" horse (which, to my knowlege, was the reasoning behind creating the A/O's in the first place). Say if they were all recognized, the A/O's still get higher prize money, and the prestige of A/O. The High's would simply allow people to move up from 3' to 3'6". I think this would REALLY encourage people to move up, which seems to be a strong opinion here. Then over time, maybe the A/O's would grow and get even better - evening out the divisions some.

Regarding days at a show:

I have seen both kinds - one day divisions and two day. I tend to see two day much more frequently, so I don't think this will be as large of an issue. Plus, there are still good local divisions for one days, and good B and C shows around. Let's face it, if we rate A/A's, they all get pushed to two days, and there is a huge population of adults that have no where to show any more, the market will step in (rather a smart show management company) and will offer a place for them to go. Might take a while, but it will take care of itself.

As far as jogging goes, I think it's a great idea. If a horse can't jog - it definitely shouldn't be doing 3'. Most amateurs I know would gladly jog their horses they stay late at work for, skip the epensive lunches for, constantly give up vacation time for, bust their aging and tired butts for, and love like it's going out of style! Even if they are leasing (which is very frequent)! The rider doesn't HAVE to jog the horse, they can have someone else do it. In most cases, I think they'd still be around to jog, and I think show management would take care of call backs to keep them happy.

Besides, letting them put the horse up and giving them time to watch the rest of the show while they wait gives them time to watch the A/O's, their kids, their barn members, spend money on vendors, buy more food, and give the whole show more spectators. I think it's a great idea!

IMHO! /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

So tell me again how the 40 Hour Standard was created? I think my boss was busy...

AAJumper
Dec. 10, 2002, 11:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Merry:
So what's the solution? If we don't want to pay out cash and rate the A/A division, beyond the occasional $1,000 A/A stakes class, how about some really nice, tangible prizes for the amateur adult classes? Is it that hard for such a money-making division to support prizes like a decent bridle or jackets or ________ ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What, you mean you don't like prizes like silver plated mint julep cups that say "Indio 2002"? They are soooo useful. /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

visit www.victorianfarms.com (http://www.victorianfarms.com)

Flash44
Dec. 10, 2002, 11:19 AM
You have to be working (employed) full time and have 2 kids. That guarantees all riders will be in identical mental, physical and emotional states (ie everyone will be stark raving mad). Instead of giving prize money, they will give out gift certificates to Walmart and Target.

AAJumper
Dec. 10, 2002, 12:32 PM
Hahaha...that's a good idea!

visit www.victorianfarms.com (http://www.victorianfarms.com)

just for kicks
Dec. 10, 2002, 03:57 PM
smiles: I dont see how making an Open Amateur division would make USeq a burgerking? Yes, if a A/A rider had a first year green horse they leased then they could show it 3'6" (for one year!!!). But if they have a horse to ride in the greens they most likely own it, and in that case they could do the A/O any way. But if said amateur did not own the horse wouldn't it be more likely that the actual owner would get a pro to ride it in the greens? I also dont understand why you rolled your eyes when you mentioned the fact that an A/A could not ride in the greens because it would be during the week. Most people work, so they cant just drop everything. You are obviously against an Open Amateur division, but you havent said why.


I still say that if prize money is the only reason people want the A/A's rated than we should just have add backs (everyone puts some $$ in a pot and at the end of the class, 20% of the class gets all the money back) and leave the division C rated. That way you would not be paying more money (in a class with 50 people) just so the same 8 people can win a little money back. And this way the division stays on one (or in some zones two) days, and people get some $$. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Honorary member of the Red Party, the revolution is coming. Muhahahahahahaha!!!!!

clearound
Dec. 10, 2002, 04:43 PM
I still think that all of you who think that those of us who want the A/A to be AA rated solely because of money are missing the point. This is not about winning money. It is about respect. The prize money would be a byproduct of the AA rating, in other words, is the division was AA rated at an AA rated horse show, the show would be required to pay the prize money. However, at a "B" or a "C" show, the A/A would be AA rated and the prize money would have to be distributed according to the guidelines governing "B" and "C" rarted shows.

Therefore, it would only effect those A/A who choose to show at an AA rated show. Those people who would like you to believe that giving the division a national, rather than a regional rating, would be the demise of the "B" and "C" shows are doing nothing more than trying to inflame and intimidate people to keep it the way it is.

There is nothing wrong with giving the division a national rating which would allow A/A to compete for NATIONAL year end awards and attend national finals if they choose to enter. Why not give us A/As the respect we deserve!

JustJump
Dec. 10, 2002, 05:03 PM
AA's get plenty of respect. And they deserve it, they support the shows. That doesn't mean that they either deserve to ask for or need be given a respect that is completely disproportionate to their athletic accomplishments; these are nothing more than average, in the truest sense of the word. If they want to demand an A rating, I suppose they will get it, because there is strength in numbers. But I submit that the main motive here is greed and ego, not consideration for what is good for the sport or most of those in it. And for what? "National recognition?" What a joke! If the horses are lame now, just wait till they start campaigning against all the zillions of AA horses in the whole country, instead of jumping their legs off in every horse show in their zone. Yikes. Think again--that jog for soundness is going to be very problematic.

Lord Helpus
Dec. 11, 2002, 07:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JustJump:
But I submit that the main motive here is greed and ego, not consideration for what is good for the sport or most of those in it. And for what? "National recognition?" What a joke! If the horses are lame now, just wait till they start campaigning against all the zillions of AA horses in the whole country, instead of jumping their legs off in every horse show in their zone. Yikes. Think again--that jog for soundness is going to be very problematic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Greed and ego? Isn't that a tad strong? Do the AO's and Juniors, who compete for money, do so because of greed and ego? Why label AA's with those pedantic words?

And I fail to see how introducing the requirement of a jog will harm horses, as you imply. Yes, the jog may be problematic, for the older horses who have been dropped to the AA division BECAUSE they can no longer pass a jog. They are showing now. Should they be? I see the jog as a GOOD thing, not a "problem" (unless you have one of those horses, then, yes, it will be a problem for you.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So I lied. Horses ARE my whole life. I have no other life at all.....

findeight
Dec. 11, 2002, 08:01 AM
Greed and ego?

I don't think so.

Where I live and show even the "local" unrated shows (which are 2 1/2 hours away in one case) are multiday..

We have no B or C USAEQ rated shows most years, 2 or 3 at best in others...multiday of course and at least 125 miles away.

We Adults show mostly at what is available-the A and AA USAEQ rateds. We scrimp and save to go and I see nothing greedy or egotistical in wanting to see a break in the bill at check out if we place well. Not everybody can place and going home empty handed is a reality and is not at issue-it happens, we accept that.

In my region we are already de facto rated....we have all of the days, all of the expense and top competition without the even modest rewards those who show in rated divisions get-even when their division doesn't pay it's own way.

Alot of this debate stems from differences in the way shows are held in each poster's region. I do understand the arguments on both sides but couldn't the B C shows chose to continue as they are and not offer the rated version? I think if exhibitors are currently showing at these most will stay there and enjoy the lower fees and more compact schedual and not rush to jump up to the grand a week the big rateds cost. I sure would given the option.

BTW as a 53 year old 3 day a week rider I ain't doin no 3'6" other then occaisionally to school.

The Horse World. 2 people, 3 opinions. That's the way it is.

Flash44
Dec. 11, 2002, 08:14 AM
I also think that the A/A horses should jog. If you can't keep a horse sound at 3', how are you supposed to be able to manage a 3'6 or higher horse? Just because the horse is not competitive at a height greater than 3' doesn't mean he should be overused or campaigned to the point that he can't even jog sound.

findeight
Dec. 11, 2002, 08:26 AM
Most I know of, including my own, are able and willing to jog.

The Horse World. 2 people, 3 opinions. That's the way it is.

Lucassb
Dec. 11, 2002, 08:31 AM
Posted by Find8:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> In my region we are already de facto rated....we have all of the days, all of the expense and top competition without the even modest rewards those who show in rated divisions get-even when their division doesn't pay it's own way.

Alot of this debate stems from differences in the way shows are held in each poster's region. I do understand the arguments on both sides but couldn't the B C shows chose to continue as they are and not offer the rated version? I think if exhibitors are currently showing at these most will stay there and enjoy the lower fees and more compact schedual and not rush to jump up to the grand a week the big rateds cost. I sure would given the option.

BTW as a 53 year old 3 day a week rider I ain't doin no 3'6" other then occaisionally to school. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

AMEN!

Very well put, Findeight.

I feel lucky that I do actually have a few options (the PSJ shows near here that run over a weekend, much less expensive in every way but just as nice as the A shows in most respects...) As a working AA, they sure fit into my schedule and budget a whole lot better than the AAs do.

A national award is not a realistic goal for me, but it sure would be nice to get a bit of $$ off the bill on those occasions when we do shine in the ring. For that reason, I often choose the Bob Bell/Classic Company-run A shows in this area because he pays his adults. (smart manager, that Bob Bell!)

And, for what it's worth... I'll jog mine anytime. Nothing to hide. (and he isn't a youngster, either.)

**********
"It is good to have an end to journey towards; but it is the journey that
matters, in the end."
-Ursula K. Le Guin

Merry
Dec. 11, 2002, 08:37 AM
Good point, Flash.

As for the desire of prize $ being for greed and ego: Like Lord Helpus, when I showed AO in the 80's (and was blessed with a great AO horse) the add-back $ allowed me to pay for virtually all of my showing expenses. I got to play and have fun and it didn't cost me hardly anything. Now, I'm paying even more to do Am. Adult and I'm getting the illustrious mint julep cup, the plastic pocket flashlight or a beany baby. /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

And just for the record, personally I have never aimed for any sort of year-end award, nor do I have the desire to do so. It ain't the horse, it's ME who goes unsound! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

RockinHorse
Dec. 11, 2002, 08:56 AM
'A' rate it. Don't 'A' rate it I do not think it will make that much difference to most A/A riders except that it will cost more.

I am very lucky that I own a wonderful horse who is more than capable of doing the A/O's and Regular Working hunters. Last year we did A/A and I want to move up to the A/O's at some point when I am ready. If we do move up, I have no illusions that the prize money will signifigantly reduce the cost. Aside from the entry fees there is still vanning, training, braiding, etc etc etc.

I ride and show because I love it and I love working with my horse. I want to move up because I want to continue to improve and challenge myself, not because I think I will get more respect riding in an 'A' rated division. Yes, I am happy when we win the class but I have been known to come out of the ring with a much bigger smile when I have had a personal success (like have a perfect fence on one with a long approach~~not my stong suit /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I do not have the time, money or desire to chase points for year end awards. I ride for myself, not for what others think. I chose the shows I attend based on the facilities, location and schedule and I will not choose shows based on rating.

Each class can have its own rewards regardless of ribbons or prize money.

So I don't get what the big deal is or am I just a freak? /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

~One day my mind just wandered and it never came back~

Liverpool
Dec. 11, 2002, 10:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> personally I have never aimed for any sort of year-end award, nor do I have the desire to do so. It ain't the horse, it's ME who goes unsound! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Merry, don't feel bad... I am not sound on my best day; thank goodness they don't jog the riders!!!

I choose my friends for their good looks, my acquaintances for their good characters, and my enemies for their intellects. A man cannot be too careful in the choice of his enemies.
Oscar Wilde (1854–1900)

Flash44
Dec. 11, 2002, 11:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by findeight:
Most I know of, including my own, are able and willing to jog.

The Horse World. 2 people, 3 opinions. That's the way it is.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wan't insinuating that your horses are unsound, f8! Someone posted back there that by the end of the season, the point chasing A/As would not survive the jog.

AAJumper
Dec. 11, 2002, 01:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RockinHorse:
'A' rate it. Don't 'A' rate it I do not think it will make that much difference to most A/A riders except that it will cost more.

So I don't get what the big deal is or am I just a freak? /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope, you are not a freak, I feel exactly the same as you do (maybe I'm a freak too!?!?). And even though I don't do the hunters, my main concern would be that the same thing would apply to the A/A jumpers (offering prize money), and that the entry fees would go up even higher than they already are. I also worry that I'd be bumped into the $100 nominating fee category...ugh!

visit www.victorianfarms.com (http://www.victorianfarms.com)

findeight
Dec. 11, 2002, 03:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Flash44:
I wan't insinuating that your horses are unsound, f8! Someone posted back there that by the end of the season, the point chasing A/As would not survive the jog.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't take it that way Flash. I don't see any more unsoundness in my division then the ones that do jog. Those of us who are already showing under rated conditions in Hunters wouldn't mind adding this one little detail......anybody who does is showing a known unsound horse and that's a crime.

And Merry......I didn't even get a Beanie Baby for winning an over fences class at an AA show.....I got a ribbon and that's all......$125 for the division, 3 o/f and the hack....Champion got something, I was Reserve and got nothing.....

Don't flame me for saying so but it is nice to have a little something to show for all that money, would have been nicer with a check stapled to the ribbon too.

The Horse World. 2 people, 3 opinions. That's the way it is.

Merry
Dec. 11, 2002, 04:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Don't flame me for saying so but it is nice to have a little something to show for all that money... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's exactly my point, too.

I wish I could spend hundreds of dollars and happily say I'm showing for my own intrinsic reward. Occasionally I do. Honest. But after 35 years of competing, truly, the thrill sometimes escapes me. I would love to come home after a good show with more than just vague memories, a sore butt, scabs on my knees, dirty clothes and a few ribbons.

Lordy, do I sound jaded or what? Someone restrain me from entering a horse show until I undergo an intervention and rehab! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Flash44
Dec. 11, 2002, 04:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Merry:
I wish I could spend hundreds of dollars and happily say I'm showing for my own intrinsic reward. Occasionally I do. Honest. But after 35 years of competing, truly, the thrill sometimes escapes me. I would love to come home after a good show with more than just vague memories, a sore butt, scabs on my knees, dirty clothes and a few ribbons.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Vote with your feet! I left rated shows 3 years ago and I'm getting the same things for about 1/3 the cost - ribbons!

Flash44
Dec. 11, 2002, 05:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clearound:
I still think that all of you who think that those of us who want the A/A to be AA rated solely because of money are missing the point. This is not about winning money. It is about respect. The prize money would be a byproduct of the AA rating, in other words, is the division was AA rated at an AA rated horse show, the show would be required to pay the prize money. However, at a "B" or a "C" show, the A/A would be AA rated and the prize money would have to be distributed according to the guidelines governing "B" and "C" rarted shows.

Therefore, it would only effect those A/A who choose to show at an AA rated show. Those people who would like you to believe that giving the division a national, rather than a regional rating, would be the demise of the "B" and "C" shows are doing nothing more than trying to inflame and intimidate people to keep it the way it is.

There is nothing wrong with giving the division a national rating which would allow A/A to compete for NATIONAL year end awards and attend national finals if they choose to enter. Why not give us A/As the respect we deserve!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While we are at it, let's build huge multi million dollar stadiums for AAA baseball and charge $40 per ticket to get in. Oh, and pay them a lot more. Hey, they work hard, and maybe they deserve more recognition and respect at the national level!

I'm for leaving the rated divisions and national recognition to the best of the best. Giving some prize money back to the A/As would be nice, since they do ante up a large portion of the total entry fees at the show. I imagine that the shows that start offering prize money to A/As will become well attended.

plottwist
Dec. 11, 2002, 05:40 PM
All our C shows and most B (don't want to say all, but it's pretty close) run on one day. We all ship to the show grounds, school, show and ship home.

There's no need to overnight as these shows can be reached from a few minutes to an hour or so.
Of course you can travel farther if you care to.

Some of these show grounds and show managements also hold AA shows. So a C show can have the feel of an AA. Same jumps, footing, ring starters, etc.

Right now, a person can show only at C rated shows and have their fill of showing.

clearound
Dec. 11, 2002, 06:24 PM
Either I am mistaken or I am not making myself clear. Having the A/A division rated AA by the AHSA or whatever it is called now, would only effect the division at AA rated horse shows. Currently, the division is rated C no matter whether you are at a AA, B or C rated horse show. Therefore, the B and C rated horse shows will not be effected.

ponyjumper4
Dec. 11, 2002, 07:25 PM
^^^exactly.

If they don't want to rate it, fine, but they could still offer back prize money. Our county 4-H horse show, which is open and usually judged by western judges, pays back through fifth place and the pay is $15 to the winner down to $5 to fifth and the class is only $5 to enter--ribbons included. If it's not a money class, then it's $4 a class and the winner gets a trophy and ribbons go 1st-5th. It's been like that for the past several years and it's held at Averett College--same price at their facility as it was when at the county fair grounds and all they did was fence in an area with portable fencing for ring. Not to mention this was also a fundraising show. If they can do that, A shows can hand out money to the A/A's and children's. The C jumper classes are paybacks too, the amount of return depending on the number of entries. I remember one day I entered 2, maybe 3 jumper classes (won one of them with like 20 people and placed in at least one other), paid the ground fee and whatever other office/schooling/insurance ($1per rider) fees and got out of there only paying $9. I think the classes themselves were between $10-20, with $8 added back. Usually that show cost me around $50-$60 if I only did one day. It was very nice and made my day better to get out of there for only $9.

"God forbid that I should go to any heaven in which there are no horses."
~R. Graham

Snowbird
Dec. 11, 2002, 08:09 PM
If you get the rating so you an get the money you will also get the Increment System and if you're doing the 5 day shows as a working person, you won't have a chance so poof! away go the big entries and away goes the competition.

Just another poorly supported A Rated division. It would be wiser to ask that the other divisions be C-Rated. Reduced entry fees give everyone something back. The double A shows are just C Shows in wolf clothing.

ponyjumper4
Dec. 11, 2002, 08:22 PM
^^^or why don't they just change the rules so that either everyone or no one gets money back. Keep the 3'6 and whatever else is "rated" so it will have that "national recognition" or "prestige". Or what I mean is, why does the "A" rated divisions have to give money back?" I think each horseshow should decide whether or not they want to give back money. Usually people give back money to the classes that are huge/fill/support the show when given the option.

"God forbid that I should go to any heaven in which there are no horses."
~R. Graham

clearound
Dec. 11, 2002, 08:26 PM
Sorry SNOWBIRD, but, for the most part, I would never equate the competition at the "C" rated shows to be on par with the competition at the "AA" rated shows. Yes, there are some very nice horses and riders who, due to personal and professional committments as well as finances, choose to show at "B" and "C" shows. I am very happy that there are rated shows that they can attend. However, you show your true colors as a horse show manager when you make the bald assertion that the "A" shows are just like the "C" shows in wolf clothing. That's like saying that a 5 star resturant is no different than McDonalds but for the chef. Its the chef however that makes all the difference.

BTW, if you have read any of more earlier posts you will see that I am one of those working stiffs that you are talking about. I work 60 hours a week so that I can show at the big shows and I only ride at the shows which I attend. However, despite this handicap, I have managed to win with the best of them. I think your short sighted as to what we A/A can do.

ponyjumper4
Dec. 11, 2002, 08:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Sorry SNOWBIRD, but, for the most part, I would never equate the competition at the "C" rated shows to be on par with the competition at the "AA" rated shows. Yes, there are some very nice horses and riders who, due to personal and professional committments as well as finances, choose to show at "B" and "C" shows. I am very happy that there are rated shows that they can attend. However, you show your true colors as a horse show manager when you make the bald assertion that the "A" shows are just like the "C" shows in wolf clothing. That's like saying that a 5 star resturant is no different than McDonalds but for the chef. Its the chef however that makes all the difference.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's also rather presumptuous (sp?) to assume otherwise when a lot of facilities host both C and A rated shows. I've seen people who have ribboned at the Penn National come and show at the C shows in my area. Also, I frequently run into the same riders/horses/trainers at the C shows here and at the A shows in the area.

"God forbid that I should go to any heaven in which there are no horses."
~R. Graham

clearound
Dec. 11, 2002, 08:44 PM
1DER - I did not mean to be presumptious in my reply to SNOWBIRD. I two see some of the same trainers and riders at both the C and AA shows. However, for the most part, when I see the riders at the C shows they are showing green or young horses or horses that are coming back from injury or accident. At least that is the situation where I come from. There are some very nice C shows and I did not mean to slight them. However, I do not think that one came make the generalization that SNOWBIRD did. Every horse show has its place and purpose.

ponyjumper4
Dec. 11, 2002, 09:11 PM
Ok, I gotcha, but the Penn National ribboner I was referring to was riding the same horse at the C show the next show season. I see the same horse/rider combos, but then there could still be plenty of reasons for it. I think I may have just read too much into your response.

"God forbid that I should go to any heaven in which there are no horses."
~R. Graham

AAJumper
Dec. 11, 2002, 09:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Flash44:
While we are at it, let's build huge multi million dollar stadiums for AAA baseball and charge $40 per ticket to get in. Oh, and pay them a lot more. Hey, they work hard, and maybe they deserve more recognition and respect at the national level!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's funny that you used that analogy, because I was thinking of the same one...just couldn't think of how to word it! But baseball was the first thing to come to my mind because of their extensive minor league system. You wanna play in the big leagues? You move up through the ranks from A to AA to AAA and if you are really the best of the best, you play for the national (world technically) title.

visit www.victorianfarms.com (http://www.victorianfarms.com)

Snowbird
Dec. 12, 2002, 08:24 AM
The only difference technically between a C-Rated Division and an A Rated Division is money and two days for the division.

At an A Show we are required to offer less than $8,000 in hunter rewards. At an AA Show they are required to offer $16,000 in hunter divisions. With a minimum per division.

No difference in the level of difficulty.

The same show grounds the same management the same fences the same course designer can run a one day C-Rated show exactly as they ran the AA show.

It is simply that for whatever reason people feel an A is better because of the money offered. Just as here in the dialog that seems to be some standard. I fail to comprehend any reason why people would prefer to may more show for more days to get the same product.

I said that if the AAs were to go A Rated under these conditions I would like to see the other now A Rated divisions go C Rated in order to prove my point.

I believe that if those 3'6" divisions were operated under the same conditions as the AAs are now we would suddenly discover a lot of horses and riders who would be able to jump 3'6". My point is that it is the two days and the extra expense that that involves which has caused the demise with a convenient and less expensive AA division available.

If the AA division was A Rated and had cash then it would not be an available alternative.

findeight
Dec. 12, 2002, 09:04 AM
And let me restate my point................

We don't have C shows around here. We don't have very many Bs either and when we do they, along with the local shows ARE 2-3 DAYS. We don't have single day shows outside of in barn affairs mainly for clients at the big barns.

The reality is that the single day show is long gone for many of us.

Rated or not I will still follow the same schedual of shows I always have and IMHO so will most others. But that schedual of shows available to me is already multi day, very expensive and very competitive, rating would change NOTHING except a little payback is possible.

Don't get me wrong Snowbird, if I were in your area I would choose your single day format in a heartbeat and stay there regardless of rating......but it's not an option in many areas of this country. And there will always be point chasers or "slummers" trying to qualify for something so that isn't really a reason for opposition. Most of us are already showing under rated conditions.


BTW for those that were wondering where the 3'6"ers went.....over to another ring, they are in the Jumpers now and there are plenty of them. Hunters have to be so perfect these days it's a sensible route. And nobody likes to go to show after show with little or no chance at a ribbon, I don't care how dedicated they are.

Thanks to Lordhelpus for posting this topic and all who have engaged in some stimulating discussion.

The Horse World. 2 people, 3 opinions. That's the way it is.

Flash44
Dec. 12, 2002, 09:12 AM
You can go to an A, B or C show in that area and see the same exact people in the A/As and Childrens. I've been to a B show at a facility on one weekend and have the same facility offer an A show the following weekend! I don't even think they changed the course much except to move a couple jumps and add more flowers.

There are a LOT of rated shows in the Mid Atlantic area. The division in competition between who does the As, Bs or Cs seems to be more along the lines of who doesn't mind traveling and staying overnight vs. those that want to do it in one day. Many of the one dayers are extremely competitive at the As they manage to get to.

You can look at A, B and C shows within a certain locality and bank on seeing person X, Y and Z who are always way up in the zone points, at that show no matter what the rating. However, if you travel 5 or so hours away, you may or may not see them depending on their schedule etc.

Molly99
Dec. 12, 2002, 10:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snowbird:
At an A Show we are required to offer less than $8,000 in hunter rewards. At an AA Show they are required to offer $16,000 in hunter divisions. With a minimum per division.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually an AA show, must offer and GIVE OUT over $18,000 in the rated hunter sections.

Janet
Dec. 12, 2002, 10:25 AM
Did you really mean that an "A" rated show has to give out less thatn $8k, or did you mean "C" rated show?

Snowbird
Dec. 12, 2002, 10:53 AM
We have to "offer" the minimum $2600 for 5 divisions and go 3 days. No more than 3 classes may be offered if a division goes on one day.

But, if the division goes over 2 days there can be 4-6 classes.

C Rated Shows can offer four classes in one day but no cash is awarded.

Yes! AA has to pay out $18,001.00 or more. So if money is what you want it's the five day shows for you, if it's not money that matters but your personal satisfaction then the C/B Shows are for you.

Perhaps, in those areas where there are no C/B Rated shows you might consider encouraging show managers to hold them. At a B Rated Show there is some money but it's usually run on one day.

If the AAs should be A Rated they would be included in the mix at the 5 day shows, so follow the money! The same thing no more than 3 classes in one day.

Lord Helpus
Dec. 12, 2002, 02:39 PM
This argument seems to be coming down to a regional thing. East Coast (I am assuming since the posters put "Galaxy" and "USA" as where they are from, and that is not very informative) has many C and B rated shows while the middle of the country doesn't.

It is like the blind men touching the elephant. Each only can describe the part he feels and the descriptions vary widely. A man feeling a tusk thinks the animal is cold and smooth. The man feeling the leg thinks it is hairly and wrinkled.

So, too, are we only looking at this issue from a regional standpoint: If you have a lot of B and C rated shows in your area that provide you an inexpensive way to show, you tend to not see te need for an A rated AA division.

But, if you are from a part of the country which does not have B and C rated shows, then you tend to want $$ back for the money it costs you to attend A rated shows with no hope of ever earning back a portion of the entry fees you must pay.

That is why I think that recognizing the AA division is the only way to satisfy everyone. In the East, the C and B rated shows can still hold classes in one day and not offer money. But, in other areas, where 3' competitors are forced to attend A rated show or not show at all, they will have the opportunity to win win back a portion of their entry fees.

What could be fairer than that?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So I lied. Horses ARE my whole life. I have no other life at all.....

Giddy-up
Dec. 12, 2002, 04:26 PM
I agree with Findeight & Lordhelpus in regards to not having the option of the 1 day show. I would love that, but they are just not in my area. So since I am already at the AA show paying the $$ for a 5 day show, what's a little more I wonder if I could then possibly win some back if I ribbon? Or I guess I could just get really crazy & go for the A/O's since there is $$ already and like only 5 in the division! That could be special /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif as it's only been years since the 3'6" days & my horse never has jumped that height consistently! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Flash44
Dec. 12, 2002, 04:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lord Helpus:


But, if you are from a part of the country which does not have B and C rated shows, then you tend to want $$ back for the money it costs you to attend A rated shows with no hope of ever earning back a portion of the entry fees you must pay.

That is why I think that recognizing the AA division is the only way to satisfy everyone. In the East, the C and B rated shows can still hold classes in one day and not offer money. But, in other areas, where 3' competitors are forced to attend A rated show or not show at all, they will have the opportunity to win win back a portion of their entry fees.

What could be fairer than that?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Obviously, there is a market for a local unrated show circuit in some areas. See Demetia13's thread on local circuits. it seems as if maybe people would rather demand they pay out at rated shows instead of forming a less expensive circuit to plug the hole.

In addition to rated shows, we have several quality local circuits in the small state of Maryland such as the Baltimore, Howard and Harford County circuits, the MSA, the 4H has a curcuit, and there are also Western circuits. Plus the MHSA is quite active and popular. Sometimes the competition at the local lever is stiffer than that at the B level.

Snowbird
Dec. 12, 2002, 05:25 PM
A Shows or AA Shows can't offer money in the AAs. Since they are A Rated Money is acceptable. It would not however count towards the hunter money for their rating. Since there is no minimum requirement a show manager who wishes can add cash awards to whatever level they like.

C Shows cannot offer cash Awards, that's why the National which was C Rated was not approved, they wanted to give away too much money. I think it was $100,000 for a Hunter Division that was a combined division.

Lord Helpus
Dec. 13, 2002, 06:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snowbird:
A Shows or AA Shows can't offer money in the AAs. Since they are A Rated Money is acceptable. It would not however count towards the hunter money for their rating. Since there is no minimum requirement a show manager who wishes can add cash awards to whatever level they like.

C Shows cannot offer cash Awards, that's why the National which was C Rated was not approved, they wanted to give away too much money. I think it was $100,000 for a Hunter Division that was a combined division.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

since most managers do NOT offer money when not required to. As a show manager, when was the last time YOU offered money in a division (or more money than the minimum) in regular division classes? (EXCLUDING any special classes like sweepstakes or classics.)

Or do you run only C rated shows and are afraid of losing all those point chasing people who would then move on to A rated shows where the points count for more?

To me, that is a good thing. Keep the point chasers out of the local and C rated shows --- have them compete at shows at which they are competitive, and let the C rated shows attract the horses/riders who are, in general, competitive with each other. Obviously, there will always be talented combinations who still will choose C shows for the convenience and cost, and that is fine. Its the point chasers who will probably move on (and up).

Back in the days when I lived in an area which gave me a choice, and when I took a raw greenie to a small show for experience, I hated it when all the ribbons were taken by point chasers who really did not belong there, competition-wise.

Why bring up the National? Snowbird, you keep adding extraneous issues into this discussion. The focus is: should the 3' divisions be recognized, so that managers HAVE THE OPTION of offering A rated divisions at an A show. Perhaps managers will choose to still offer C rated 3' divisions, even at an A rated show. They will not be FORCED to offer A rated 3' divisions, even if the rest of the show is A rated. Although I bet most of them do, or they mght see 3' foot adults go to shows which DO offer money, and take their kids (junior hunters) and green horses with them.....

Given the choice of money or no money, I think people will vote with their feet (or horse vans /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif ) Is that what you are afraid of?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So I lied. Horses ARE my whole life. I have no other life at all.....

Smiles
Dec. 13, 2002, 07:46 AM
I think some of you guys are missing the point about AA shows. Yes they are required to give out more money so then entry fees will reflect that. BUT you also get more points!!!! I for one as an a/o rider would rather ride at an AA rated show than an A rate show because of the points. Now I know this does not apply to aa hunters being that they are C rated no matter what, but if I'm trying to qualify to go out east like most people in the rated division are we go where they offer the most points. Not saying I'm a point chaser but lets face it folks how are you going to get 2500 points or more at an A or lower rated show???

Just another day!!!

Snowbird
Dec. 13, 2002, 08:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>To me, that is a good thing. Keep the point chasers out of the local and C rated shows --- have them compete at shows at which they are competitive, and let the C rated shows attract the horses/riders who are, in general, competitive with each other. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whatever makes you think that people who compete at the C Shows are less competitive, less talented or less dedicated? And why should your definition "point chasers" not be welcome? Especially when we're talking about c-Rated Divisions. The only difference is whether they want to show locally or they are willing to be gypsies with no responsibilities at home so that they can be away 5 days at a time week after week.

That was the idea that those people who sought to win and wanted to be recognized would move up. The point of this thread is that they don't move and why they don't move up and why they should be awarded cash for not moving up. Is it possible you made a bad choice with your greenies and went in the wrong divisions?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Why bring up the National? Snowbird, you keep adding extraneous issues into this discussion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> because the it was C Rated and we are discussing why C-Rated doesn't have money. And, that the same rule even applied to to top show so it applies to little shows.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The focus is: should the 3' divisions be recognized, so that managers HAVE THE OPTION of offering A rated divisions at an A show.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And the answer is that there is no reason without changing anything that a AA Show Manager can't offer money, in whatever form they choose at their shows for a hunter division. This is still a free world and the USAE is nor a dictator to "force" people to give out money. You need to go to the show managers and tell them you want money. If they refuse then you will know to go to other shows where the prices are cheaper and there is no money. The USAE is not in the price fixing business and it is not a partner with a show manager.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Perhaps managers will choose to still offer C rated 3' divisions, even at an A rated show. They will not be FORCED to offer A rated 3' divisions, even if the rest of the show is A rated. Although I bet most of them do, or they mght see 3' foot adults go to shows which DO offer money, and take their kids (junior hunters) and green horses with them.....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You're missing the point, the question is should the 3'0" classes be A Rated just because there are a lot of people who prefer to jump at 3'0". Should the A rating be dimished by giving it to a group that show at less than what is considered the proper height for the horse to be excellent?

Would A Rating the Division be better for the division? Would it encourage people to move up or would it become a dead-end? We all agree that 3'0" is a mediocre height, it is a catch all for horses on their way down as well as people on their way up. Therefore, yes it is a majority.

It seems to me in my personal opinion that it is successful because it is not Rated A, and that if it were, it would diminish the numbers and not improve the division. That is my own personal point of view because I have not seen that awarding money has made the other ultimate divisions better supported.

I think your efforts aare better spent on convincing the Show Managers at the shows you wish to attend to reduce the enry fees rather than up the entry fees to have a cash award. That is my opinion based on 30 years of watching divisions fade into non-existence.

Flash44
Dec. 13, 2002, 10:01 AM
...and then we will be building stadiums for Pop Warner football...actually, I think some already exist.

wtywmn4
Dec. 13, 2002, 03:13 PM
Personally, I don't think the AA division needs to be A rated. While it is up to the zone's currently, as to jog or not, it would be mandatory if A. You might put alot of pressure on people for very sound horses to be produced. We might lose some good teachers, horses that is. This division is a place people who have horses that need to step down, afraid of jumping 3'6" or what ever, can go, show and enjoy themselves. It already has become big business. Can you imagine what it would be like if it were A? It ain't broke people, why the h*** are we trying to fix it?

findeight
Dec. 13, 2002, 09:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Perhaps, in those areas where there are no C/B Rated shows you might consider encouraging show managers to hold them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


OK I shouldn't say it.......trying not to....Forget it.I will just say it.....

YEAH RIGHT.

And how will I tell them to do this whan they are well established and run very good shows?

Facilities are not available for any additional dates.

Times and exhibitor needs have changed and we need to change with them.

The Horse World. 2 people, 3 opinions. That's the way it is.

plottwist
Dec. 14, 2002, 05:05 AM
Find eight....so what you're saying is misery loves company. Since you have no options, we all should have no options.... To he-- with you non-rich people with familes. If you can't afford to play in my sand box...go (use your imagination).

THe 3' divisions do not deserve to win money and be A rated just because they're popular. Why not give money in the Short Stirrup divisions. Rate those divisions. Afterall, they're popular too!

Snowbird
Dec. 14, 2002, 09:08 AM
It is only an equal A Show that has the 250 miles. It would also be possible to do what was done in Zones 1/2 and cut the distance between A Shows to 125 miles.

There are dates available but it takes a little time to measure the distances and find the dates. Mostly the people whinning about no dates just want one that they want and some one else has, they don't want to start like we all did finding a date and making it into a good date.

The more important issue is there must be a clear ladder of upper mobility. There needs to be a visible ladder from the very bottom to the very top. Each rung on that ladder is not supposed to be an end unto itself. That is really the message of the USOC and the reason for all the reforms that are being proposed considered and tossed out of the scene.

The 3'0" classes are a platform where you can rest and re-group to see who has the will to climb higher. Not, everyone has accepted the Olympic Challenge as their calling but that does not mean that the upper levels though necessarily less populated have become less important.

We start out in the little classes with the largest number of potential riders and they always get smaller as the ladder goes higher. Our problem is that only 10% of any level will proceed up to the next level. Therefore we need need more of the beginners to be welcomed and taught so that we can increase the numbers higher up.

Right now here in the northeast at least, we have nothing in place for the lower levels to be encouraged to stay and move up. Those who started awhile back seem stuck at 3'0" why? To me that is the issue. I hear it is the cost in time and money.

This seems to have occurred simultaneously with the AA Shows. This was not a problem with the old C= 1
B=2 A=4. The addition of the AA shows has increased the disparity between C and AA.

Where we are now is how should the system be reformed to re-create the upward mobility that once existed. I fail to see how returning money at 3'0" accomplishes that overall purpose. But, I have an open mind although so far the reasons I have heard are self motivating.

On the basic of history if money were it's own reward then those divisions already A Rated would be jam packed with people. We know from the past that many more horses can and will do 3'6" than there are riders willing to do 3'6". Therefore, it is a logical deduction that if the AAs were A Rated, they too soon would fade away and the majority of riders would be doing the 2'9" classes, and then the 2'6" and so on, so that the upward mobility would implode on itself.

If as you all say it is the two day divisions and the extra expense that prevents you from moving up, wouldn't it be wiser to make the A/O Divisions one day divisions at these shows?

AAJumper
Dec. 16, 2002, 04:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snowbird:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The focus is: should the 3' divisions be recognized, so that managers HAVE THE OPTION of offering A rated divisions at an A show.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And the answer is that there is no reason without changing anything that a AA Show Manager can't offer money, in whatever form they choose at their shows for a hunter division. This is still a free world and the USAE is nor a dictator to "force" people to give out money. You need to go to the show managers and tell them you want money. If they refuse then you will know to go to other shows where the prices are cheaper and there is no money. The USAE is not in the price fixing business and it is not a partner with a show manager.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I just happened to be reading the rules for Zone 10, and there is a restriction on how much money can be offered.

Here is the rule:
Except in one (1) special class or classic, prize money may not exceed $125 per class in Adult Amateur Hunter section, no add back is permitted in this section.

I found this strange, that they are not allowed to have add backs. The same rule applies to the A/A jumpers. I briefly scanned all other zone's rules, and didn't see anything restricting prize money. I find this very odd!!!! I wonder what the reasoning is behind this rule.

visit www.victorianfarms.com (http://www.victorianfarms.com)

Snowbird
Dec. 16, 2002, 07:46 PM
they seem to have some very strange ideas in that zone and this would be one of those. I have read and heard of some really wild ideas being accomplished there, not necessarily any logic to it.

That's a start $125 a class times four classes is $500 which is a minimun for some ratings. They can at the A Shows toss in a classic for another $500 and you have as much as is given in the A Rated Divisions without the headaches of a Rating change, might be a solution.

AAJumper
Dec. 16, 2002, 09:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snowbird:
they seem to have some very strange ideas in that zone and this would be one of those. I have read and heard of some really wild ideas being accomplished there, not necessarily any logic to it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> That's a start $125 a class times four classes is $500 which is a minimun for some ratings. They can at the A Shows toss in a classic for another $500 and you have as much as is given in the A Rated Divisions without the headaches of a Rating change, might be a solution.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you think the limit is reasonable then? But why the limit....they don't have to offer any money, but they are putting a cap on how much you can offer I guess? Am I missing something or are there no limits in the other zones at all? I wonder why Zone 10 would feel the need for a maximum amount allowed.

visit www.victorianfarms.com (http://www.victorianfarms.com)

Snowbird
Dec. 16, 2002, 09:50 PM
Between a C rated show which offers no money and an A Show which offers money in all hunter divisions but not in a C Rated Division. Maybe somewhere in the rule book it says you can't offer more than $125 a class in a C-Rated Divisions and then in that case any show could offer that minimum in all divisions.

There is a general confusion with the way a lot of the rules have been written and interpreted, both ways some of the time. Portia I believe has been giving her spare time to that problem.

While a C-Rated Shiw is limited, I see no reason that I know of that an AA Show couldn't offer money since they have to give away $18,0001 dollars anyway to hunters. I also know that an A Rated division run over 2 days can offer 6 classes.

That's why I don't really think any of you want the rating just the money back. I think there is a proposed rule change that after so many xx entries the surplus money in returned in some proportion to those who didn't get a ribbon. I like that.

I have never understood why people who win expect the points the cash and the surplus cash when everyone spends just as much. I personally have the feeling that if you get the points then the cash should go to the losers because they didn't get anything.

If anyone gets a refund of cash I think it should be the guys who paid and lost.

TSWJB
Dec. 19, 2002, 11:37 AM
for the people that think that C rated horse shows are all crappy and to get real experience, you need to go to the A rated shows, move to zone 2. i have been to C rated horseshows that in my opinion equal the quality of the expensive A rated HITS in the Catskills. you can enter the day of the show, you can show in one day, and you can go home and have a family or take care of other obligations. i am just too tired to attend more than one show a weekend. maybe it would be different if i had grooms taking care of my horse, if i could afford to pay hotel fees every weekend and i could afford to take every friday off from work, maybe i would be satisfied with only having the option to do A rated showing.
maybe people in other zones could express interest to show managers to put on quality C rated horse shows. if it can be done in Zone 2, why can't it be done elsewhere? why is showing turning into such a big business that in order to be a player you have to shell out $1,000 plus a weekend? that is just unrealistic for the average horse person. especially in this economy, show managers should be finding ways to make it more economical for the masses to participate. and i do believe if the adults and childrens hunters were offered prize money, the show managers will make those divisions more expensive. if you pay between 125 -150 a division for no prize money, i think those rates will go up to 250 a division for money. somewhere somehow, the show managers are going to pass it on to the exhibitor. why is it that showing has to be about prize money? why can't showing be done so it makes it economically feasible for people to go into a ring with 8 jumps and jump around and see who rides the jumps the best?

findeight
Dec. 19, 2002, 03:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PlotTwist:
Find eight....so what you're saying is misery loves company. Since you have no options, we all should have no options.... To he-- with you non-rich people with familes. If you can't afford to play in my sand box...go (use your imagination).

THe 3' divisions do not deserve to win money and be A rated just because they're popular. Why not give money in the Short Stirrup divisions. Rate those divisions. Afterall, they're popular too!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Trolling are we?????

The Horse World. 2 people, 3 opinions. That's the way it is.

plottwist
Dec. 19, 2002, 06:24 PM
No, not trolling merely stating the truth.

The AA's are not worthy of being rated just because they are popular.

And it does seem to me that since you have to go to shows which hold your division over two days, you feel that everyone in the country should have to endure the same.

I simply disagree with you.

Why not just move up to the AO's? Not so many people to show against. Sounds like you're almost assured to win your entries back at least.

clearound
Dec. 19, 2002, 07:00 PM
PLOTTWIST - You need a serious attitude adjustment. I hope that you are being sarcastic in comparing the A/As to the Short Stirrup. Then again, may be the reason you suggest that the ss be given a AA rating is because that is your division.

There are some legitimate reasons for the A/A to be given a national rating. Since most of those reasons have already been expressed by myself and others in this thread, I suggest that you read then and then maybe you can offer some constructive reasoning in opposition to the opinions.

plottwist
Dec. 19, 2002, 08:18 PM
Boy Clearound, you don't have to be nasty just because you don't like my opinion.

Obviously the SS comment was sarcastic.

I still hold to my opinion that the AA's do not need to be given national attention. And there are national events for the AA's to compete at.

You posted earlier, and yes, I went back and re-read all your posts in this thread, that since it costs you the same amount to show that it does for an AO, entries excluded, you feel entitled to be treated in the same manner as the AO's. You also say that the horses in the AA divisions are nice and sometimes nicer than the AO horses. So I reiterate, why not, then, move up into the AO's?

From reading other threads regarding splitting the AO divisions, it seems like there would be less people, hence less competition, and a better chance to make some money and earn the respect you feel is lacking.

I'm not looking to troll or snipe. It's a serious question. Why are the AO divisions so light when the money is there and you have to spend almost the same amount financially/time to attend the show if your horse is nice enough to jump around 3'6"?

Giddy-up
Dec. 20, 2002, 10:06 AM
First I will say I laughed at Plottwist's post, but then I was assuming it was meant to be sarcastic.
In this area they do have SS Hunter classics complete with kids in shadbellies! /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

This year I showed A/A hunters to get my horse in the ring at 3'. Next year if the A/A jumpers don't work out for him, I will move over to the A/O hunter ring. My horse is not fancy enough & he would stand a better chance in the A/O division then in the young A/A hunter's with 20 per class. The bonus being in the A/O's I would get some $$ back with a ribbon if he gets one. And don't think that I am ribbon obsessed---I love my horse, but I am also honest in realizing his quality level against other horses & it is nice to be rewarded for a good trip. If he could of shown 3'6" this year, I would of tried the A/O's at the end of summer, but we were looking at getting good training & having positive experiences in the ring.

Flash44
Dec. 20, 2002, 10:37 AM
Someone pointed out that there are few A shows up north in the winter. Since many Adults work or have families, it is not feasible for them to head south to compete at A shows in the winter.

Also, many Adults usually stick close to home. They may travel a couple time a year, but for the most part, they are looking at the same 30 faces week in and week out. The A/Os seem to travel more, and may compete against a higher number of different horses from other zones. So an A/A can win a national award without having competed nationally, if they live near a lot of A shows.

Will a skater ever win a national competition without being able to do a triple jump? No. they may be beautiful artistically, but the ability to do a technically demanding program is equally important. That's where the challenge is - do something difficult, and make it look beautiful.

AAJumper
Dec. 20, 2002, 11:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Flash44:
So an A/A can win a national award without having competed nationally, if they live near a lot of A shows.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, that is true. Someone out here in the Los Angeles area could compete in an A show almost every week without ever having to drive more than 2.5 hours. The same goes for the A/O's though.

visit www.victorianfarms.com (http://www.victorianfarms.com)

Silver Bells
Dec. 21, 2002, 05:20 AM
PlotTwist are you serious? Have you ever been to a recognized show? Just in case you are as "out of touch" as you come off to be, I will try and help you understand.
AA's and A/O's jump have a 6 inch difference in jump heights. This may not seem like much to an expert like yourself, but to adult riders is can be imposing! Some are more comfortable at the lower height. But you know all this.....I guess you are just lonely & bored.

Anyway, moving forward, I agree that depending on the show rating, A, B, or C , the increment system for AA's & Children's Hunters, should fluctuate.

RockinHorse
Dec. 21, 2002, 06:29 AM
Okay I still don't get it...A lot of people ride at a level below that of 'A' ratings therefore the 'A' ratings should be lowered /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif.

Why is it people would rather have the goals lowered than work to meet the goal?

~~ Does killing time hurt eternity?~~

plottwist
Dec. 21, 2002, 06:37 AM
Silver Bells....you come off just a nasty as clearound. I think, perhaps, you know each other?

You bring up the point I was trying to make. That to compete in the AO's, with that extra six inches, takes a talented animal and a talented ride. They are rewarded based on this criteria.

I believe the 3' divisions should not be given the same consideration because it's easier and everyone can do it. It's my opinion. Sorry you don't like it.

The A/A division is a transition from the Pre-Adult hunters (2'6") to the AO's. Or as my husband likes to say...the A/A's are Pre-adults with more money.

It's true some adults get stuck in this division because the height difference is intimidating, they don't have the money to buy a nice 3'6" horse, or the money to show said horse, or the time to go to the shows held over two or more days. I get this....really.

Not every division deserves national recognition.

Show managers at the big shows can offer A/A money. If it's the money you want, then petition the show managers.

As far as my background is concerned, well, this amateur/mom with kids has a USAE national champion and two zone champions sitting in her backyard. I trailer myself to lessons (with the one of the top trainers on the planet) and take myself to shows (AA, B, and C). I don't go to away shows because I have a family, but I have shown at shows like HITS where I could commute to show.

With that said, I'm certain you'll still find some choice words to use in your response. You're posts tend to get nasty when someone disagrees with your position.

stevie
Dec. 21, 2002, 07:03 AM
POINT CHASER

It sounds to me PLOT TWIST, like you go to horse shows to chase points and do not take into consideration footing, jumps and level of competition.
Just because you have a USAE champion and two zone champions in your backyard doesn't mean you can win with the best of them. It just means you went to the most shows that probably had very few entries.
And Plot Twist, it seems to me like you are the one who gets nasty when someone disagrees with your position.

plottwist
Dec. 21, 2002, 08:13 AM
I never set out to win a Zone award. It was a by-product of my showing. I happened to do well at the shows I went to. I have a budget and can only afford to do so much to begin with.

Not all winners run their horses off their feet. Only those who can't win in good company need to do that. Again, not my cicumstance.

I respect everyone's opinions and their right to have one. But when that opinion comes back as an attack, I'll defend my postition. We don't have to agree. That's the glory of this country.

But being nasty isn't productive and it's just plain rude.

ponyjumper4
Dec. 21, 2002, 09:58 AM
I've got PlotTwist's back on this one. If I was being attacked like that I'd get on the defensive too. It's funny, I got acused of attacking someone about 2 weeks ago when I clearly wasn't, yet this girl is really being attacked and no one has mentioned it.

Just because she has won zone and national year end awards, does not by any means mean she was point chasing, or that she doesn't take into consideration footing, etc--that was way off line. The girl that used to show that junior jumper Dos Equis--I think she was junior of the year her last year, said her horse won HOTY not by point chasing, but by being selective in their shows and doing well. If you're doing well, you don't need to go to as many shows.

"God forbid that I should go to any heaven in which there are no horses."
~R. Graham

plottwist
Dec. 21, 2002, 12:04 PM
Thank You 1der!

Palisades
Dec. 21, 2002, 12:42 PM
Holy nastiness on this thread!

I'm definitely in favour of A/A being a national division, as it is up here in Canada. That said, I'm totally behind PlotTwist here just because she (or he, I guess!) managed to present arguments without throwing a hissy fit or getting personal. That point-chasing comment was completely out of line, not to mention entirely baseless. Some people need to grow up.

clearound
Dec. 21, 2002, 04:15 PM
EXCUSE ME FOLKS - I've been posting on this thread for over a week and there has been a good bit of discussion both pro and con with respect to whether the A/As should be given a national rating. However, along comes PLOTTWIST who decides to be truly sarcastic and actually demeaning to all those that want the A/A to have a national rating. To top it off she calls me nasty when I call her on her sarcasim. I could care less whether she has won a trillion zone champions. To be perfectly honest, I have no idea who she is (although she lives in my zone) and I am not sure whether this applies to her, but I have seen many zone champions that were only zone champions because they can show at AA, B and C shows and accumulate the same points that those of us who show selectively at what I call the big AA shows (i.e. WEF, Lake Placid, Hampton Classic).

I for one would love to do the A/Os again as I have a horse who can clearly jump 3ft6 and who would be highly competitive in the division. I also believe that I am a fairly good rider. However, due to the fact that I work for a living, I only ride at the shows. My lesson is the 5 or 6 warmup jumps in the schooling ring right before I go in to show. I do not believe that I am an inferior rider because I choose to do the A/As. PLOTTWIST infers that those of us who choose to compete in the AAs rather than the A/Os are simply pre-Adults with some experience. To the contrary, most of the Adults who I compete against have super nice horses and are as competent as those riders that compete in the A/Os. However, it is usually only due to circumstances that they do not compete in the A/Os.

I still do not understand why anyone would have an objection to the AAs having a national rating. For those of you who have stated that it would effect the B and C shows, you are incorrect. A/Os have a national rating and are run in one day at B and C shows.

plottwist
Dec. 21, 2002, 04:58 PM
Calm down Clearound. Re-read what I wrote and you'll see that I did not remotely infer that A/A's are inferior. In fact I think I listed some pretty good examples why A/A's don't/can't move up to the AO's.

I never demeaned you or anyone for riding in this division. Why would I when I ride in this division.

You need to calm down.

Snowbird
Dec. 21, 2002, 05:24 PM
Pull in the claws and please don't be so sensitive. It is true that at 3'6" we have a test for both horse and rider and that there can be many reasons why someone would not be able to move up.

I think all that was being said is that we have an established level at which it is difficult to be excellent and that if competition is not at that level then it is based on volume and not quality. It is clear that 3'0" is a popular and comfortable height and that 3'6" is more difficult, that's nothing to start a quarrel over.

You also should not assume that all those who compete close to home do it and win because they chase points or run their horses down, have less talent, less money or anything else that is a generalization. There are many just as talented and just as worthy as the 70 some odd that lose in every class at the AA. And, some can and do win there as well. But, if you are doing a zone division you usually do it because you want to stay in your zone.

In fact if you are opposed to point chasing then you certainly wouldn't want it to be a national division. Imagine if as you believe all us C people are running to horse shows so much, wouldn't it be worse if we had to run all over the country besides? I can see the cavalcade of trailers now on the highways of America.

clearound
Dec. 21, 2002, 05:28 PM
PLOTTWIST - Please read part of the following post which you authored - "I believe the 3' divisions should not be given the same consideration because it's easier and everyone can do it. It's my opinion. Sorry you don't like it.

The A/A division is a transition from the Pre-Adult hunters (2'6") to the AO's. Or as my husband likes to say...the A/A's are Pre-adults with more money."

You don't think this is demeaning? Beg to differ with you. And this was only one of many demeaning posts which you have made on this thread as well as others.

plottwist
Dec. 21, 2002, 05:46 PM
1. 3' is easier than 3'6". I think everyone can agree on this count.

2. By saying "everyone can do it" means it is a popular division and popularity in and of itself is not a valid reason to give national attention to a division. (ie. Short Stirrup is very popular in certain areas of the country. Sorry if that sounds sarcastic, but it's true)

3. The A/A division is a transitional division for those who start in a lower division ie. Pre-Adult and want to move up to the AO's.

4. Sorry if my husband's tongue in cheek comment offended you. It was, afterall, a cheeky comment.

5. No, I don't think any of what I said was demeaning. I think you might have read into this a tad too much. And you can differ with me all you like. I don't mind.

havaklu
Dec. 21, 2002, 10:40 PM
Am I the only one "doing the math"?

While prize money for the A/A seems like a good idea - lets recognize that only a handful of people in each age group will see that money.

Unlike the A/O's where most get some money in the A/A (assuming the numbers don't drop) have 20-30 per section.

So lets do the math -

25 A/A @ 125/division (4 o/f & hack) = $3,125.00
versus
25 A/A @ 225/division (4 o/f & hack) = $5,625.00

Hmmmm and only $1,500 gets awarded as prize money -

By my calculations the show manager just MADE $1,000.00 dollars more.

But how many of those 25 amateurs do you think MADE money? Usually you have to get at least a couple of first places or 3 seconds or 4 third place ribbons to pay your entry. So basically maybe 3 riders out of 25 make back their entry.

The other 22 have just paid $100.00 more for the same 2 days. Is it worth it?

I don't think so...

Silver Bells
Dec. 22, 2002, 05:39 AM
THE ADULT AMATUER HUNTERS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO GET AN AA, A, B, or C RATING, WITH THE POINTS TO MATCH!!!

It is an individuals choice how they choose to participate in this hobby, or sport if you will. It is wonderful that there are so many options available, that fit into everyone's lifestyle & budget.

PlotTwist, it's ok that you try and manipulate these threads for your own twisted reasons. Clearound....Let's do Lunch, it's been a long time.

clearound
Dec. 22, 2002, 06:56 AM
SILVERBELLS - So long as you're buying!

plottwist
Dec. 22, 2002, 07:02 AM
Now that I've wiped away the tears of laughter....

I've stated my opinion which hardly classifies as being manipulative. I simply disagree with you.

As for my twisted reasons....are you for real???

Sorry you don't like what I say. Just because I disagree with you, I'm not going to call you twisted.

RockinHorse
Dec. 22, 2002, 07:24 AM
Good point Havaklu!

I myself do not care about the points~~I don't have the time or desire to chase them. I do, however, care about the money!

~~ Does killing time hurt eternity?~~

Lord Helpus
Dec. 22, 2002, 07:30 AM
This thread has taken on a life of its own...

Plot twist, perhaps you are new to BB's and do not understand that sarcasm does not easily come across in writing, without the addition of quotes or smiley faces. Since you added none of the above to your original comments about the ss division and to your husband's comment, I think that readers had the right to believe that you were deadly serious in what you said. And I agree with those that found it offensive, taken in that context. If you mean to be sarcastic, you need to make that crystal clear. When I read your post, my hackles raised, before I read any responses. So don't say that you were attacked unjustly or first.

I am still having trouble understanding those who are against recognizing the AA's. In doing so, it does NOT mean that every show will have to offer an A rated division, or have to hold it over 2 days. It just gives shows the option of doing so.

For those who still insist that the 3' divisions are merely a way station to the 3'6" divisions, I believe that this is not true anymore. And to keep on insisting that it is, belies the reality of the current show world. It may have been true once, but not anymore. Stop looking at the show world as it used to be and look it it honestly as it exists today.

People who actually WORK for a living and can only ride on weekends, are limited in their advancement by those circumstances. To say that these people should be striving to move up to 3'6" is to ignore the reality of horse shows in the 21 Century. The 3'6" division is for people who LIVE in the show world. Perhaps it shoud not be, but that is what it has become. They are professional show'ers, even if they are still amateurs.

For those who support C rated shows, and are TRULY not going after points, there should be NO change to your show schedule.

For those of you who want to win a Zone award, it is still possible to do without traveling outside your immediate area. But, to do so will mean that you will have to compete against the best in your division. That only seems fair to me.

Most winners of national titles do not win zone awards, because they move around too much (West coast possible excepted since the zones are so big geographically). So these people will not be taking away the zone awards from people who, for whatever reason, only show within their zone.

Recognizing the AA's will give people more OPTIONS in their choice of shows, depending on their needs/abilties/budget. Why is that so hard to accept?

I agree that there are TONS of fancy horses in the 3' divisions. But to equate that statement with the assumption that those horses could easily move to 3'6" and be just as competitive there, is not true.

There are a lot of fancy first year horses that do not end up in the 4' divisions. Because the 6" height difference is a BIG one. Does that mean that they are not fancy at the height they are competing at?

For the poster who "did the math": The difference in costs between 3' and 3'6" that you used is not what the costs are in my area. Often the monied divisions only pay $50 - $70 more, not $100 more.

And, yes, it is true that more people will pay into the pot than will benefit. But, for those that get tired of doing so in many parts of the country, there are still B and C rated shows at which they can pay less and have the same (according to some posters) showing experience. Or they can strive to become one of those ribbon winners.

When I was showing in the late 70's, Jerry Jacobs was an intermediate rider who never won ribbons. By the mid 80's he was champion at indoors. Adults CAN improve, and isn't that all our goal?

Again, it comes down to giving people choices.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If wishes were horses, then beggar's would ride.

clearound
Dec. 22, 2002, 07:42 AM
LORD HELPUS - Thank you for your articulate post. This is what I have been stating, or trying to state, for the past week.

findeight
Dec. 22, 2002, 07:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PlotTwist:
To he-- with you non-rich people with familes. If you can't afford to play in my sand box...go (use your imagination).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Um........ Plot Twist I have been in some pretty good squabbles and discussions here on the BB but I have never been told to go to he-- because I am not rich.

And here I have spent alot of printer ink posting that this sport is no longer exclusively for the rich and elitist. Then you go and post this instead of just joining in the discussion on rating the A/A Hunters.

The Horse World. 2 people, 3 opinions. That's the way it is.

Snowbird
Dec. 22, 2002, 08:13 AM
Let me try to understand the logic. The AA Shows can now without a rule change offer money and 2 day shows for the AAs.

But, since they won't then you want a rule change that would force them to offer the division on two days with cash awards. Well, what would you do with all those who do work for a living and cannot show over two days and cannot afford as part of their budget the extra costs.

If you are a competitive person then with it being for national points and rated and under the full increment system it has been made clear that you can't do those things at the C/B local area shows. Proof is that since that happened there have been no pony hunters, no junior hunters, no green hunters, no regular hunters and of course no amateur owner hunters at anything but a AA show.

So where would all those people who wish to improve, compete if they can't take off from work, have a family and need to sleep at home in their own beds at night?

The issue to me is that the rating system is not there for the reward of the riders but for the evaluation of the horses. It was simply a way to replace the trophy with the cash value of the trophy but it still is an award for which are the best horses, not which division is the most popular or the cover the costs for a rider.

I have never understood why someone would feel that they should compete for free just because they have the best horse. The fact that you have the best horse is supposed to be it's own reward.

Granted there is a section of this sport where that horse cost a small fortune and people have invested another fortune to compete. Those are where the syndicated investment horses have their place.

What attracted me to this sport was the fact that you feel good and be proud of your accomplishments at whatever level you choose. Now, you may have the best 3'0" horse in the world and as a result you win a lot of rayon, but does that mean it is the ultimate goal when we all know that 3'6" ridden like a waltz around and intricate course is the best a horse can do.

And, if the system that made the 3'0" divisions an acceptable place to compete is corrupted so that there is no place for horses on their way up or on their way down, what have we accomplished?

clearound
Dec. 22, 2002, 08:19 AM
SNOWBIRD - Since you are a show manager in Zone 2, I am surprised, if not dumbfounded, by your statement that there are not Pony Hunter, Junior Hunter, Regular Hunters or Amatuer Owner Hunters at the B rated shows. But for the Regular Working which is a light division even at the big AA shows, I know of plenty of B shows in your Zone which attract all of the people who you say don't show. Perhaps it is just your shows or shows in your area that don't attract these people?

RockinHorse
Dec. 22, 2002, 08:45 AM
A question occurred to me while reading the "DARE TO COMPARE" thread. If we are discussing the A/A divisions, then what about the Children's Hunters. Do you want them to be "A" rated also?

~~ Does killing time hurt eternity?~~

plottwist
Dec. 22, 2002, 08:50 AM
So as not to draw more attention to myself.....Snowbird has said everything I have wanted to say and I fear if I try to add to that it might insight more rioting.

I never intended to create such fire storm and if I choose to use sarcasm in the future I will add a smiley or make it plainly clear my comment is not to be taken literally.

With that said, each of us posts, I hope, sincerely and from our experiences.

Clearound.....Can you name me one NJ B or C show that ran the Pony, Junior, or AO hunter? And name the show ran the division with more than three. I do not know of one NJ show that had the Pony, Junior, AO or any other AA rated division run at a B or C show. I apologize now if I miss the one show that held these classes. I have facts here folks. No speculation on my part.

Which B and C shows offer and ran these classes?
It does not count if the class was run with one legitimate entry and two fillers over a course at 3' because the fillers couldn't get around the schooling session.

Not sniping....just want some clear facts.

Thank you for your response.

Snowbird
Dec. 22, 2002, 09:03 AM
Yes, we are at a disadvantage being in north Jersey, i.e. north of the Somerville Circle, mostly it is suburban which means we can only depend on larger barns because people around here are not keeping horses at their homes.

South Jersey and eastern Pennsylvania are where those people moved because land and operating expenses are cheaper and help is more available. But, when you consider that at the C Rated shows we had shows with 15/20 ponies not too long ago you can feel the change.

The NJHSA and NJPHA did not drop the Pony Hunter Award because there were a lot of people being competitive. They didn't change their specs to combine the Junior Hunter and Amateur-Owner Hunter because all the other shows were getting those entries. They were combined and cancelled because they didn't fill at least 6 times during 170 shows a year they sanction in all of New Jersey, and that includes a multitude of unrecognized shows.

The only show we have left in New Jersey with big entries is the Garden State show which is a benefit show and AA Rated with tons of money awarded by virtue of it's unique situation. The C Rated shows run by the same people and over the same fences is even more sparsely attended than mine and it can attract people from the rural areas of New York because of it's further north location.

New Jersey has lost in the past 10 years 1/3 of the horse population, and 1/3 of the acreage formerly dedicated to horses. Whether the people who attend the AA shows and make the annual exodus to Florida realise it or not this industry is in a decline.

We have lost more than 50% of our market share of young girls to team sports, and those that do learn to ride drop out by 14 to be on their school teams to be eligible for the good colleges.

Consider that statistically only 10% of the those who learn to ride stay and become riders. So if there are 1000 new riders each year, there will only be 100 that will become competitive and of that 100 only 10 will actually purchase a horse. If that first number is only 500 then you only have 5 would will eventually buy a horse for each 500 that start riding.

That therefore is why the pre-childrens is our biggest division. That is usually how far they get by 14 years of age. If this trend continues without interruption we will in the future see even less possibilties. That's why this must be a year to reform the whole system.

Lord Helpus
Dec. 22, 2002, 11:11 AM
AH HA! I finally get it: Snowbird, you do not want to see the 3' divisions become rated because that might be the demise of your C rates shows! Talk about greed and self interest! That is what you have been alleging of those of use who are in favor of recognizing the 3' divisions. Seems that you should look inward to truly see what is the definition of "self-interest". At least that is all I can get out of your arguments. The balance of them are unintelligible to me.

If your shows have such a problem attracting anything bt 2'6" and 3' riders, it is NOT because of a lack of riders. According to statistics published by the AHSA, this year saw an incredible increase in membership -- to an all time high.

What movie was it that had the line: "Give the people what they want and they will come"? There are riders out there. And riders who want to compete, otherwise they would not spend the money to join the AHSA (or whatever it calls itself nowadays /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif) If they are not coming to your shows, then, perhaps it is because your shows are not offering them what they want.....

So why not look at the reason why, instead of couching your argument against recognizing these divisions in lofty terms of "goals to move up to 3'6". Because 80% of the people in the 3' division do not have those goals. If you think they should, then you are not in touch with reality.

WE ARE THE CUSTOMER. And, according to the old adage "The customer is always right." /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If wishes were horses, then beggar's would ride.

Snowbird
Dec. 22, 2002, 11:16 AM
If they were we wouldn't need consumer advocates. The customers get sold on an idea and an image and that's marketed to appeal to their illusions more than reality. For example you will not look like Marilyn Monroe just becuse you use the hair products, nor will I get to stay young if I avoid butter and red meat.

Please, don't assume everyone has the same fiduciary attitudes. I've been in this industry long enough to see it evolve and change. Some changes were good and some were not, but I can assure you that at my age any long term view is not for my self interests if it were I would take your advice and run a flea market.

havaklu
Dec. 22, 2002, 04:09 PM
to many of you. To me even $50 dollars more for my division will mean one less show - and I only average about 6-8 per year to begin with.

And in my Zone there are not many B or C shows worth going to - My trainer mostly does A and AA and some local for our beginner riders and 2'6" ers.

So lets say we do make the A/A a "rated" division guess what ladies - Now it has to follow the "rated" rules for SPLITING!!!! Ah ha - how many of you are familiar with those?

They only split if there are more than 50 in the division and can only "resplit" one more time.

Also there would NOT be any "older" olds since that is not a "real" division anyway.

One of the advantages of being an unrated division is that the ability to split the sections is at the discretion of show management.

Now do you all still feel stronly that A/A should be rated???? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Lord Helpus
Dec. 22, 2002, 04:21 PM
Snowbird, forget the "fiduciary attitudes" for a minute and concentrate on the issue of choice.

If these divisions are recognized, some A shows will choose to offer 3' A divisions with higher entry fees and money awards and some will continue to offer C rated divisions with lower entry fees and ribbons. Perhaps some shows with enough entries will offer BOTH instead of splitting age groups. That way, the most competitive could choose to vie for money, and the people who want the current show experience could still have it.

Why not? If shows now offer several different types of pre-green divisions (low and high or based on first or second year in the show ring), why couldn't they choose to offer two types of AA divisions?

I do not have a crystal ball to foresee what % of shows would offer recognized v. unrecognized. But the choice of which they prefer will be out there for people to make.

Why should you or any other administrative type make that choice for the exhibitor? It seems that the entrenched politicos at the top think that they know better and get to decide for us exhibitors.

I find that attitude patronizing and presumptuous.

BTW, I went in my first horse show in Morristown, NJ in 1952, over 50 years ago, and my mother had been showing in NJ since the 1930's. So I, too, have a historical perspective on horse shows. But, just because something has been done one way for years, does not mean it must continue to be that way.

Remember when there WAS no A/O division? I do. People went straight from the junior division to the 4' division. But, should the A/O's have been recognized? --- It was 6" lower than the working hunter divison. Why give in to a "lower standard" and allow people to participate at an easier level? Using your argument, the A/O division should be unrecognized. Offering recognition to people jumping 3'6" gave them no incentive to "move up", according to your argument.

Times change, Snowbird. It appears that you are stuck in the "old days" and have not acknowledged the modern show world.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If wishes were horses, then beggar's would ride.

havaklu
Dec. 22, 2002, 04:28 PM
oops

havaklu
Dec. 22, 2002, 04:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by havaklu:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lord Helpus:


If these divisions are recognized, some A shows will choose to offer 3' A divisions with higher entry fees and money awards and some will continue to offer C rated divisions with lower entry fees and ribbons. Perhaps some shows with enough entries will offer BOTH instead of splitting age groups. That way, the most competitive could choose to vie for money, and the people who want the current show experience could still have it.

Why not? If shows now offer several different types of pre-green divisions (low and high or based on first or second year in the show ring), why couldn't they choose to offer two types of AA divisions?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Umm Pam - I think you made a little error with that comment - Pre-Green is only a Zone recognized division, not A rated for national awards. IOW Pre-Green is equivalent to A/A.

If a division is Rated then it MUST be A rated at an A level show - Show management can't decide IF they want to offer prize money or not - It's all dictated by the rules and the show rating hence the term "rated division".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Snowbird
Dec. 22, 2002, 07:14 PM
A Rated division cannot be offered as both C and A, sorry nice idea but it won't work unless there are levels of difficulty instead of money.

What you seem to forget is that along with the A Rating comes the Increment System not just the money. It means all those who choose the lower Rating division cannot qualify for anything. So, everyone will have to show at the AA or pick a new division. Remember that's where a poor third out of three gets more points than the blue at a C in a class of 30.

Hey! it's no skin off my nose, you like the idea propose a rule change, if the majority agree you got it. But, you can bet I'll be there defending the rights of people who want to show locally. We started the division in New Jersey and we'll defend it.

Lord Helpus
Dec. 22, 2002, 07:31 PM
Okay, so my idea won't work. It was just a thought of one way to solve a "problem". At least I am trying to think outside the box and find solutions that work for the majority. Not just being a nay-sayer.

I also do not understand why the idea of a 3'3" AA division hasn't taken on. The few shows I see it at it has been put there specifically for those A/O's who want to show another horse and they cannot show in the AA division due to zone rules.

I also do not believe that, by virtue of making the AA division rated, it would HAVE to be split according to A/O rules. If the division can be recognized, then why can't it have it's own splits? The junior hunters split small and large and the A/o's do not. That tells me that each division can define its own splits.

The older A/O division disappeared because of lack of participants. The 50+ AA division has no such problems, so there is no reason to do away with it.

Well, MerryChristmas to all. I think I will spend the rest of this holiday season over on the Aiden thread -- full of positive vibes and good will to men. Obviously, Snowbird will go to her grave thinking that her microcosm of the world represents an accurate picture of the entire country and everyone should be governed by rules that she thinks will keep her shows alive.

And a Happy New Year. I am off this thread.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If wishes were horses, then beggar's would ride.

havaklu
Dec. 22, 2002, 08:16 PM
Technically there are only two "recognized" age groups for the A/A by USAE rules. 18-35 & 36 and up. When there is an "older" old group they get points as a 36 and up amateur.

The whole 51 and up age split is just something show managers dreamed up, there is no basis or support for it in the rules (as of yet).

As far as the split rules - those are general hunter rules that apply to all rated hunter divisions.

So the bottom line is that if A/A go rated then classes can be as big as 40 before there is a split. That will mean that most AA shows will have up to 40-49 older amateurs versus 30 middles and 18 olders as is often the case at many of the shows in my zone.

And if you take those numbers and "do the math" you will see that the show managers of big AA shows will make an even bigger profit off of us Amateurs even with the prize money they would be awarding.

[This message was edited by havaklu on Dec. 22, 2002 at 11:25 PM.]

havaklu
Dec. 22, 2002, 08:22 PM
The sections can not be split unless there are 40 and MUST be split at 50. Here is the rule from the rule book:

CHAPTER II. DIVISION OF SECTIONS OR CLASSES.
Article 2408. General.
1. Sections may not be divided if there are less than 40 entries. (Exception: Green Working,
Amateur Owner and Adult Amateur Hunter sections.)
2. Any section with 50 or more entries at the beginning of the first class must be divided. If
there are 50 or more entries remaining in a section after it has been divided, the section
must be redivided by every other number. Once a section has been redivided it may not be
divided further.
3. Prize money must be doubled whenever a section is divided.
4.1 As an option to dividing classes by every other number, all entries may be judged as a
single class and awarded prizes as follows:
HORSE’S PRIZE
PLACING AWARDED
1st 1st
2nd 1st
3rd 2nd
4th 2nd
5th 3rd
6th 3rd
7th 4th
8th 4th
9th 5th
10th 5th
11th 6th
12th 6th
13th 7th (if offered)
14th 7th (if offered)
15th 8th (if offered)
16th 8th (if offered)
4.2 In reckoning Championship points, the top eight horses that receive the most points in
the Over Fences classes are awarded points for the Under Saddle and/or Model class(es).
The Championship is awarded as follows:
Horse with most points - Champion Number 1 Horse with second highest points -
Champion Number 2 Horse with third highest points - Reserve Champion Number 1 Horse
with fourth highest points - Reserve Champion Number 2
Article 2409. Green Sections.
1. If there are a combined total of 20 horses in an “A” rated Green Working Hunter section,
and there are at least six first year green horses, and there are at least six second year
green horses, it must be divided.
2. When entries warrant, competitions are encouraged to offer separate sections for first
and second year horses. Separate championships may be offered only when all classes are
divided and each section offers the required number of classes and prize money for an
undivided section. The prize list must state under what conditions classes are to be divided.
© USA Equestrian November 2002 475
HUNTER
Article 2410. Conformation Sections. If the Regular and Green Conformation sections
are offered and there are less than three (3) entries in either Conformation section, they
must be combined. Horses are to jump 3’6”, 3’9” or 4’ for their respective section. Combined
sections are to be judged 60% on performance, 40% on conformation. Model classes to
count 1/2 points. If a horse is eligible for more than one section, the exhibitor must declare
to the Competition Secretary which height section the points are to count toward.
No horse may compete in more than one height section of a combined division. If
different amounts of prize money are offered in each divided section, the larger amount
must be offered to the combined section and the entry fee for that section applied. No credit
will be given in combined sections unless three entries have shown and placed.
❚ Article 2411. Amateur Owner.
1. When a section is divided, one section must be offered for amateurs 18-35 years of age
and one section for amateurs over 35 years of age. When divided as to age of rider no
horse may compete in more than one section. Age must be given on entry blank. These
sections may be further divided by age of rider or by every other number.
2. “A” or “AA” rated sections must be offered as at least two (2) divided sections, one for
amateurs 18-35 years of age and one for amateurs over 35 years of age. EC 12/3/02 Effective
12/1/02
3. “A” and “AA” rated sections may be combined only if there are eight (8) entries or less in
any divided section.
4. If the Amateur Owner and Junior Hunter sections are offered with a “B” or “C” rating, and
there are less than three (3) entries in either section, they may be combined.

Tripleoxer
Dec. 22, 2002, 08:42 PM
Ok let's say you make it an A rated division.... Those 3' horses have just as much right to do Devon and indoors! Now let's expand the idea... Pre-greens, ofcourse are going to battle for the same rights. Indoors and Devon are already overbooked wth horses and time restraints. I honestly don' think it will ever happen. Things are fine just the way they are. We will see! I do think however that the 3' horses should absolutely jog for soundness!!!! (Zone 3 does) (Zone 2 & 5 ABSOLUTELY SHOULD!!!!)

Flash44
Dec. 23, 2002, 08:30 AM
There are usually 4 - 6 entries in the division, 2 - 3 pros and 2 - 3 ammies. The ammies win almost as often as the pros. I've even seen the occasional jr ride in it.

Snowbird
Dec. 23, 2002, 12:47 PM
You want money awards, if you are willing to pay higher entries than necessary and if you would split the AAs into those who will and those who will not.

wtywmn4
Dec. 23, 2002, 04:18 PM
So why aren't any of you who are gung ho for rating the AA's moving up to the AO's? You want the money, the prestige why not do the AO's? If your horse is young, why not do the modifieds at 3'3"....Then move up when they're ready?

Everyone wants the $$$'s and qualifying seems to be paramont. Now, what if the hunter commitee decides to make the AA's rated, with provisions. Such as 3'3" being the height. Mandatory jogs no matter what zone. How many would still be in favor of rating the division????

havaklu
Dec. 23, 2002, 05:03 PM
There was a time when the A/A went up to 3'3" at many AA shows. The 3' maximum is a Zone definition for most.

I think many will tell you that they don't move up to 3'6" due to limitations of time to practice at that height.

Smiles
Dec. 23, 2002, 05:40 PM
Wtywmn4 isn't that an idea!!! /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif There is a division that already exist that offers money, an A rating and is nationaly recognize so why not show in that division. I was thinking the same thing!

Just another day!!!

clearound
Dec. 23, 2002, 05:58 PM
For those of you who think that the 3ft3 division is a quick fix, it isn't, as the division is not available at that many shows on the east coast. Although WEF has it, it is on Wednesday and Thursday every week. Although I do show at WEF, I commute every weekend to show in the A/A. Until I meet my sugar daddy, showing in the middle of the week doesn't work.

plottwist
Dec. 23, 2002, 06:36 PM
Making the A/A's a national division isn't a quick fix answer for someone like me either as the division would run over two or three days. Until my kids grow up and move out this is not an option, it just doesn't work.

I think more people are in my shoes than the shoes you wear when you show at WEF.

clearound
Dec. 23, 2002, 06:59 PM
PLOTTWIST - Once again your true colors are showing! You have absolutely no clue as to who I am or what I do. I challenge you to walk in my shoes for one day.

AAJumper
Dec. 23, 2002, 07:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by findeight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PlotTwist:
To he-- with you non-rich people with familes. If you can't afford to play in my sand box...go (use your imagination).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Um........ Plot Twist I have been in some pretty good squabbles and discussions here on the BB but I have never been told to go to he-- because I am not rich.

And here I have spent alot of printer ink posting that this sport is no longer exclusively for the rich and elitist. Then you go and post this instead of just joining in the discussion on rating the A/A Hunters.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Findeight, I don't think she was directing that comment AT you, and she was conveying the idea that by making the A/A's rated it would make it even more exclusive. In other words, it would make it more difficult for the not-so-wealthy to win awards because you'd have to go to A shows in order to get any decent points. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what I got out of the post. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

visit www.victorianfarms.com (http://www.victorianfarms.com)

AAJumper
Dec. 23, 2002, 07:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clearound:
PLOTTWIST - Once again your true colors are showing! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True colors? What is that supposed to mean? What is wrong with someone expressing an opinion? You sound as if you believe she has some sort of hidden agenda!?!? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

visit www.victorianfarms.com (http://www.victorianfarms.com)

plottwist
Dec. 23, 2002, 07:33 PM
I don't understand what you mean by "your true colors". Would you please explain.

And, you're right I don't know you, but when you don't tell us who you are and we don't know any other pertinent information that would help us get to know you, we are left to guess and make our own assumptions. Sorry.....no malice meant.

Snowbird
Dec. 23, 2002, 07:49 PM
Happy days! there is a rainbow now you are beginning to realize what those few bucks will really cost you. It isn't me or the other show managers but you who will really be the losers. Yes! People can move up, for heavens saake 10 years ago when the horses were not supposed to be so great they could all jump 3'6".

So now we have the result of the "feel good" society it's the people who can't jump 3'6". The truth is out!
(tongue in cheek please don't flame me, I'm just a sweet little old lady) /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

plottwist
Dec. 23, 2002, 07:56 PM
Helping sweet old lady into her melting flame suit...

Snowbird
Dec. 23, 2002, 08:04 PM
I still have a few good years left. /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

AAJumper
Dec. 23, 2002, 08:27 PM
I think perhaps this is where there is some discrepancy in different people's thinking? To me, a national rating is for the best of the best. In other words, the best professionally ridden hunters, the best amateur hunters, the best ponies and the best junior hunters. So what would the national A/A champs be then? The best of the second best? I hope that isn't coming off as rude, because that's not how it is intended, but in general, the A/O's are better horses and better riders, are they not? And the A/A's are the next level down. I mean, as an A/A jumper, I know I am not at the same level as an A/O jumper for sure. And I'm sure that there are A/A riders who are better than some of the A/O riders out there who, for whatever reason, are competing in the A/A's, but I'm speaking in generalities here.

So that being said, I just can't see that the A/A's should be nationally rated. Yes, it's a popular division and yes, it is the highest division that some adults will reach in their riding careers, but is that a reason to make it nationally rated? I think perhaps I am looking at this from a different perspective than those who are in favor of giving the A/A's an A rating, based on what the National Awards are all about.

visit www.victorianfarms.com (http://www.victorianfarms.com)

pinkhorse
Dec. 23, 2002, 08:37 PM
My, my, my. Well, I just received the 11/22 issue of the COTH (subscribe off and on for 30 years and one issue never makes it - one, and it's the amateur rider issue!) so I've been thinking about this issue without reading this thread. Tonight I figured I'd start at the end and see where the discussion's at. Hmmm.

Well, I'll still put in my few measly cents. Here's my own very selfish reason I would not want the division to be A rated - and I'm sure I'm not alone. The basic basics - it would cost more and run over more than one day. I'm probably not the only adult rider who enjoys showing for the fun of it alone. I'm a one horse owner who trained my horse up from childhood and am incredibly proud of every nice fence - even if there's only 2 in a round of 8 (well...). When I win a ribbon at any show it's the icing on the cake. Points? I get my points every day that my mare walks up to me in the field. No, I'm not a pollyanna. I showed as a kid and I got that stuff out of my system then. As an adult my pleasures are far more simple and zen.

Going to an A show 2 or maybe 3 times a year (close by so I don't need to $table) is the "big time" for my show year. The fact that I spend $50 less on a division that is not A rated means a lot to me. The fact that I don't have to show over 2 days means a lot to me.

However, don't underestimate me. This past year I did far less shows because I was sick of going and doing adult divisions that set their fences at 2'6" instead of 3'. I'm happiest in the "high-low hunters" (how's that for horse show confusion) where the fences are supposed to be 3'3" and are mostly 3'. What I'm saying is it's hard enough to find a class that sets it's jumps at 3' - even at A shows. I'm not about to be happy spending a lot more money for the privilege of jumping under 3'.

So, after reading that my favorite idea of offering 2 adult hunter divisions at 3' - one for those who are interested in points and one for those who just want to have fun at a nice show - isn't an option here's my latest: You folks who want to have year end awards can have the 3' division with my blessing. I'd like those shows to then offer 2 heights of a C or non-rated division - 2'9" and 3'3". Hell, pin us together, I don't care. (Low schooling adult and high schooling adult - won't that be fun? It can be the warm up divisions for the AA's and the A/O's. Let the pros have the lows as warm ups for their divisions. No or miniscule prize money, a few extra cents on ribbons and judges cards. Hey, the more I think about this the better it sounds!) Just give me the chance to jump over a nice hunter course at or over 3' without breaking the bank.

In my asbestos wearing humble opinion the horse show world has really gotten way too big for it's breeches. Talk about taking your fun a little too seriously. I'm glad that my home barn puts on non-USAE local shows through the year organized by people that organize, judge and course design for A shows. (And if I'm really nice and good and help out a lot I can even convince John to set the adults at 3'!)

ShaSamour
Dec. 24, 2002, 06:33 AM
I've read and re-read this entire thread about five times. Personally, I'm not in favor of A rating the A/A's. There's already an A-rated amateur division available.

FWIW, I live in Zone 2 and have dabbled in the A/A's in the last couple of years. On any given weekend at a C show, I'll find myself riding against the Zone winner, the M&S champion, the WIHS winner, etc. There's really no difference in quality of competition. The only real difference is that in an AA show like Garden State, there are 25+ olders, as opposed to say 8-15 at a C show.

I've also observed what I consider a disturbing trend: A/A riders on known legitimate A/O horses, and they're not in the division as a fluke. They felt that to be competitive in Zone 2 to make Finals etc you need an A/O caliber horse, even tho you're only going to jump 3'. It's alread becoming a division for the wealthier riders -- like PlotTwist I don't have $200K to spend on a horse.

My point is, there are already many in the division who have the "horsepower" and skill to ride the A/O division, and already regularly go to AA shows (like Catskills and Lake Placid) and choose not to move up. Why? I don't have any answers (I can't read their minds), but I suspect the many opportunities for year-end finals etc is the reason, along w/ it being easier on them and their horses physically. Offering any sort of prize money and a national championship will give them just one more reason NOT to move up.

And again, FWIW, I know my own limitations. My horse can win in the A/A's at a B or C show, ribbon at an A show, but will never get a second look at an AA show like Troop. I'm just happy to get around, and for those rare satisfying moments when I beat an A/O horse. Will I remain in the A/As as it continues to devolve in to a big-money game? Probably not. I'll just do the unrated Suitables....

Silver Bells
Dec. 24, 2002, 07:03 AM
WOW !

My PlotTwist it seems to me that your discriminatory post is letting out the "green-eyed" monster that has been "trolling" inside you!

I am not wealthy, but love horses and good competition. I still strongly believe that Adult
Amateur Hunters should various ratings available to them.

Snowbird
Dec. 24, 2002, 07:39 AM
We can all agree to disagree. I don't think less of someone who has another point of view, and enjoy try to find out why and what they think.

I disagree with you for the reasons everyone has stated and the conviction that it would ruin competiition for those who choose not to move up to the A/O diviiiision and the higher fences.

There are lot of wondrful riders and horses that would move up if they could afford the time and the money to do so. They don't and they are entitled to be respected for their choices too.

I don't think anyone should denegrate them just because they stay, but rather the effort should be made with proposed rule changes to brung back the initiative to move up with one day A/O shows.

It's only because of the point spread that those who do the A/O feel the necesssity to be able to earn points from 6 classes instead of four.

Silver Bells
Dec. 24, 2002, 07:52 AM
WELL STATED SNOWIRD !!

plottwist
Dec. 24, 2002, 08:35 AM
Why can't you just come out and have a conversation without calling anyone names. I find nothing productive in that...does anyone else?

An please explain to me exactly how my post was discriminatory? If you're referring to the WEF comment.....duh...most people don't show there.

I have blue eyes, by the way. /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Giddy-up
Dec. 24, 2002, 08:50 AM
Tripleoxer--I found it interesting you think Zone 5 should jog for soundness too even though you live over in PA. Have you seen what I see at the shows around here also? /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Clear round--please don't flame me cause I don't know you & vice-versa, but if you are showing at WEF, I am not wearing your type of shoes either. Don't get me wrong, I would love to, but it's just not in the cards for me right now. I think that's all Plottwist was saying & wasn't trying to be rude to you.

Happy holidays everybody! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

clearound
Dec. 24, 2002, 09:57 AM
GIDDY-UP: I have no intention of flaming you or anyone else. I respect everyone's opinion and therefore request the same in return. As for PLOTTWIST, her attacks appear to be personal and her sarcasim and stabs do nothing to add to this discussion. In fact, her posts have diminished the constructiviness of this thread. All I was saying was that she has no idea what sacrifices, both personally and professionally, I make to show at WEF. However, it is what I choose to do. Just as I do not degrade those people who choose to chase points by showing every weekend at "B" and "C" shows (even though I do not agree with this practice).

mwalshe
Dec. 24, 2002, 10:38 AM
clearround and silver bells.

what the hell is your problem with Plot twist? You are not making any sense in your attacks on her. (Plus you sound awfully like one person posting under two names /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif )

I keep on reading this thread and I'm still against making the A/A's "A" rated. More $$, more time and not enough return. The cost-benefit doesn't hold up for me. Now I understand that there are some people willing to spend the time and money to go for a national rating but I think they're in the minority and besides there is always M&S and other similar programs.

clearound
Dec. 24, 2002, 10:51 AM
MAGGYMAY - If you have read all the posts on this thread, you can see that while most people have stated very legitimate reasons, pro and con, as to whether the A/A should be a "A" rated division. However, many of PLOTTWISTs remarks have been demeaning and sarcastic and have been a personal attack upon me.

As to whether SILVERBELLS and I are one in the same, I can assure you that we are not. Although we do know one another, we are very, very different individuals. In fact, SILVERBELLS no longer even shows in the A/As while I assuredly do.

plottwist
Dec. 24, 2002, 10:52 AM
I have no idea who you are, nor do I care who you are.

The only thing personal here is my opinion and the way I voice that opinion, which you and Silverbells obviously do not care for.

Once again...sorry to annoy you, but it's my opinion! A/A's do not need to be nationally recognized with prize money and held over multiple days.

Merry Christmas!!

RockinHorse
Dec. 24, 2002, 12:44 PM
Not everyone thinks you are twisted /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

~~ Does killing time hurt eternity?~~

wtywmn4
Dec. 24, 2002, 01:11 PM
Can we pleeeeease have a truce? It's the holidays people. We all need to be respective of each other....Too much fighting all over this world, guess it's just my age. But lets enjoy some peace....

My only worry is that what is wanted, will somehow be redone. In other words be careful what you wish for. Have seen it happen, especially in pony world. Rule makers will push it forth, if there's enough pressure. But once installed, it can be difficult at best to get rid of...

havaklu
Dec. 24, 2002, 03:54 PM
Maybe the reason the A/A is so popular is that it is fine the way it is -

IOW if it isn't BROKE don't FIX IT!!!

As an amateur who had the opportunity to "step-up" to the 3'6" - One thing I learned was that I missed the level of Competetion and RECOGNITION (yes there is recognition IMO for the A/A division if you consider the classics and the fact that they don't often show at 8 am on Sat AND Sun)!

I found that the A/O's often go first at 8:00AM when there are only other A/O's and trainer's as spectators and there are rarely classics offered for the A/O's even at many A level shows. Basically I was done and had my horse put away before many of the A/A's had to show up for the day - It was almost lonely...

And if you think it's satisfying to get a 4th place ribbon and MONEY when there are only 4 in your classs - It's NOT! It's embarrassing to be rewarded by default. I'd much rather get nothing and know I was respectable but maybe I'm "odd".

Somehow I think there are other's like me here.