PDA

View Full Version : This week's COTH amateur issue: Interesting article on different types of amateurs. Comments?



Applesauce
Nov. 24, 2001, 09:11 PM
Very interesting article on how many different types of amateurs there really are in our sport. What is fair? How can we all compete on this level but vary so much in how we keep out amateur status? What about the weekend riders that show up at horse shows after their horses have been schooled all week by their trainers? What about the amateurs married to professionals? What about the amateurs that work full time at barns to pay for their shows? And lastly, what about the amateurs that work 40+ hours a week, own and train their own horses, and scrape by enough to show once in awhile?

Is this fair for everyone?

~Courtney~

Applesauce
Nov. 24, 2001, 09:11 PM
Very interesting article on how many different types of amateurs there really are in our sport. What is fair? How can we all compete on this level but vary so much in how we keep out amateur status? What about the weekend riders that show up at horse shows after their horses have been schooled all week by their trainers? What about the amateurs married to professionals? What about the amateurs that work full time at barns to pay for their shows? And lastly, what about the amateurs that work 40+ hours a week, own and train their own horses, and scrape by enough to show once in awhile?

Is this fair for everyone?

~Courtney~

UndeniedGirl
Nov. 25, 2001, 07:30 AM
Can you be a pro in another equesrian sport, but show ammy in h/j? Say, a professional reiner, there would be no reason why he (she) couldnt show ammy in h/j right? What about a pro dressage or eventer? since they are closer to h/j than reining? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Dont ask why I wondered that /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

*Cass*

<~><*><~>

Fearfully, only time will tell, for it is all a leap of faith...

Life is not a spectator sport!

Smile...it makes people wonder what you have been doing /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

G
Nov. 25, 2001, 08:09 AM
There is really no way to classify and further split up the amateur division. It would be unfair, it would make the division smaller, and it would just be a giant pain in the arse. Nothing in showing can be fair according to everyone's standards. No matter what, someone is going to pitch a fit about something, whether that person be a part of the majority or the minority.

I found the article very interesting - it was great to hear the perspective of so many different people in so many different positions. And I'm sure there are many people out there who have similar situations, and there are more out there with different situations. But how on earth can we separate them further? I think it will never work.

-Jackie-
"If you love something, let it go. It it comes back, its yours, if not, you'll never know."
http://jax.0catch.com

Jumphigh83
Nov. 25, 2001, 08:13 AM
If you are a pro reiner, you are a pro RIDER. It isn't resticted to one aspect of the sport.

Betsy
Lead, follow, or get out of the way...

M. O'Connor
Nov. 25, 2001, 08:17 AM
1) Capable amateurs who aspire to 3'6" and above but aren't able to own their own horses, and 2) "low" level pros who, for instance, teach beginners.

Neither group is provided with a comfortable competitive niche under the present rules...Both these amateurs and "nominal" pros might be able to find rides more easily available to them if a division existed that could include them both. Not to mention, if such a division existed, it would go a long way toward helping rectify the problem of "shamateurism" which is most often is not motivated by a desire to simply cheat, but because life in limbo can be quite dreary.

Low/special/everlasting pregreen hunter classes have limited appeal for those who aspire to more than low jumps and outside/inside/inside/outside type courses...yet it's difficult to set goals or aspire to anything if you have no avenue to get there...? A common overriding limitation on both these groups is often one of economics. Certainly a brain teaser, but apparently one that doesn't interest the "powers that be."

[This message was edited by M. O'Connor on Nov. 25, 2001 at 11:26 AM.]

DMK
Nov. 25, 2001, 08:26 AM
You know, I think no matter HOW they might split up the division, there will always be someone saying "it's not fair!"

As Danielle said, maybe more policing of the existing rules should take place first!

Bumpkin
Nov. 25, 2001, 08:31 AM
I am with DMK, not everyone is going to be happy no matter how they split it.
/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Bumpkin
Nov. 25, 2001, 08:32 AM
You are going to reach 5000 about the same time I reach 4000!!! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

DMK
Nov. 25, 2001, 08:40 AM
It depends... Are you going to respond to this post? /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Bumpkin
Nov. 25, 2001, 08:58 AM
Well I am just starting off as an Am again. After being gone for 25 plus years.
I of course don't want to compete against people who make their living riding horses.
Although back in my day, we still showed in Green etc.. against the Pros.

Working with racehorses, and riding out young horses etc... showed me that I prob rode better than most Am who were like I am now.
Riding three times a week in a lesson just does not give me the balance etc... I had when I rode lots of horses everyday.

So I would like to see the shows keep a good handle on Shamateurs /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Midge
Nov. 25, 2001, 09:22 AM
This is obviously going to come as a shock to some of you but...not everyone gets to win!

It is a competition! If you want to win, drop down in circuits until you get to the point where you are winning. Ah, you want to win at the A shows, therefore we should have 'I work for a living so I don't have as much saddle time' divisions or 'I'm good enough to teach and/or train a little but not good enough to go up against the 'real' pros so I want a place to win' divisions or 'I'm not lucky enough to be rich or have rich parents/spouse so I can't spend as much on my horse' division. Get over it! Either work harder and make it happen (think Lance Armstrong)or accept the fact that you do not have the time/money/talent to win at the A shows and get your joy from horse showing at a different level.

Just because you want something doesn't mean you get to have it.

'If ignorance is bliss, why aren't more people happy?'

M. O'Connor
Nov. 25, 2001, 10:28 AM
No, it's not about winning. Many "capable" amateurs on a budget and "nominal" pros who would like to move up are mature enough to have quite realistic goals. At the moment, I'm bringing along a green horse, and it's been a good 10 years since my last forray into the show ring. If all goes well, when I finish introducing him to the low hunter inside/outside stuff, I will be really stuck to find something to show him in, at a venue with good footing and nice courses, other than slightly higher outside/inside stuff UNLESS I bring him to the A circuit where we'll be able to do training/schooling jumpers...that would be a defininite budget buster! No, it isn't winning: I think this issue is more about "inclusion." Why is it that everyone else seems to be included, but the two groups I identified above don't rate consideration for inclusion? Probably, economics...no clout, plain and simple. Oh well.

Magnolia
Nov. 25, 2001, 11:22 AM
As a "low level pro" who teaches beginners, I'd probably just show in the ammies - and still get my butt kicked /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif . I'm definitley still an amateur rider, but I happen to be pretty good at teaching an 8 year old to post.
I think the ability to teach beginner riders is less about your own personal ability to ride and more about communication skills. I'm not sure where that line changes though.
I'd say I'm an amateur rider and a professional instructor ~ but I could definitley see that being abused... I like eventing - they have (in general) 3 sections per division - horse, rider, and open - all 3 do the same thing, but don't get judged against each other.

The witchy witch witch of south central NC.

Midge
Nov. 25, 2001, 01:38 PM
M. O'Connor, the open divisions are just that...open to everyone. Everyone is included.

I think inclusion is something that belongs in places like public schools, not in an open sport in which one chooses to compete. There are divisions limited by age, professional status, the size of horse/pony you ride, the level of training of the horse you ride, as well as an individual assortment of miscellaneous divisions which vary from show to show.

If you can't find a division, it's because there is no demand for it. A 3'6" division for pros who don't ride? I'm not sure I see the point nor do I see it filling on a regular basis. A 3'6" division for ammys who don't own? Boy, if you think there is a shamateur problem now...! /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

'If ignorance is bliss, why aren't more people happy?'

poltroon
Nov. 25, 2001, 02:52 PM
Midge, I don't personally see why it is okay to allow juniors to ride any 3'6" horse that comes along, but not amateurs.

Here's my proposal: /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
1. Make all adult eq classes OPEN. Yes, open. If George Morris and Conrad Homfield choose, they could show in the 3'6" adult eq. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I personally think that serious professionals, who would not be paid to ride in a class for the RIDER, and who would not want to be beaten in horsemanship class, /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif would skip it and just the borderline pros would have a place to ride.

2. Allow the 3'6" adult hunters to include leased horses.

3. Keep and enforce the rule as it's currently written. It is not always fair but it is mercilessly clear. I think it would be easier to enforce if the borderline folk could ride in eq classes without having to suffer regular amnesia about their professional activities.

keke414
Nov. 25, 2001, 04:05 PM
Maybe somebody has already said this but I think that at the bigger shows there could be an amateur split. Those who have won zone or national championships or reserves could go in an Open section and those who have not could go in a Restricted section.

JBO
Nov. 25, 2001, 04:46 PM
I'm with Midge here........... and I am a full- time-working A/O rider. Sure, it would be great to not have to compete against those who ride all day every day, have multiple horses, etc, but I choose to show at the shows I do. It just makes jogging in front of them when you have a good day that much more gratifying. Life isn't always fair, so there's no point whining about it!

JustJump
Nov. 25, 2001, 06:52 PM
...I don't see any reason to be rude about the suggestions that have been made or to dismiss the problems faced by others with a "that's just tooooo bad honey quitcherwhininig and git over it" sort of attitude. Whatever satisfaction you get out of showing certainly wouldn't be diminished by making things more fair for others who have gotten the short end of the stick for quite some time.

Yes, the Legacy Cup organizers may be onto something after all, with both the amateur modifications and the division for "limited" pros. (But what do they know, anyway?)

Midge
Nov. 26, 2001, 05:57 AM
JustJump, I guess I could compare it to a track meet. Say my best 'thing' would be the 84 yard dash. Well, they don't HAVE an 84 yard dash so, should they make one so I can perform at my best?

'If ignorance is bliss, why aren't more people happy?'

Lucassb
Nov. 26, 2001, 07:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> As a "low level pro" who teaches beginners, I'd probably just show in the ammies - and still get my butt kicked . I'm definitley still an amateur rider, but I happen to be pretty good at teaching an 8 year old to post.
I think the ability to teach beginner riders is less about your own personal ability to ride and more about communication skills. I'm not sure where that line changes though.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That one is easy. The line changes WHEN YOU GET PAID.

If you take money for teaching - including teaching 8 year olds how to post - you are a professional, and should no longer show in the amateurs.

There are a lot of gray areas in the amateur specs, but that isn't one of them.

**********
To appreciate heaven well
'Tis good for a man to have some fifteen minutes of hell.
Will Carleton (1845-1912)

Magnolia
Nov. 26, 2001, 08:03 AM
Lucassb-
Luckily, I don't show. While I have no qualms getting paid to teach someone to ride, trust me, no one would ever pay me to ride their horse! Ever! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
If I ever did decide to show, would I be able to be an amateur again?
The world needs more beginner riding lesson teachers that are good - the real "pros" are too expensive and too busy for them, and a lot of what people are left to choose from is scary. It's too bad that in order to teach basic riding lessons you can't keep your amateur status. People could easily support their showing by teaching a few walk trotters every week. I'm sure that there are many people in my situation - knowledgable enough to teach basic riding and horsemanship skills, but not talented enough to train a horse. I guess it would be really hard to separate those people out...

The witchy witch witch of south central NC.

Kitty
Nov. 26, 2001, 08:15 AM
idea is great, but can you just imagine the big equitation trainers out there schooling their kids' horses? Especially the "green" eq horses?
How could it ever be fair for the real amateur?

Lucassb
Nov. 26, 2001, 08:20 AM
Yes, if you ever want to show again, you can regain your amateur status. You have to quit teaching, of course - and you have to sit out for a while, but it can be done.

While I understand the argument that sharing the basics of instruction with a beginner is not the same as coaching a medals finalist, I have to say I endorse the amateur rule as it is written.

**********
To appreciate heaven well
'Tis good for a man to have some fifteen minutes of hell.
Will Carleton (1845-1912)

tle
Nov. 26, 2001, 08:31 AM
magnolia

I've had several people at my barn ask me if I taught lessons or would help them with their jumping. I recently applied for 2 different financial aid packages as well... BOTH limited to adult amateurs. See, I could very well be in your place. No, eventing doesn't focus on ammy v. pro the way H/J does, but it's still there. However, the rules, as someone already stated, ARE clear... if you accept money for riding or teaching, you aren't an ammy anymore. I've told people no... I help with their jumping for free... and I ride for the cost of the entry only. Sorry, but sacrifices must be made when the rules are THAT clear.

If Dressage is a Symphony... Eventing is Rock & Roll!

Magnolia
Nov. 26, 2001, 09:00 AM
I probably wouldn't care if I had to ride in the regular divisions or compete in the horse section at a horse trial. It just isn't that big of a deal to me!
What is a big deal to me is that it seems like there is a lack of quality instruction available for beginners - one woman I teach for has a wait list a mile long! I wonder if the amateur rules effect this or if people just aren't interested in doing it (teaching beginners)? Also, what if for example, an amateur doing the "A" circuit teaches beginners for her trainer and is paid back by free lessons from the trainer. Is that acceptable?

It is interesting. It is kind of flattering to be thought of as a professional horsewaoman though....

The witchy witch witch of south central NC.

DMK
Nov. 26, 2001, 10:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by magnolia:
Also, what if for example, an amateur doing the "A" circuit teaches beginners for her trainer and is paid back by free lessons from the trainer. Is that acceptable?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope, that is still renumeration. Not much different from you getting paid to do the lessons and turning right around and handing it over to your trainer for lessons.

Now you can groom or haul horses for your trainer, just not ride horses or train students.

I agree with you about the lack of quality beginner instructers though. And I also agree that someone who is the world's greatest up-downer instructor could very easily be not half the rider that a lot of ammies are, but you are right in that it would be a terribly easy rule to abuse.

poltroon
Nov. 26, 2001, 10:42 AM
What is the Legacy Cup?

rileyt
Nov. 26, 2001, 11:08 AM
Forgive me for griping without offering a solution... I'll work on it. I have to say, I think the current amateur rule sucks. In fact, I don't think they could make a WORSE rule if they tried. We're all aware of the problems, and I won't rehash them. One of the biggest problems, in my mind, is that people seems content to say,..."Well, we'll never please everyone, so we'll just leave it as it is." (This is not aimed at anyone on this board.) First, that statement is 100% true. We will never please everyone. However, I think we could do a whole heck of a lot better. Maybe I'll come up with a new proposal, and see what you guys think. I think the PURPOSE of the amateur rule is to provide a level field for competition. Obviously, no field will be completely level. Unfortunately, the current rule divides "riding ability" by factors that are not necessarily related to it... i.e., where you derive your income. I think we can do better. I for one, will try to do better. I'll let you know when my new amateur status definition is ready for comments. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Flash44
Nov. 26, 2001, 11:48 AM
I stopped showing A and B shows is that I just can't be competitive against Miss Moneybags who has a pro rider her horse in the division before the A/A, then hops on him at the gate, hangs on and gets a good ribbon. I do it myself, maybe I don't do it well enough to win at the A's, but it is my effort. So now I do a much less expensive local circuit, have great fun, and actually win ribbons! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Maybe I'll venture back out to some of the local rated shows this summer, depends on whether or not I have time to ride more than twice a week.

It just isn't worth it to spend a ton of money to go to the "big" shows and come home and say, well, my horse was good and I had fun, but I didn't get anything.
Use the Force.

[This message was edited by Flash44 on Nov. 26, 2001 at 05:22 PM.]

JBO
Nov. 26, 2001, 05:08 PM
I wasn't trying to be rude or dismissive - I do work full time, keep my horses at home, groom for myself, haul, etc, etc - I think that would put me into some of the categories people have mentioned. However, I choose to show at A shows against ammies who don't face those constraints. Sure, it would be nice to be in a division restricted to those who are on a limited budget/time schedule/etc to "level the playing field", but it would make that division less competitive overall. At most of the smaller A show, the A/Os are lucky to have more than 4-6 entries at all, you couldn't split that any further if you wanted to! You have to look at the results in terms of your own personal goals, not just if you won. You have to look at the fact that maybe some of the people in front of you do this full time and are independently wealthy, and maybe on the good days some of the ones behind you are too. Sure, it gets frustrating at times, but I get over it - I have no desire to go down a level. I agree the rules need to be changed in some ways, but right now how much you have or how well you ride does not come into play.

Hattie
Nov. 26, 2001, 05:20 PM
and congratulations on the great ribbons you won at indoors! My neighbor LC filled me in!

Flash44
Nov. 26, 2001, 06:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JBO:
I wasn't trying to be rude or dismissive - I do work full time, keep my horses at home, groom for myself, haul, etc, etc - I think that would put me into some of the categories people have mentioned. However, I choose to show at A shows against ammies who don't face those constraints. Sure, it would be nice to be in a division restricted to those who are on a limited budget/time schedule/etc to "level the playing field", but it would make that division less competitive overall. At most of the smaller A show, the A/Os are lucky to have more than 4-6 entries at all, you couldn't split that any further if you wanted to! You have to look at the results in terms of your own personal goals, not just if you won. You have to look at the fact that maybe some of the people in front of you do this full time and are independently wealthy, and maybe on the good days some of the ones behind you are too. Sure, it gets frustrating at times, but I get over it - I have no desire to go down a level. I agree the rules need to be changed in some ways, but right now how much you have or how well you ride does not come into play.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wonder why the A/Os only have 4 - 6 entries at small shows? The A/As never have less than 10. What if the A/As were forced to ride their horses themselves, and actually learned how to correct problems and work through difficult situations, instead of having the trainer fix the problems. Maybe they would be doing the A/Os too.

Use the Force.

Molly99
Nov. 26, 2001, 06:14 PM
While I agree the current rules are not perfect, they are the rules and I really don't think there is a fair way to change them.

You cannot make a rule for one small group that is unhappy because they feel they should have more opportunites.

In the past all levels, pros, junior and ammies showed against each other.

Classes developed to what we have today based on need and a demand for them.

Sorry but I do not see a "need" for a dramatic change of the current rules. If the need was there, local circuits would already have the classes. I have not seem many that do and they are always the breeding grounds for the new divisions. Look at all the 2'6" that has appeared. Indio didn't just get the idea to have them for the novice level. It was a proven division that had a market.

I don't believe there really is a market for many of the changes that have been suggested.

Additionally, a post from another thread keeps popping into my mind. We are not figure skating, etc and DO NOT fit their amateur rules. There is no way that we could so stop trying. The same is true for almost every other sport.

With the exception of golf and a few others, we would all be pros within a few years of getting out of school. That is one of the reasons that I feel the NCAA recognizing Equestrian will never really happen. We don't fit their rules and the odds of changing them to fit would mean revamping the entire horse show industry. No more prize money, etc. But you would then be allowed to teach at a small scale to beginners. That is allowed by the NCAA.

Slightly off topic, but still something to think about.

Zipping flame suit.

Oh, and I am an amatuer, horseless as well these days as I don't have the time or money to do it the way I want to do it.

JBO
Nov. 26, 2001, 06:50 PM
Is this Anne? I haven't seen you in ages! I think LC mentioned you were neighbors........ how are you doing?
/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Hattie
Nov. 26, 2001, 07:00 PM
Miss Hattie will be back in shape just in time for HITS. Which means - I will be visiting your husband for some "back to showing" shopping! Just think of it as my contribution to your A/O showing! /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JBO
Nov. 26, 2001, 07:17 PM
to support my ridiculously expensive habit anytime - someone needs to, and I haven't found a taker yet!! We look forward to seeing you. Glad to hear Hattie is back in action! I usually have to get new breeches after a hiatus - those darn gnomes, sneaking into the closet and making them smaller! (that is the only reasonable explanation!!!!)

I guess the one good thing you can say about the A/O divisions being small is that it helps pay back those entry fees!!!!

DMK
Nov. 26, 2001, 08:23 PM
Flash, those are huge generalizations you are making. That's sort of like me saying everyone that shows at an A show can usually find 8, whereas 6 seems a miracle at an unrated show... It would sound an awful lot like I have a bug up my a$$ about schooling shows, wouldn't it? /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I know of a lot of amateurs who cannot afford a trainer to tune on their horse year 'round and do not have fancy, made horses and manage to get themselves to big shows and do well - a few of them are posting here. I have also seen plenty of people at schooling shows getting their horse tuned on by their trainer. I have seen people at a show that was a schooling show for an unrated circuit treating it with more importance than some people treat Devon! It's all in a person's perspective, I think.

I think JBO said it perfectly - it's not who or how many you beat, it's how YOU rode the course. Rules and ribbons won't change how you feel about that.

And just for giggles, the show I moved my horse up to the A/O's? The A/O's were split, the A/A's were combined! (Made me wonder why I chose that show to move up - if it was ribbons, there were easy ones to be had in the A/A's /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif )

Dementia 13
Nov. 27, 2001, 07:10 AM
WC Princess, I totally agree with what you wrote in your post.

'Nuff said....

Molly99
Nov. 27, 2001, 08:37 AM
Thanks,

Having spent my entire life in the "show" business I have seen all sides and none are that great /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Chaser
Nov. 27, 2001, 08:46 AM
If one problem is that some people have a pro compete their horse first before they try, and others can't afford this, why not level the playing field by only allowing one rider to compete a horse at a show, or even ride the horse (including schooling)?

The more able riders, whether wealthy or not, would at least then be showing their own endeavours. Those people who have a nice horse but it's too hot to show without a pro getting on first would need to go for a more manageable mount instead or appreciate that they will have to wait until the horse is better schooled or they can cope with it by themselves.

pinkhorse
Nov. 27, 2001, 09:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chaser:
If one problem is that some people have a pro compete their horse first before they try, and others can't afford this, why not level the playing field by only allowing one rider to compete a horse at a show, or even ride the horse (including schooling)?

The more able riders, whether wealthy or not, would at least then be showing their own endeavours. Those people who have a nice horse but it's too hot to show without a pro getting on first would need to go for a more manageable mount instead or appreciate that they will have to wait until the horse is better schooled or they can cope with it by themselves.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is exactly what I loved about eventing. Even though the trainer could ride the horse every day up until 3:00 on the day before the horse trials began the rider has to ride the horse to compete. And, you're crazy if you don't ride your own horse before a competition - it's just too hard for most mortals (some of the pros can do it) to get on a horse you haven't ridden much and do an event. Not to mention dangerous.

This summer I was at an A-show that had a high-low division. It was a 3'3" division that was essentially the warm up (presumably for the pros to ride) for the A/O division. I was thrilled to be able to show bigger than 3' without breaking my horse's first year green. I figured this was the opportunity for all those capable A/A riders who ride but don't own capable horses to ride a bigger jump since they can't do the A/O's. There were 4 horses in the classes. The 3 A/O's (riding their own horses) and me.

It's hard to think that there's alot of demand for it. There's barely the ability to fill the A/O's at the smaller A's. But, you never know 'til you try. Someone mentioned a junior/adult hunter division at 3'3" in some parts of the country. Do they fill?

I personally feel that the A/O division should be split into A/O's and "high A/A"'s. Not sure why the split - why not just adult 3'6" whether you own or not. It seems highly antiquated to require adults to own horses. However, I do think they should remain amateur - even tho we can't quite make that inclusive.

I've always wondered how amatuer owner horses can be owned by corporations....

Skipper
Nov. 27, 2001, 10:29 AM
quite a few of the (local)rated shows I've been to this past year, the A/A's haven't even filled, never mind any of the 3'6" divisions.....


....I personally think that the amateur rule needs to be revised and pro v.s. ammy should be defined more along the lines of prize money won and/or if one makes a living riding/teaching/training.....

JMHO

Lucassb
Nov. 27, 2001, 10:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Wonder why the A/Os only have 4 - 6 entries at small shows? The A/As never have less than 10. What if the A/As were forced to ride their horses themselves, and actually learned how to correct problems and work through difficult situations, instead of having the trainer fix the problems. Maybe they would be doing the A/Os too <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I totally disagree with your assessment.

Just as many (more?) A/Os have trainers school on their horses as the A/As - maybe more since most of the A/O horses have done the "pro" divisions at 3'6" and maybe 3'9"...most of them with trainers riding. How many Amateurs do you know that ride in the second year green division?

Maybe not every one of the A/As can afford a horse that can be competitive at 3'6". Maybe they work and can only ride a few days a week, and therefore don't feel comfortable showing at 3'6". Maybe they just like the camaraderie of the Adult divisions, and feel like it is less wear and tear on them and their horses...not to mention less chance of a fall/injury for those who have other obligations, like taking care of their kids or whatever.

Not everyone has aspirations of showing in the Amateur divisions, and that does not automatically mean that they are not capable riders who can ride through problems or improve their horses themselves. I know plenty of A/As who have made up their own horses with limited coaching, and frankly it isn't lack of skill that keeps them from the A/O division.

**********
To appreciate heaven well
'Tis good for a man to have some fifteen minutes of hell.
Will Carleton (1845-1912)

Smiles
Nov. 27, 2001, 11:10 AM
So how many A/As out there really want to move up??? 3.3ft even 3.6ft. There could be a reason for this is that they might not fill! Also it's just another divison you have to add to an already long show schedule! Your never going to make everyone happy, but if you going and change things you might make more people unhappy! It's a catch 22 situation. Damned if you do, Damned if you don't!!! /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

RumoursFollow
Nov. 27, 2001, 01:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Flash44:


Wonder why the A/Os only have 4 - 6 entries at small shows? The A/As never have less than 10. What if the A/As were forced to ride their horses themselves, and actually learned how to correct problems and work through difficult situations, instead of having the trainer fix the problems. Maybe they would be doing the A/Os too.

Use the Force.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I absolutely resent that statement Flash. Have you ever considered these points? First of all, not everyone in the A/As is there because they cannot jump 3'6''. For example, I did the junior jumpers when I was a kid. When I became an adult, I bought a pre-green horse. I couldnt show him in the 3'6'' because I would have broken his green. Second of all, not everyone that has a pro ride their horse has them do it so that they can be "trained" for them since they cant ride. There is still a small percentage of people in this world who support pros and put their horses in those pro classes because they want them to WIN. I never needed anyone to set MY horse up for me. and Third of all, and most importantly, not everyone wants to do the 3'6''. Just because someone does the 3ft doesnt mean they're green or they cant ride. Its called FEAR FACTOR. 3'6'' fences are huge to some people and I know plenty of people that have no desire to show higher than 3ft. There is NOTHING wrong with that. Those people (whether we like it or not) are the backbone of our sport, they pay the bills and support their trainers.

So in conclusion, dont make rash generalizations like that. Especially if you say you dont even do A shows.

-----------------------------
I cant take it anymore - its
back to the old name for me.
-----------------------------

RumoursFollow
Nov. 27, 2001, 01:34 PM
it seems I overlooked the fact that I just said exactly what Lucassb said. Oops! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

-----------------------------
I cant take it anymore - its
back to the old name for me.
-----------------------------

Lucassb
Nov. 27, 2001, 01:38 PM
Awww, RF... at least I know I'm not the only one who thinks that way! /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

**********
To appreciate heaven well
'Tis good for a man to have some fifteen minutes of hell.
Will Carleton (1845-1912)

JBO
Nov. 27, 2001, 03:23 PM
I have many friends in the A/A's who have no desire to do any more than 3' for the above mentioned reasons. I also have (gasp) had one of my trainers get on my horse before a big class, such as at Washington. I was feeling a little nervous before the first class, and my horse, who had never been indoors either, was picking up on that. He's still a little green, so rather than make things worse, someone got on him and jumped a few jumps. I relaxed, he relaxed, and we went around great after that. It doesn't happen very often, but I have spent too much money and stressed too much to risk making the problem worse - my horse shouldn't suffer the consequences of my sometimes neurotic behavior - this is less than 2 years after my big move out of the A/A's after all!! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

findeight
Nov. 27, 2001, 03:45 PM
are odious at best. Making broad pronouncements about a division, especially by those who do not show in it is a real mistake and leads to tons of misinformation and mistaken ideas about who wins.
My job takes me out of town at least 3 days a week. If my horse is at a show there is nobody to ride it except a pro.
Bottom line is, after 35 years showing horses, many self trained in western divisions to state, regional and national honors, I turn my show hunter over to a pro for one reason....They ride better over fences then I do. My horse deserves that kind of a ride.
Do I win? NO, still screwing up. Who beats me? Those who do not screw it up.
Amateur rules should stay as is. Possibly let the 3'6" open to a lease horse.

From Allergy Valley USA

RumoursFollow
Nov. 27, 2001, 03:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JBO:
It doesn't happen very often, but I have spent too much money and stressed too much to risk making the problem worse - my horse shouldn't suffer the consequences of my sometimes neurotic behavior - this is less than 2 years after my big move out of the A/A's after all!! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Here here! Exactly. I've said too many times on this board, if people are doing things within the rules and they have the money and the means to do it, then good for them! Like JBO said earlier, its just that much more rewarding when you finally beat them!

When you're spending the kind of money it costs to show and campaign AND be competitive @ A shows, when you're having a bad day, although usually you'd be able to fix it or otherwise not be having the problem in the first place.. there is NOTHING wrong with having someone else get on your horse and make things easier.

If you want to win, thats what you do. Or even if you dont do it yourself, you understand that that is what other people do. If you cant accept that thats the way it is, then the A shows are not the place for you. Coming to a board like this and preaching about how A show people do it wrong when QUITE a few people here show at the top level of AHSA shows is going to do you no good.

Of course we're here to hear your opinions, and you are free to express them... but A shows are the way they are, they've been like that for years, and they arent going to change anytime soon if you want to know what I think. The main reason for that is that although there are people that are unhappy with the way things are, most people agree that it could be much, much worse.

(and this is just a general statement by the way-not directed at one person)

-----------------------------
I cant take it anymore - its
back to the old name for me.
-----------------------------

JBO
Nov. 27, 2001, 04:21 PM
Agree again RF! I'm in the same boat as the other poster at times too.....I'm at work during the week, so if my horse has to be there earlier than I can be, the pro rides them until I'm there. Also, if all the ammies could work out all the problems all the time, why wouldn't we just become pros and make money rather than spending it? Someone has to keep our pros busy /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

DMK
Nov. 27, 2001, 06:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JBO:
Someone has to keep our pros busy /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's like we support a little cottage industry /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Gosh, I feel so American, helping out the economy and all! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Chaser, I don't think anyone would really have a problem with your eventing scenario, but for the fact that it is comparing apples to oranges. As many have pointed out, at h/j shows, there are occassions when pro/ammy classes go the same day...

Flash44
Nov. 27, 2001, 06:13 PM
/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Once again people have to take one statement in a paragraph and take it completely out of contect.

I'm not against the 3' division, I am against the riders who show after show after show have the trainer get on the horse in the division before the amateur division and give it pro rides. If the horse is that bad, or the rider is that scared, they should drop down a division and learn how to deal with it. It's like having your parents do your homework.

You learn more when your horse does not cooperate than when he does. Riding is easy when the horse does everything he is supposed to do. It's hard when he is spooky or fresh and you have to settle him down. What would happen if the trainers just told their students, I'm not getting on your horse. You'll have to learn how to deal with it yourself. I guess the trainers would go broke (now wouldn't THAT be the end of horse showing as we know it), and the riders would see where their weaknesses are and hopefully learn how to fix the problems.

And I'm not in favor of not allowing trainers to ride clients' horses at shows. Some horses do the pro divisions, some clients can't get to the show until the day of their classes.

Although I don't do the 3'6 now, I used to do pony jumpers about 20 years ago when larges jumped 4'.

Use the Force.

RumoursFollow
Nov. 27, 2001, 08:40 PM
come to think of it, at A shows, 99% of the time pros dont get the chance to ride in the division before the Adults (or AOs)

Reason being... the professional divisions go during the week and the amateurs go on the weekend.

And like I said, many people, myself included, put their horses in the professional divisions to win. When your horse is a winning professional horse during the week, sometimes it gives you that little extra edge on the weekend. I was not scared, nor was my horse bad.

Yes of course you learn when the horse is bad. BUT, the point in showing and the way you win national titles is to learn those lessons at HOME and in the SCHOOLING RING and make things as perfect as possible when you're in the ring.

If you have never chased points for indoors or a circuit title, you wont understand. Locally its different. But when the shows are really tough and you are paying a couple thou a show to do this, you dont want to waste your money buy "learning to handle your horse" in the ring. Of course its vital to learn to ride your horse- but for $60 a class at some shows, in the ring is not the place.

You learn by WATCHING your trainer ride your horse in the pros, taking lessons the night before, schooling in the ring, and schooling at home. When you get to the show you make the best of what you have. You go to schooling shows to make mistakes in the ring. If you're chasing points, you go in the ring to win. If that means your trainer needs to take your horse around first, then so be it. If you have the money to do it, then go ahead.

People are going to do what it takes to win. Such is life.

[This message was edited by RumoursFollow on Nov. 27, 2001 at 11:48 PM.]

Jess
Nov. 27, 2001, 08:59 PM
Flash, REALLLLLLY you must not show much or far away from home.

When my barn goes to AZ or CO juniors and Ammys typically FLY into the show so they don't miss a week of school/work. Alot of them also are not the best riders. When they spend 2k to go to a one week show they want to win, not go there and be like OOPS GOOD LEARNING EXPERIENCE.

Is it illegal that my trainer schooled my pony and hacked it when I didn't get to the show till thursday NIGHT and my pony got there TUESDAY. Of course it would be much better for my pony to sit in the stall till thursday, duh silly me.

~Jess~
Catchride.com

A May
Nov. 27, 2001, 09:26 PM
I agree with Amy *RF*... Flash really its none of you're business about how trainers ride their clients horses for them or not. People want their horses name out , and to win. So thats why they show them in the first years ,second years, or green workings. I personally also think, that the trainer is also TRAINING those horses. Hence, thats why they are TRAINERS. I honestly think horses that are in the first and second years are out there to learn their job w/ a professional. I had my horse do the first and second year hunters, then I would do the childrens on him. What the heck is the big deal? You shouldnt really assume that they dont know how to ride either.. just because the trainer is riding their horse. Its really none of you're business.Thats just my long opinion /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

~Ashley

Heidi
Nov. 27, 2001, 09:48 PM
I think when a pro shows your horse, and does it well, prior to your own class, it often opens you up to greater scrutiny and criticism.

Really, at the end of the day, had you watched a horse win a class under a pro and then pull rails with its ammie owner, aren't you going to stand there and muse, "egads, what a crappy rider"?

I don't actually see any correlation between a pro showing a horse and any 'unfair' benefits afforded the ammie 2 or 3 days later when they climb aboard for a class. It's still the ammie who has to find the distance and give the horse a decent ride.

That said, A May, I do believe that this is an open BB where discussion is encouraged - don't dismiss others for stating their opinion. It's rude.

A May
Nov. 27, 2001, 10:25 PM
I said my opinion, if you didnt like it then fine. Whatever floats you're boat. I wasnt intending to be rude. I just stated what i thought.

~Ashley

A May
Nov. 27, 2001, 10:27 PM
To comment on saying that i implied to not stating an opinion is wrong. Reread my post, is there anywhere where I said you shouldn't state an opinion? No, i just said it really isn't anyone
s business if a trainer rides a clients horse for them.

~Ashley

pinkhorse
Nov. 28, 2001, 05:04 AM
There are people who want to win. They put their resources into board at fancy barns, having the trainer ride the horse a lot, only riding when they have lessons (or mostly), going to lots of shows, having a pro ride the horse in shows, the trainer warm the horse up, etc so that they have a greater chance of winning, getting points, going to indoors, etc. That's their fun in riding and showing. Great. No problem. That's what the big A shows are designed around. That's what they're there for.

There are those who just enjoy riding and showing. It doesn't really matter if they win at big shows. Fun if it happens. It may not even really matter if they win at little shows. Putting in a good round on your very own horse on whom you've made all the mistakes and the good training is the goal.

But really, pretty rarely, the two meet on equal ground. The problem is that sometimes the latter is a nice pair and wants to go show at an A show, USAEq (god that's an awkward name, AHSA just rolls off the tongue and the fingers so much more poetically don't you think?) rated and maybe be respectable. Problem is that it's just not set up that way. The big shows are open to everyone but the rules are set up in such a way that the advantage goes to the people in the first paragraph. That's ok. They're the ones who really support the business - pay all those pros, pay all those entry fees etc.

The smaller circuits, local circuits are the place for those that don't have the desire or patience or money to put up with the A show scene. There's nothing wrong with that. You probably, actually, have more ability to affect rule changes in those organizations, as well. Yes, you have to put up with the crazy competetive point chasers in every circuit but life's life. No sense, really, in trying to change things on the national level. Hell, they don't even know how to govern themselves!

tle
Nov. 28, 2001, 05:42 AM
Have to say it... will probably get flamed for it, but don't really care.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If you have never chased points for indoors or a circuit title, you wont understand. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the worst thing I've read on this thread. Point chasing? Is that all you show for? Winning, despite what many people seem to think, is NOT the be all end all in life. Yes, I like to win as much as the next person, but perhaps H/J wouldn't be open to so much scrutiny (in terms of substance abuse, etc.) if this idea of Point Chasing wasn't going on... if people WERE in the sport more for the sport than for the kill...er... win. /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

flame away if you must

If Dressage is a Symphony... Eventing is Rock & Roll!

Spunky
Nov. 28, 2001, 06:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Flash44:
What would happen if the trainers just told their students, I'm not getting on your horse. You'll have to learn how to deal with it yourself. I guess the trainers would go broke (now wouldn't THAT be the end of horse showing as we know it), and the riders would see where their weaknesses are and hopefully learn how to fix the problems.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif That trainer would be Mr. Spunky. And yes, he practically IS broke -- but it's what he believes in. (Thank goodness I have a good job that pays the mortgage! Oh wait, I'm one of those amateurs who is married to a pro . . .)

I am forced to ride different horses all the time. 90% of them are green or have issues. The ones that can help take care of me get turned over pretty quickly, and I can't say that constantly dealing with green horses has made me a better show rider. (A better horsewoman and rider in general, yes. Over fences is where I still need more confidence, and ya know what, that doesn't come from the greenies!)

My point is, most people NEED to get on a horse that knows its job. Most horses NEED tuning after a series of amateur rounds. The amateur horse has a job to meet its rider at least half-way, and probably to do 75% of the work. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Obviously, my situation is a little different . . . but I can't tell you how much I envy the people who have a nice horse and can ride it month in, month out, even year after year, and not have to wonder whether or not there'll be a horse to show next week. :sigh:

Heather
Nov. 28, 2001, 06:26 AM
Hey tle, pass that flame-repellent umbrella.

Sorry, I just don't get this either.

On the one hand a bunch of you are saying you should be riding for yourself and not the win (so therefore don't change the ammy rule, etc.) and then you tunr around and defend pros tuning up all the horses and point chasing "because people get in this sport to win". Can someone explain?

SInce I've always evented, and its always been illegal for other peoiple to ride thye horse, I confess I've never understood this particular aspect of hunters. If my horse and I aren't good enough to be competitive, then I usually spend my showing money on lessons, clinics, or schoolings. I do care how well I do--that's why I make sure my horse and I both have the necessary school set required to achieve my goals BEFORE we go to the show. However, for me doing well doesn't necessarily mean getting a ribbon (though that's always nice) it means doing a quiet, accurate dressage test, jumping all the cross-country fences, and leaving all the rails up. If there's no ribbon at the end of the day, fine, but its funny how when you can do all of the above (which is rare) you DO get a ribbon.

Despite what you may think I'm really trying not to bash here, but this whole way of thinking is so foreign to me I am truly mysitifed. I just don't get it--anyone want to help me understand?

DMK
Nov. 28, 2001, 07:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by heidi-ugh:
Really, at the end of the day, had you watched a horse win a class under a pro and then pull rails with its ammie owner, aren't you going to stand there and muse, "egads, what a crappy rider"? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Been there. Done that. Bought the T-shirt. /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Heather, it's kind of hard to explain. I am certainly not a rider who has a trainer get on my horse to school the day of the show.

No - I take that back. Years ago, when I was starting out, I had an OTTB that I effectively made a stopper. Take a good jumping, sensitive horse and throw yourself up on his neck enough, and that is the end result. I really like the horse, and didn't want to sell him and start over, but quite frankly, my confidence was shook with him. It was tough for me to believe he would jump 8, especially if I didn't see the distance correctly. Now, if you aren't sure your horse is going to jump, unless you are a very good rider (see definition of a pro), you are twice as likely to start reaching for his ears. It becomes a self defeating prophecy. So for a few years it was very helpful to ME and my confidence to have my trainer ride him in a class before I did. It didn't do much for Raven, but it gave me the confidence to ride him correctly instead of defensively.

Now what would have really solved the problem (aside from me being born without the ability to create pilot error) would have been to put Raven in full training and let him learn that he should ignore me and jump the damn jumps no matter where the rider was hanging about. I, on the other hand, probably learned MORE about how to ride him by dealing with the problem 365 days a year, and having a trainer sit on him once before I did to help give me the confidence to ride the way I can ride, not the way I did ride...

As for eventers, overall the general skillset that is being tested in competition appears greater, while in hunters it appears to be a smaller skillset that is tested to the nth degree. I personally believe that is only how it appears, not how it is - good hunters require a vast degree of knowledge to develop, and riding an event horse that must be able to do all phases succesfully requires technical precision.

However I think at the lower levels of eventing, a lack of technical precision is more forgiving. Based on my own experiences, where I took my old QH mare who had never evented off to a pre-novice event (yes, I know the sample size is scientifically useless /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif ). We ended up 7th out of 50 and this was pretty much based on the fact that she did her dressage test accurately (not well, but accurately /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) and went forward over all the jumps. Not well, but safely and forward. We certainly would have died if they had been larger or more technical than the novice level, that's for sure. At any rate, I had great fun, felt a real feeling of accomplishment, and just thought it was the best money I could have spent. Who knows, if I hadn't been trailerless and 300 miles from the nearest eventing facility at the time, maybe I would be eventing right now.

Now that same level of showing in the hunters - let's call it pre-childrens/adult, and novice is equivalent to childrens/adult hunters. I gather they are the lifeblood of the eventing industry too? That same level is just as unforgiving of technical precision as the juniors/AOs. If you are not accurate, and your horse is not a good jumper, you are not in the ribbons. It's such a short time in the ring, and the things that are being asked of the horse are such a narrow focus, that the demands (limited as they are) are very high even at the lower levels. Right or wrong, everyone likes to have a feeling of accomplishment. This makes the pressure to get the narrow focus absolutely correct, and I suspect contributes to a lot of well schooled horses.

But I suspect the percentage of people who have a horse schooled by a trainer before their hunter class solely to make sure they have the best possible round is roughly about the same percentage of people who buy an event horse who is a packer at one level above their level, so it can safely and effectively pack them around their course.

Bumpkin
Nov. 28, 2001, 07:13 AM
is the perfect Ammy horse for me.
We love and adore one another, but I would not be enjoying him as much as I am if I didn't have my great trainer work with him acouple days a week.

Since I have put him in training, I can feel so many improvements in how he is on the flat and over fences.

Of course Elliot is a greenie to boot, but even if he wasn't, I know that I would need my trainer to atleast give Elliot a tune up once in awhile.

That does not make me any less or better of a rider. I am still an amateur through and through. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Whenever I screw up and he does well, my trainer tells me, "Thats why you love him" /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"Even though other riders may have more expensive, gorgeous horses doesn't mean they are the perfect match like my Elliot and I" /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

On The Bay
Nov. 28, 2001, 07:18 AM
Heather--as a person who's done both sports, here are my thoughts on your question.

First, the hunter/jumper world is quite different than combined training. In h/j land in order to reach the goal of qualifying for the indoor shows or Devon you must earn points by earning ribbons. In ct you qualify for a CCI by earning clear rounds. The big difference is that in h/j land you must WIN or in other words, beat other people to get those ribbons. In ct you simply have to achieve your own goal of jumping clean. If you jump clean and finish 30th or first, it doesn't matter, you are still one step closer to qualifying for your three-day. CT does have it's own set of point chasers, though. Remember a certain Olympian who took an advanced horse at open preliminary to earn extra points for USCTA awards? It's just magnified in the h/j world.

In h/j land there are those who object to the point-chasing mentality that's allowed SOME of your AHSA horse of the year winners to perhaps not be the BEST horse that year. Instead, the AHSA champion is the horse with the most miles logged on the van (kind of like the Quarter Horses as well).

Others in the h/j world see quality of horses rather than quantity of points as the means to the more important victories. They've created the World Championship Hunter Rider awards program that limits the point chasing and instead awards the QUALITY of the horse in a limited number of competitions.

Some h/j people still believe that winning is everything--after all, that's how you do have to think to qualify for many divisions at the indoor shows. If a pro, especially a struggling or up-and-coming younger person, wants to develop a name or clients qualifying and doing well at the indoor shows is still a way to achieve that goal. I do think the prestige of the AHSA awards has certainly diminished with the advent of the AHJF's programs, but you're always going to have those who want to be national champion, regardless. And saying you got ribbons at Harrisburg or Devon still carries a lot of importance in h/j land.

So, sorry for the long-winded and kind of one-sided explanation. But I hope that helps you see why the pro and amateur relationship is more important in the h/j world. It's just evolved that way and that's why the point-chasing mentality still survives.

Midge
Nov. 28, 2001, 07:21 AM
DMK, you are so smart. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

'If ignorance is bliss, why aren't more people happy?'

Camstock
Nov. 28, 2001, 08:08 AM
Maybe I can help you understand something I have come to understand. First let me say, I'm an eventer/foxhunter, and had been known to occasionally rib my hunter friends about their dependency on their trainers.

Then my husband started wanting to event and foxhunt. I've ridden forever, and though I don't get paid to ride, I have brought along more than a few young horses to be lower level eventers and foxhunters. Then I brought along a draft cross for the hubster and handed over the reins for foxhunting. The horse was steady, confident, pleasant and fit, and the rider was comfortable with the horse.

They had good success and I thought that was that. Yeeha. Let's go hunt together every weekend, hubster-o-mine. After a few hunts I got on the horse at home. Oy. All the buttons were moved! Little relaxation in the back, tension in the jaw, quite a bit more one-sided than when last I rode. Still jumping coops and following hounds, but already moved off-center training-wise.

Then I was in a quandry: do I let the horse keep drifting slightly each hunt? Hubby wouldn't notice--at least not until something bad happened, as I believe it does if you let the little things slide. But if I keep "tuning" the horse, will he ever learn to really ride? I struggled with this for months, but I did keep tuning the horse between hunts, mostly because I think horses stay sound longer if they carry their rider correctly.

Now, about two years later, he not only notices when the horse is out of balance, but he is asking questions about how to help the horse stay correct, and to help re-balance when things start to drift. Maybe it is luck, maybe it is just his personality, maybe I'm such a constant freak about it that it had to rub off, but he is learning to be a useful rider rather than a passenger. The time is coming when the horse won't need weekly tune ups from me. That may be a year or two off yet, but the training wheels will come off. (If I have a problem with tuning by a pro, it is only that it should be viewed as a means to an end, and that end should be rider self-sufficiency and competence. When that happens, competetive success is a foregone conclusion, if that is the goal.)

It would be nice if people were so curious naturally to just keep playing with horses and reading and learning so that they would learn to really ride well. But that isn't usually the case, which has been the hardest thing for me to learn. For many people, the learning curve is steepened when they are handed a well-tuned horse and they sort of screw it up, it gets re-balanced by an accomplished rider, shampoo, rinse, repeat. The difficulty for the rest of us might be to keep the faith that eventually, they notice the difference in the horse and get motivated enough to learn more about how to produce it themselves.

Flash44
Nov. 28, 2001, 08:36 AM
This is the last time I am going to state my position. I am not against trainers showing horses in the pro divisions, or helping students out with tough or misbehaving horses. I am against trainers getting on horses AT SHOWS IN THE DIVISION RIGHT BEFORE THE AMATEUR DIVISION on a REGULAR BASIS to insure the horse is perfect for the amateur. And I have dozens of prize lists with a 3' schooling/low hunter division right before the A/A division.


I have nothing against a horse being campaigned in the green/regular divisions by a pro, and if that division comes before the amateur division, so what. And I have nothing against a trainer getting on a green horse at shows either. But part of horsemanship is learning how to deal with misbehaving horses, and part of being a good amateur horse is learning how to deal with rider errors.

Use the Force.

Kestrel
Nov. 28, 2001, 08:43 AM
I ride with an A Circuit show barn and go to about 12 shows each year. Why do I do that? Because it's fun. I can only justify having a horse and riding at all if it stays fun. If I have a bad fall, I break bones. It has happen at home as well as at shows. So yes, I want my trainer to show my horse the ring and the scary water truck before I get on him. I want my trainer on my daughter's green horse for the same reason. People who ride 8 horses wach day have a different muscle and skill set than those of us lucky to be able to ride 3 times per week.
I am not a talented rider and I have to work hard for my progress. I really resent holier-than-thou attitudes that tell me I shouldn't be riding or showing because I'm not up to your standard of perfection. You go do what works for you and I'll go do what works for me. If you're tasting sour grapes because I feel it's worth it to me to have my trainer do the Lows on my horse, then I feel sorry for you. Life will never be fair. If there is another rider who owns 5 expensive hunters to chose from each week, then that's too bad for me. She'll probably win. But I can go in the ring and have a nice round and still have fun.

Duffy
Nov. 28, 2001, 08:54 AM
Flash, guess you kind of feel like you're beating your head against a wall, eh? It must be different in your neck of the woods. The A shows around here are so packed full of Adults and Childrens that they are usually the ONLY divisions in THOSE rings on THOSE days. Thus, your complaint is a mute point around here.

That said, I still wouldn't have a problem if the schedule worked the way it does in Flash's neck of the woods. If an adult or child needs or wants a professional to ride his/her horse in a division in the same ring/same day/whatever, so be it. I don't believe it makes them a poor sport at all. Nor do I think it's "unfair".

Camstock
Nov. 28, 2001, 09:07 AM
I respect that you probably won't respond to this, and grant that I have long believed exactly what you state. However, I have recently come to the realization that in order to deal with misbehaving horses, one must have a strong baseline of confidence, which comes either from the bravado of youth, or from good experiences on well-behaved horses. Most people are not genetically programmed to giggle when a horse bucks playfully. But this level of confidence and skill can be learned.

Green rider/experienced horse works in the short run, and once the patina has rubbed off the rider, then by all means, hand them a challenge. If a person never chooses to move on to the more challenging horse or division, in order to win yet another little colored piece of satin, they aren't hurting others nearly as much as atrophying their own horsemanship. Its more pathetic than maddening, really.

findeight
Nov. 28, 2001, 09:09 AM
Somebody earlier posted that riding a good horse was easy. Sorry I don't find anything easy about jumping an Adult course in my zone up to 3'3" with the lines more forward then the standard 12'.
There are no pro classes during the week open to the 3' amateur horses-most are restricted to the pre green section entries.
At any rate it makes no difference whether my pro takes a spin first or not I am the one who has to nail the distances, get the lead changes, stop that right drift and look pretty doing it. Most of the time I don't. /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

From Allergy Valley USA

Janet
Nov. 28, 2001, 09:12 AM
DMK said:<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Now, if you aren't sure your horse is going to jump, unless you are a very good rider (see definition of a pro), you are twice as likely to start reaching for his ears. It becomes a self defeating prophecy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Interesting.
I find the opposite effect. If I am riding a horse I think might stop, I am twice as likely to get BEHIND the motion, and thus more likely to get left (slipping the reins of course) than to jump ahead.

I am more likely to jump ahead on a horse that I am SURE is going to jump, but I am not sure whether she is going to jump long or short.

Janet
Nov. 28, 2001, 09:17 AM
Ryan said:<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Maybe they aren't there to learn how to be the best rider, because they are an amatuer, not a pro. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll accept the premise ("some people aren't out there to learn to be the best rider"), though I find it sad.

But I don't accept the stated reason ("because they are an amateur, not a pro").

Why on EARTH would being an amateur mean you don't want to learn to be "the best rider"?

And, at least in my book, "learning to be the best rider" is what MAKES it FUN.

Heather
Nov. 28, 2001, 10:30 AM
Thanks to everyone that replied.

Some of it is a bit more clear, and some of it I still don't get and probably never will.

I have no trouble with the idea of a trainer helping you through problems or rough spots--heck, my last two horses did their first time out at prelim with a professional who had been helping me bring them along--for many of the reasons stated here--that's the maximum level I have competed and I wanted them to have a guaranteed positive expereince their first time. My three-year-old is also at a friend's (who is a pro) place for the next month because we weren't getting him past his balky tendancies quite enough for my satisfaction. So the idea that its working you through a rough patch makes sense, and I don't argue with it.

However, I have seen what Flash is talking about--the perpetual pre-division tuning, and I still don't get it--I agree with Janet, if I weren't constantly trying to improve, then I wouldn't be having any fun. I may never compete above preliminary, but I sure as heck want to learn to ride like I'll be going advanced.

Interestingly, I also know what Camstock is talking about--my hubby is better over fences than I'll ever hope to be, but his knowledge onthe flat is lacking, to say the least. I trained his horse on the flat, and I still ride him one to two days a week to fix the things that hubby "breaks" (and to teach him his next skill set--we're working on lengthenings so he can move up next year). However, I also give hubby "a lesson" once a week where we go over what I do with him and why, and working on improving his feel and expertise. If he wasn't willing to make the effort, I wouldn't keep riding the horse (as much as wathcing his skills deteriorate would kill the DQ control freak in me), because it does no good to only fix one side of the equation. And, as Camstock said, everytime I get on Merlin, there is less and less to fix.

I guess that's the bottom line, of what I don't understand--the prevailing attitude of many (not all, try to keep the flames to a minimum) amateur hunter riders, here and that I have met in the real world, that they can reach a point where they are "good enough". Maybe this is my own personality flaw, but I can't imagine ever reaching that point.

Natty Dread
Nov. 28, 2001, 12:00 PM
Because this in the end is a business....

And if I had a high paying client coming in for a weekend 4-6 class show paying me to get her horse around and not spook and make her happy and keep her alive to keep paying me I would take it in a class before her too!!!

I am not a trainer, don't even show anymore but let me tell you I would want to be able to come in without a worry in the world and get around and have a good time if I worked 40 some odd hours a week and this was my diversion. Why would I want to worry about having a fresh horse or a spook or whatnot when all I have is 2 very short days to enjoy myself with?

Not everybody is that lucky to be able to just go out and ride at any hour of the day and work on every little detail when they are in a professional field outside of horses. And alot of the people doing it have trainers that may be in Florida for 10 weeks while they are strapped to desks in Manhattan and can get outta town for a mere 48 hours to enjoy themselves. Get it? Not so difficult to comprehend.

DMK
Nov. 28, 2001, 12:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Janet:
Interesting. I find the opposite effect. If I am riding a horse I think might stop, I am twice as likely to get BEHIND the motion, and thus more likely to get left (slipping the reins of course) than to jump ahead.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What could I possibly say, other than I stand humbled before your riding expertise...

Heather - yes, ultimately there are a lot less independent types in the hunter world. But that is probably more like a reflection on their personality. Maybe if it got regulated out of the sport, they would go find another sport to spend their money one, and it is probably why they don't choose to event.

But there are plenty of people in the sport who do have pros on their horses for valid reasons that don't have a lot to do with being overly dependent on the trainer. Lord knows, I could certainly stand to be a tad more dependent on a trainer... Maybe I could start by having one located closer than 600 miles away? /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Flash, I respect that you don't care for people who have a trainer school their horse before the class. From my point of view, it really doesn't change how well (or badly) I ride, if the whole damn class except for me had a good school before the class, so I honestly don't pay it much attention. But if your opinion is that they should prohibit anyone other than the trainer from riding the day of the competition or during the competition, I have to vehemently disagree in that a rule like that would stop 20% of the people from abusing the ammy concept, and unfairly punish the other 80% who don't abuse the rule and have other reasons for letting a pro ride their horse.

After years of working with regulators, rules/laws that govern the lowest common denominator are almost always a bad idea for everyone, including the poor schmucks who have to enforce it!

Lucassb
Nov. 28, 2001, 12:20 PM
As an aside... we were talking last night about how many components there could be to create a "perfectly fair" division...

Hmmm.

New ammy divisions, offered not only by fence height (3" increments of course, because it's not fair to have to move up 6" at a time!)

Splits:
By cost of horse ... under $10k, over 10k but under $25k... 25-50k etc. Special rules for how to allow for trade-ins.
By cost of pro... incl. lessons or pro rides... Clinics to be accounted for separately.
By number of times you can show in a year...
(subdivided by AA shows, A shows, B shows, local circuits...)
By number of times per week you can ride, (allowances for geographic location/ weather/outdoor ring lights/avail. of indoor facility...)
By whether or not you have a trust fund (big, medium, small) or have to work (split by income level; bring your tax return or W2)
By brand of saddle, type of pad ... brand of rider attire...

Sorry, just couldn't resist /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

**********
To appreciate heaven well
'Tis good for a man to have some fifteen minutes of hell.
Will Carleton (1845-1912)

Heather
Nov. 28, 2001, 12:24 PM
Natty--Get it? Yes, I suppose I understand what you are aysing, I just don't see it from my perspective. Sorry, I guess its just two different mentalities.

I work 40-50 hours a week too, and while I do have some freedom for when I ride (I only have to be in the office 2 days a week), up until this spring I worked a regular 9-5 shift like everyone else with a 45 minute one-way commute.

For me, the continued learning journey was always more important. Showing and doing well was a goal, but I just can't imagione that goal being somehow seperated from a consistent desire to progress in my riding. It's more fun for me to master a new skill, than hump around at novice forever winning ribbons. Just a difference in outlook, I guess.

Natty Dread
Nov. 28, 2001, 12:36 PM
I worked for years as a "professional" polo groom. I was paid well too for the time I put in. Basically everything was my reponsibility. I had guys that spent some major dinero on some really nice horses and it was up to me to ride them, school them, and yes play them for them when they couldn't get away from the office. Sure they could have used many more hours in the saddle to make them better but the time they had free was so precious to them that all they wanted to do was use it for tournament games. This was their hobby, their pastime. Their "golf" shall we say. My butt was sorely in need of less saddle time but I understood that when they came out all they wanted to do was forget about their wives, their jobs, their kids, and their "real" life. They came to enjoy the moment. I was paid to make that happen...much like pros are paid to make it happen for their clients. This concept cannot be that hard to grasp. We are all divided into the haves and the don't haves.

Magnolia
Nov. 28, 2001, 12:38 PM
All this agony and hardship for a $.50 piece of fabric! What would happened if they had good prize money and neato prizes like the western people get?

The witchy witch witch of south central NC.

DMK
Nov. 28, 2001, 12:39 PM
No no no, lucassb!!! I have to protest on your tax bracket split!!

I require - no, I DEMAND that we split it by income levels AND percentage of people paying more/less taxes than you. For instance, if I must compete against those in my tax bracket, I do not want to be unfairly saddled (pun intended) against those that pay less taxes than I!!!

I mean those people are clearly earning more money than I and obviously have an unfair advantage. Plus it just plain annoys me to death when turbotax tells me that 80% of the people in my income bracket pay less taxes than I do. Bad enough I have to deal with it one time a year. Competing against them would just be TOO much!! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

lauriep
Nov. 28, 2001, 12:52 PM
MHO is this:

The shows already are "over divisioned" and the last thing they need are more ways to please EVERYONE. Having come back after 20 years away, I was amazed (and somewhat appalled) at how many divisions had been added to seemingly please everyone.

The world is not a fair place; why should horse show classes be otherwise? AHSA and show management seem to be trying, via the rules, to respond to as many ideas as possible. But the fact is that there are always going to be people winning that you may object to, for their methods, for their connections, for their $$, for their trainers, etc. I think JBO has the right attitude: if you CHOOSE (and it is a choice) to show at the top A shows, then you must accept that your resources may not be up to the same level as some of your competition. And be that much more thrilled when you beat 'em.

That said, the other part of the issue must be more policing of existing rules and enforcement by the competitors. If you know that someone is truly abusing the rules, protest. That is what the system is for and you may make a new enemy, at least for awhile, but in the long run, the sport will be the better for it. Just be sure you have facts, not innuendo.

The amateurs is a division where you really can win if you are a good rider on a good-jumping horse, even if you don't have mega-bucks, and your horse is self-trained. Or if you do have the bucks and can afford to fly in for 48 hours and ride a well groomed, well schooled horse around eight jumps, 3-4 times. If you can find 32 good distances, well, good on ya, however you got there!

Laurie

Lucassb
Nov. 28, 2001, 01:07 PM
Excellent point! I didn't think about the additional tax issues. Definitely, another split is in order.

Also, I am thinking that the issue of HELP must be addressed. Maybe splits for paid professional help (one groom/groom plus braider/groom plus braider plus personal assistant) and amateur help (separate sections for "friendly" ie, unrelated help, related help- adult, related help - child, related help - spouse or SO...)

**********
To appreciate heaven well
'Tis good for a man to have some fifteen minutes of hell.
Will Carleton (1845-1912)

Flash44
Nov. 28, 2001, 01:41 PM
DMK - I know you don't really think I don't care for PEOPLE who have trainers school their horses right before their division. I love everyone! It's the practice I find distastefull.

We are all entitled to our opinions, and I will continue to feel the way I do. I think I feel so strongly about the issue because it is the "amateur" division, meaning the horse should be suitable for an amateur to ride. A horse that MUST be riddern by a pro before the amateur gets on is not, IMHO, suitable for an amateur. I'm NOT referring to young, green inexperienced horses, but the ones that campaign regularly like this.

Use the Force.

Janet
Nov. 28, 2001, 02:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> What could I possibly say, other than I stand humbled before your riding expertise... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not in the least.

I may be good at riding actual and potential stoppers (I have several time related the story of how, in my PC "B" testing, I got round clear on the horse that no-one else, including the owner, could get over without at least one stop at every fence).
But I stand humbled before your clear ability to ride a hunter course (find eight, maintain a steady pace, get all the changes, etc.).

DMK
Nov. 28, 2001, 03:25 PM
Flash - you are right, it was wrong of me to phrase it that way - "practice" it is! (I should take a page out of my own book - "it's not the people it's the issue")

Janet - who on earth lied to you and told you that I could find eight????

Janet
Nov. 28, 2001, 03:38 PM
VTrider, for one.

DMK
Nov. 28, 2001, 03:42 PM
oh honey chile, no one listens to that WalMart shopping, cowboy lusting, Sea Urchin Fan Club President!!!

JBO
Nov. 28, 2001, 04:11 PM
LucassB and DMK - what if you were qualified for several different divisions? Maybe there could be a point system where tax bracket A earns x, income earns y, and so on........ I certainly wouldn't be at the top of the income divison, and I do have limited riding time, rarely a groom, but I would hate for my nice tack to ruin my chance at the other division............ something to think about /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

findeight
Nov. 28, 2001, 04:16 PM
I sure never find eight. The one time I did I blew a lead.
Let me restate that alot of you are generalizing about the adult amateurs at the AA level shows you do not ever compete in so be careful. Pro riders taking a turn guarantee nothing to the next rider except a safer trip (maybe).
Many of you are also looking through much younger eyes and may not be aware of the health challenges facing those in the 46+group, a bad fall is catastrophic but we still want to ride and compete. Some still do all their own work with the horse because they have either stopped working or work few hours. The rest of us find that despite all mental tricks our bodies cannot do both the heavy career load and ride every day like even a 35 year old can.
Many of us have spent a lifetime riding. I used to break colts, part of why I now rely on a pro to keep me safe.
I really do not see that many older adults take the horse after the trainer does a low and win. Most ride their own in both and ribbon in both.
Just because we choose to take advantage of some extra help does not mean we are incompetent riders or cheat.
Just that we are older and wiser and hurt worse.

From Allergy Valley USA

DMK
Nov. 28, 2001, 04:20 PM
JBO, may I state unequivocally that Butets and Hadfield bridles shall have no bearing on the division one shows in, however those wearing Pateys are at an unfair advantage.

Flash44
Nov. 28, 2001, 06:05 PM
Findeight, thanks for making me feel young! Although I've been lying on the floor with a bad back all week unable to ride.

What about a thong division? I imagine the strength and fitness of your derriere has a lot to do with your ability to get that recalcitrant steed around a course, and all that work probably shapes it up nicely. Who do you think would volunteer at the ingate to check and make sure every rider was wearing a thong? Do I hear Mr. Flash stampeding over old ladies and children to be first in line?

Actually, I shouldn't make fun of him. He brought me a dozen roses today for no apparent reason. I don't THINK it's my birthday, and his car doesn't seem to have any new dents in it.

Use the Force.

Duffy
Nov. 28, 2001, 06:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Flash44:

Actually, I shouldn't make fun of him. He brought me a dozen roses today for no apparent reason. I don't THINK it's my birthday, and his car doesn't seem to have any new dents in it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Ok, Flash! I take back all the nice thoughts I ever had about you. Not only is Mr. Flash adorable and horsey, but he BRINGS YOU FLOWERS for NO apparent reason???? /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif Talk about NOT FAIR!!!!! /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I can think of plenty of times when someone should have brought me flowers, yet neglected to do so, let alone your situation. /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

And we won't even comment on that thong observation!!! /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Ok - rant done for now! LOLOL /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Midge
Nov. 29, 2001, 05:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Flash44:
Who do you think would volunteer at the ingate to check and make sure every rider was wearing a thong? Do I hear Mr. Flash stampeding over old ladies and children to be first in line?

Use the Force.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Mr. Flash appears to be out of practice. Mr. Midge has already set up the inspection box. You know, mirrors, champagne, Barry White. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Hey, I only said he had good taste in women! /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

'If ignorance is bliss, why aren't more people happy?'

Lucassb
Nov. 29, 2001, 08:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> LucassB and DMK - what if you were qualified for several different divisions? Maybe there could be a point system where tax bracket A earns x, income earns y, and so on........ I certainly wouldn't be at the top of the income divison, and I do have limited riding time, rarely a groom, but I would hate for my nice tack to ruin my chance at the other division............ <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very valid concerns.

Tack is certainly NOT going to be one of the components of the new rating system. Hmmm, I would even argue that Pateys should be allowed without bias (OK, that's out of self interest... but the principle is the same!)

So - the fact that we can dress ourselves and/or our horses LIKE winners shall have NO BEARING on the division one is qualified to compete in. However, we have not yet addressed another, related issue...

Of course, I am talking about jewelry. Particularly jewelry on the left hand of the rider in question.

Should there be a separate division, divided by carat weight, for "With ROCKS" and "Without ROCKS"?

Methinks the answer is YES.

**********
To appreciate heaven well
'Tis good for a man to have some fifteen minutes of hell.
Will Carleton (1845-1912)

RumoursFollow
Nov. 29, 2001, 09:13 AM
I have no more need to comment on this thread, DMK you are my idol!! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Love,
RF
(Currently @ home from school with 2 broken ribs and a mild concussion- gotta love those greenies! Especially the ones that dont even belong to you! /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif )

-----------------------------
I cant take it anymore - its
back to the old name for me.
-----------------------------

Bumpkin
Nov. 29, 2001, 09:42 AM
Does this mean you get your horse RF back??? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

pinkhorse
Nov. 29, 2001, 09:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by magnolia:
All this agony and hardship for a $.50 piece of fabric! What would happened if they had good prize money and neato prizes like the western people get?

The witchy witch witch of south central NC.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Last AQHA show I went to they gave away plastic cups (without even a logo on it) in the appropriate color instead of ribbons. Neato!

(But the incentive fund money is good!)

pinkhorse
Nov. 29, 2001, 09:56 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lucassb:
Of course, I am talking about jewelry. Particularly jewelry on the left hand of the rider in question.

Should there be a separate division, divided by carat weight, for "With ROCKS" and "Without ROCKS"?

Methinks the answer is YES.

QUOTE]

That's the reason we call the A/O's the "big ring" division for the adults.
/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Oh, and lots of little rocks that may add up to a big rock doesn't count. It has to be that you can't wear a glove... /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

RumoursFollow
Nov. 29, 2001, 10:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bumpkin:
Does this mean you get your horse RF back??? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


You mean because I changed my name back?? No.. I did that because of peer pressure, and because certain members of the VA Clique refused to recognize my name change. /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

-----------------------------
I cant take it anymore - its
back to the old name for me.
-----------------------------

Bumpkin
Nov. 29, 2001, 10:13 AM
Oh maybe I will get to go in A/O afterall!!!

Although my Rock is a lovely Ruby, bought by Mr Bumpkin from the Estate of a dead English Aristocrate. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JBO
Nov. 29, 2001, 03:48 PM
Patey issue - of course, self serving for those such as myself with the ghetto Patey - the Beagler!

Agree with the big ring splits as gloves can fit over mine, though it does poke out a little......

Glad to hear the tack won't count against me - we can at least dress ourselves and the horses like we know what we are doing!!

RF - hope you're feeling better- I've had similar incidences, although embarassing to say the mild concussion was due to an unfortunate incident with a table at work.......... never said I was graceful. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Flash44
Nov. 30, 2001, 08:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lucassb:

Should there be a separate division, divided by carat weight, for "With ROCKS" and "Without ROCKS"?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Otherwise known as "Stallions" and "Geldings."

/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Use the Force.