[Alternative1]

Would that mean we would get to do away with the $150-200 nominating fee per show also if there was no prize money in jr/ao classes?

[supershorty628]

Would that mean we would get to do away with the $150-200 nominating fee per show also if there was no prize money in jr/ao classes?

I think that would be a possibility. But again, he did propose the idea of capping money too, as an alternative to just getting rid of it entirely.

[grandprixjump]

Instead of capping or doing away with the money (which you know show organizers are not going to do) putting restrictions on who can be in the classics. Cap amount of money on horse rider combinations and Especially if your riding at the GP level, you can't step down to that level on the same horse. No horses capable and showing at 1.4m and above cross entered into 1.0m classics. And make the no cross entries viable for 30 days before and after the class. That way they are either ammies or not, none of this switch hitting and screwing up the classics for REAL ammies...

[GingerJumper]

As usual, I agree with supershorty. I'm looking at the prize $$ I'll be trying to win as a pro, and looking at the money I can win now in junior classes, and wondering why anyone would want to show as a pro.

I did just read something interesting on the eventing forum in a thread about shamateurs. The poster proposed that we just do away with ammy/pro status, and only have junior/not junior divisions. That would eliminate shamateurs, make prize money more fair... just something interesting to think about.

[k_lee85]

I did just read something interesting on the eventing forum in a thread about shamateurs. The poster proposed that we just do away with ammy/pro status, and only have junior/not junior divisions. That would eliminate shamateurs, make prize money more fair... just something interesting to think about.

How would ammies competing against pros be more fair? That is fundamentally unfair. And I kind of don't get this whole attitude that pros deserve to be making extra money in the form of prizes...if you are a decent pro, you should be earning money just by showing, having clients, etc as that is your job, right? Ammies aren't making money just by being there, they are losing it. Seems crazy to take away what little chance they have of recouping some of that expense.

[GingerJumper]

How would ammies competing against pros be more fair? That is fundamentally unfair. And I kind of don't get this whole attitude that pros deserve to be making extra money in the form of prizes...if you are a decent pro, you should be earning money just by showing, having clients, etc as that is your job, right? Ammies aren't making money just by being there, they are losing it. Seems crazy to take away what little chance they have of recouping some of that expense.

That wasn't the point, and I wasn't saying that was the way to fix it, it was just an idea. It'd be more fair in my mind because then all adults would be eligible to show in the same divisions.

It wouldn't be taking more money away from ammies and juniors if entry fees were reduced with the prize money, and it definitely wouldn't be taking more away if the ammy and pro divisions were combined.

[hntrjmprpro45]

With a competitive sport, it would seem highly logical to have money increase with increasing difficulty and at the same time, have MORE money in the open classes vs amateur. That would help to eliminate the shamateurs as right now there are way too many incentives to try to keep (even by cheating) your amateur status.

[BABYGREENTB]

That wasn't the point, and I wasn't saying that was the way to fix it, it was just an idea. It'd be more fair in my mind because then all adults would be eligible to show in the same divisions.

It wouldn't be taking more money away from ammies and juniors if entry fees were reduced with the prize money, and it definitely wouldn't be taking more away if the ammy and pro divisions were combined.

That would completely eliminate any incentive at all for the vast majority of amateurs to show at all. I have a nice young horse who could likely be competitive in most company with a good pro, but I would have little chance of ever getting a ribbon if I had to show against those same pros. I have a 55-65 hour/week job, 2 kids, and a hubby - how (and why) on earth could/would I ever compete against someone who rides professionally? To take it another step further, my horse goes to shows with my pro to get ready for me to show her. Without any chance of ever really being successful, I sure wouldn't be spending the money for someone to be getting her ready via the pro divisions. IMO, a proposal like that completely drives the working amateur out of the sport.

[Christa P]

How would ammies competing against pros be more fair? That is fundamentally unfair. And I kind of don't get this whole attitude that pros deserve to be making extra money in the form of prizes...if you are a decent pro, you should be earning money just by showing, having clients, etc as that is your job, right? Ammies aren't making money just by being there, they are losing it. Seems crazy to take away what little chance they have of recouping some of that expense.

The divistions could be set up similar to eventing - Open, Horse, Rider, and Junior divisions at each level.

Open - anybody can enter, no restrictions

Horse - Horse has not competed at a higher level in the past X years, no restriction on the rider.

Rider - Rider has not competed at a higher level in the past X years, no restriction on the horse.


Junior - Riders under 18

If enough people were interested there could also be a limit division - Horse AND Rider have not competed at a higher level in X years.


Easier to keep track of, no restrictions on how your paying for the horse and shows, just keep records on the levels the horses and riders have been competing at.

Christa

[Pennywell Bay]

[QUOTE=GingerJumper;6798561]I'm looking at the prize $$ I'll be trying to win as a pro, and looking at the money I can win now in junior classes, and wondering why anyone would want to show as a pro.
QUOTE]

Not being snarky, but show as a pro to get one's name out,gain clients and getting paid for all that showing a clients horse entails, without footing the bill for the vast majority. Ammys pay their own way and for all their expenses. Just saying. No dog in this fight.

[Beam Me Up]

Just to clarify on the eventing point, eventing doesn't usually have amateur divisions (it is possible, introduced only a few years ago, but almost no shows offer that--they divide by experience instead). We only usually see it for year-end awards. So it would be less of a structural change to our show system to eliminate it than it would be to h/j.

[k_lee85]

I have a 55-65 hour/week job, 2 kids, and a hubby - how (and why) on earth could/would I ever compete against someone who rides professionally? To take it another step further, my horse goes to shows with my pro to get ready for me to show her. Without any chance of ever really being successful, I sure wouldn't be spending the money for someone to be getting her ready via the pro divisions. IMO, a proposal like that completely drives the working amateur out of the sport.

Thank you. I get the sense that some (many?) pros don't have the same job description in mind as the people who pay for their services. Most amateurs seem to think that the pros are working FOR THEM, where the pros see their job as finding people to pay for them to become an elite rider. Like it or not, horse shows are more of a business than a sport. The juniors/amateurs keep the whole thing afloat, and sorry, but most don't care about a given pro's self-serving desire to reach the highest levels in sport.

[Anticipation]

What needs to be noted is that the amateurs, juniors, parents of these jr/ams, etc. are in the majority of those paying to support this sport. We are the ones buying the horses, paying the entry fees, paying the trainers, etc.

If you take away our incentive to show, then you take away our incentive to buy horses, to take lessons, to train with the pros.

Like I said in a previous post, I agree that pros could stand to make more prize money in some classes (though they do have the huge derbies and jumper classes at HITS with great prize money), but these pros do get paid at the end of the day. Some of us work solely to pay our trainers and horse expenses. I certainly couldn't afford to compete at as many horse shows if the prize money wasn't so generous.

[JustJumpIt87]

HITS had over 80 entries in a $10k child/adult classic last summer. Only 12 will get a piece of it, but at least they have a shot. If you take away that money, you will lose most of those entries. The trainers will lose because their clients won't go. Some very talented trainers don't even ride. I don't think they care about prize money for the open horses. They need their clients, and their clients want prize money. Very simple.

Find sponsors for more pro classes, but don't reduce, or limit what the bread and butter of this sport deserves.

[Linny]

That would completely eliminate any incentive at all for the vast majority of amateurs to show at all. I have a nice young horse who could likely be competitive in most company with a good pro, but I would have little chance of ever getting a ribbon if I had to show against those same pros. I have a 55-65 hour/week job, 2 kids, and a hubby - how (and why) on earth could/would I ever compete against someone who rides professionally? To take it another step further, my horse goes to shows with my pro to get ready for me to show her. Without any chance of ever really being successful, I sure wouldn't be spending the money for someone to be getting her ready via the pro divisions. IMO, a proposal like that completely drives the working amateur out of the sport.

The fact is that the massise bulk of ammys showing at A shows don't get any prize money. The prize money distributed to only a small percentage of ammys. In fact many of us would prefer a B or C level shows but our trainers do the A's and so we go and pay massive fees and ride against horses and riders we have no shot against, but our fees pay for those prizes. For most of us, we consider it a "winning" ride if we had our horse's best ever trip and were no place near a ribbon. If prize money were the draw, none of us would be there.

[wildlifer]

Sorry, this eventer is still stuck back where YOU WIN MONEY AT SHOWS? Hahahahahhahahhahahaha. (Laughter of incredulity) I get....oh wait, nothing. I just love my sport and the journey. I often ride against pros, we never have amateur classes where I am and I hope they never do -- of course, our sport is much more objective than the hunters. So I lost to Michael Plumb, so what? He could have a bad day and I could beat him too, gives me incentive to keep working! But I guess I am not a ribbon chaser. You can still chase ammy points for end of year awards, but.....wait, you get money at a show???

[BABYGREENTB]

The fact is that the massise bulk of ammys showing at A shows don't get any prize money. The prize money distributed to only a small percentage of ammys. In fact many of us would prefer a B or C level shows but our trainers do the A's and so we go and pay massive fees and ride against horses and riders we have no shot against, but our fees pay for those prizes. For most of us, we consider it a "winning" ride if we had our horse's best ever trip and were no place near a ribbon. If prize money were the draw, none of us would be there.

I'm not saying that prize money is the draw - my post was in response to the person who mentioned the idea of only differentiating classes along Junior/Open lines and eliminating the Amateur divisions. Prize money is certainly not a huge draw for me (as a very mediocre A/A hunter rider), but the chance to be successful in my division and win some ribbons is. Throw me in with the pros, and I pretty much completely lose that chance, and thus, any incentive to show at all/send my horse to shows.

[winter]

I typed out a long, detailed response that my computer ate. :SOB
The summary:
I don't care what prize money is, as long as I am rewarded, in proportion to my entry fee, for winning a class at every level. I hate that I subsidise the pro divisions when I work so damn hard, all day at work and all night until 11 at the barn just to get in my few shows/year. Then I go to a show, pay $150 to enter a stake class, WIN the class with 10 entries and win $75.
I am ALL for lower prize money, more prize money, whatever, as long as first place is AT LEAST as much as I paid to enter the class.

[BABYGREENTB]

Sorry, this eventer is still stuck back where YOU WIN MONEY AT SHOWS? Hahahahahhahahhahahaha. (Laughter of incredulity) I get....oh wait, nothing. I just love my sport and the journey. I often ride against pros, we never have amateur classes where I am and I hope they never do -- of course, our sport is much more objective than the hunters. So I lost to Michael Plumb, so what? He could have a bad day and I could beat him too, gives me incentive to keep working! But I guess I am not a ribbon chaser. You can still chase ammy points for end of year awards, but.....wait, you get money at a show???

You could argue that the comparative cost of events is significantly lower than the h/j shows. Often, the prize money in the A/A & A/O classes is just enough to cover entries and doesn't even begin to touch the massive trainer bills we pay in addition to entries. And that's only if you win.

[BABYGREENTB]

Thank you. I get the sense that some (many?) pros don't have the same job description in mind as the people who pay for their services. Most amateurs seem to think that the pros are working FOR THEM, where the pros see their job as finding people to pay for them to become an elite rider. Like it or not, horse shows are more of a business than a sport. The juniors/amateurs keep the whole thing afloat, and sorry, but most don't care about a given pro's self-serving desire to reach the highest levels in sport.

Exactly. I love my trainer - and if I won the lottery, I would gladly do more to support her career and ascension as a rider. Even in my relatively low station in life and moderate show budget, I love watching my horse show with a pro. It's immensely gratifying to see her do well. However, I watch & pay the bills & get so much satisfaction because I know it's all making my mare a better horse for me. Not because it's a good opportunity for the pro.