Announcement

Collapse

Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

1. You're responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the Forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it--details of personal disputes may be better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts, though are not legally obligated to do so, regardless of content.

Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting. Moderators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts unless they have been alerted and have determined that a post, thread or user has violated the Forums' policies. Moderators do not regularly independently monitor the Forums for such violations.

Profanity, outright vulgarity, blatant personal insults or otherwise inappropriate statements will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

Users may provide their positive or negative experiences with or opinions of companies, products, individuals, etc.; however, accounts involving allegations of criminal behavior against named individuals or companies MUST be first-hand accounts and may NOT be made anonymously.

If a situation has been reported upon by a reputable news source or addressed by law enforcement or the legal system it is open for discussion, but if an individual wants to make their own claims of criminal behavior against a named party in the course of that discussion, they too must identify themselves by first and last name and the account must be first-person.

Criminal allegations that do not satisfy these requirements, when brought to our attention, may be removed pending satisfaction of these criteria, and we reserve the right to err on the side of caution when making these determinations.

Credible threats of suicide will be reported to the police along with identifying user information at our disposal, in addition to referring the user to suicide helpline resources such as 1-800-SUICIDE or 1-800-273-TALK.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it's understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users' profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Horses -- Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it's related to a horse for sale, regardless of who's selling it, it doesn't belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions -- Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Services -- Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

Products -- While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

Event Announcements -- Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be "bumped" excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues -- Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators' discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the �alert� button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your �Ignore� list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you'd rather avoid reading.

7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user's membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 5/9/18)
See more
See less

Karl Cook - Fixing horse shows

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #41
    [QUOTE=Horsehusband;n10702433]


    This is one of the biggest issues I see holding the sport back. Minimal accommodations have been made for the working adult amateurs or working parents who more or less fund the sport. Horseshows should be more weekend focused. Additionally maybe all these show companies that run 8-10 week shows should offer better flexibility and/packages for folks that want to show multiple weeks but can’t do it consecutively.

    Example. Create Discount packages based on the number of weeks a person will be showing. For a 10 weeks show maybe have a 3 week, 5 week, and 10 week package which in theory should get cheaper the more shows you sign up for.

    Additionally investment is show software for add/scratch, registration and all of that should be utilized more to eliminate paid office staff. Folks again should be incentivized to use it by getting some kind of discount.[\QUOTE]

    They don't need to give incentives, people already pay full price.
    Blugal

    You never know what kind of obsessive compulsive crazy person you are until another person imitates your behaviour at a three-day. --Gry2Yng

    Comment


      #42
      I really feel we need shorter shows. My show bill at the end of the week is expensive, but what's worse is my trainer's bill. I don't begrudge them, days at the show are brutally long. What if we had 3 day shows instead, with a pro division Friday and smaller adult/junior divisions Saturday and Sunday... wouldn't we all be better off? ESPECIALLY the horses? Could we chill out with the over-the-top setups and have things be a bit more casual and focused on the sport?

      I wish shows specialized more. Have an entry level week. Have a smaller number of rings. Allow folks starting in the sport to get out of ring 12 with bad footing into a nice ring. Next week do the intermediates... etc. Or just do jumpers like Split Rock. This would also allow you to put on shows at more facilities, since you wouldn't need 8 rings, you could make do with two. Do a two day show of just open classes during the week so trainers can take young horses to get mileage but who don't need fancy amenities.

      Obviously, this would require changing the mileage rule, which looks pretty locked in place despite a freaking pandemic.

      Comment


        #43
        People have already said this, but the European model is really something that needs to be considered more. Non-horse people watch show jumping and dressage, ffs, on television there. I love dressage, but even I can't imagine watching it on TV for any length of time. And yet, they have a different relationship to horses in many European countries than we do, their shows are cheaper and shorter so they are more accessible to more competitors, and more people find entertainment in watching them.

        For the past several weeks I've been watching pre-quar GPs and things like the World Cup Finals in Gothenburg, and even smaller 2 and 3* classes, for fun and to hone some of my own skills. The European ones are always better-attended and better-hyped than the American ones.

        This isn't rocket science, but it would take some work to see our sport differently and present it non-horse people in a way that would engage them as spectators. We don't seem capable or even willing to do that work.
        You can take a line and say it isn't straight- but that won't change its shape. Jets to Brazil

        Comment


          #44
          Originally posted by Gamma View Post

          I don't think this is really apples to apples, even if a soccer club is $$$, most people get at least some exposure to "kick a ball" for free in school and the soccer obsessed kid can kick a ball around the yard/parking lot/living room/sidewalk during every waking hour for basically free. All you need for a game is a couple of kids, a little space, and anything at all that can be moved into goals. And at least a few of these kids will become pretty good just through free practice.

          Horses, there is no free practice. You can't play for five minutes while waiting for the bus. Most parents can't tell the kids to go play with the horse to get them out from underfoot. Even if you own a horse, going to the barn is kind of an ordeal. You can't ride a horse at recess.
          It’s true you can’t exactly go practice riding horses waiting for the bus. But, there definitely is free practice. Many instructors will exchange ride time for barn chores. And older kids regularly hang out at the barn just be around horses and out of mom and dads hair.
          Riding is not exactly soccer, or football. Most of those sports are 4-5 days a week. But riding lessons are not as expensive as it’s been portrayed in the past.

          Comment


            #45
            Originally posted by Tiramit View Post

            While I agree with you in spirit that yes, anyone could physically ride if their heart is set on it, the truth is that everyone cannot ride due to accessibility and financial constraints. Taking lessons isn't exactly cheap--if there's even a barn nearby--and there aren't as many horse shows within a reasonable driving distance as there used to be. Certainly not multi-ring shows where a novice spectator could find a seat and enjoy quality competition for an afternoon. One really has to have a combination of desire, funds, and an ability to get to the barn on a regular basis to ride today.

            Once there he or she will likely have their competitive hopes dashed when they find out how much money and travel time has to be invested just to compete at a single rated show. That rider who won the QH Congress freestyle likely didn't retire from a middle management job at a smaller company. That 50 year old who picked up show jumping and is competing against Beezie and McLain isn't working a 9-5 with an average salary.

            Today's competitive h/j world is not set up for the majority of working amateurs and parents. Most people simply can't regularly give days to a week of vacation and thousands of dollars to a single show, let alone the costs of purchasing the necessary horse and equipment leading up to it. Many couldn't do it once. The divide between the average person and the horse show world seems to grow with each passing year and, sadly, the governing bodies don't seem too concerned about that shift. So, to your point, "showing the public" probably won't come from the top down, yet that's precisely who Karl is suggesting should accept these sponsorships.

            The question to which we're already seeing an answer through today's low spectator numbers is why the masses would want to support a sport that is so blatantly set up to exclude them? The follow-up is why would a sponsor want to spend money on a sport that doesn't have the masses? The ROI as the show world stands today simply isn't there.
            I think you've taken my statement to mean that everyone can afford to compete on the circuit. That isn't what i am saying. What I am saying is that most middle class people can afford to take a lesson or two a week. The cost of that lesson is less than many people spend on coffee in a week. And, if we put an emphasis on making showing cheaper, they definitely could afford to go to a local rated show once or twice a year. Which we should be able to do.

            Not every person is going to (or even wants to) go jump a GP. But unlike other sports, it is totally possible for a 40 year old nurse who has had a kid and doesn't ride 7 days a week to buy a horse and compete under the lights at a big show. Heck, there are some ammies on here that have normal jobs but save up to compete in a few big classes every year.

            IMO, the horse community and USEF need to:
            - advertise. We need more general ads targeting people outside of the horse community.
            - Inform the public about the horse shows and events. Get them in the local papers and magazines that talk about weekly events. Invite food trucks, local business vendors, etc to come and set up on the grounds and tell the public about it.
            - Advertise and be more welcoming to non-white communities. Not only is it just the right thing to do, as a whole the community is ignoring a huge part of the population.
            - Reduce fees, in general, both from USEF and USHJA and from the show costs themselves.
            - sponsorships from large and small companies. Local companies can sponsor small jackpot rounds and derbies at local rated shows. A $200 2 ft derby would draw a huge number of entries and get that local company a lot of PR. Larger companies can sponsor the show and get benefits such as being an exclusive vendor of their product (Ex: acqua panna sponsors and is only water served).

            We need to get creative if we don't want horseback riding to go the way of the Dodo bird.




            Comment


              #46
              I think it's ridicules that the ch/ad jumpers don't have prize money at most shows. These classes almost always have the largest number of entries. The hunters jumping at the lower levels have prize money, why not the jumpers? I get that there are no nominations fee's but still, at shows I have been to there can be 40+ entries in this jumping for nothing and 8 people jumping around for $2,500.

              Comment


                #47
                Originally posted by StormyDay View Post
                What I am saying is that most middle class people can afford to take a lesson or two a week. The cost of that lesson is less than many people spend on coffee in a week. And, if we put an emphasis on making showing cheaper, they definitely could afford to go to a local rated show once or twice a year. Which we should be able to do.
                The bold in the above is my doing.

                What you've suggested could work, if the "we" actually cared to make a change. That's the heart of the issue, "we" (as in the governing bodies such as the USEF) have zero interest in making the sport more affordable. They do not care if the masses have access to shows. They don't care if the average working amateur who has ridden all her life and used to show, shows now. Actually it seems like they'd rather the masses and lessor amateurs kept away from the show ring.

                As expected, these governing bodies have total control over rated shows. This translates into their willfully supporting the harmful mileage rule that prevents fair market competition within the shows and disallows rated shows in close enough proximity to minimize rider / horse travel. They've tacked on or enabled additional fees, and have membership requirements that add to the rider's bill. There's more, but this alone is enough to have helped push showing to its current grotesquely expensive state. We can (and have for years) about the prices. It all falls on deaf ears.

                Perhaps lessons around you are more affordable than around me? Here if one has any desire to show at a rated show and is a beginner, they'd have to fork over more than a week's coffee budget to afford a lesson at a decent barn. Here, group lessons are around $75 each and privates in the $150 IF one has a horse. That's a lot of coffee. Add in the cost of driving to the barn (not a short commute, in my area) and it becomes a more expensive outing.

                Also, for those who save up all year to afford that single rated show on a horse their budget allowed, they have to swallow the likelihood that, despite all of their hard work and savings, they have a poor chance of winning at that rated show against the experienced riders who show regularly on much more expensive, often trainer prepped horses. So to make that single show worthwhile as an experience (and expense because it's all money out at this point), it has to be FUN and worth blowing a week's vacation on. Not too many rated shows are all that much fun anymore, which is why fewer and fewer of the working amateurs show each year.

                What I'm typing isn't sour grapes or a bash of those who have the means. All power to them. Rather, mine is a direct comment on where are rated sport is headed, which sadly does not appear to include the masses (or mass market sponsors).
                "Whether you think you can or think you can't, you are right." -Henry Ford

                Comment


                  #48
                  Originally posted by foursocks View Post
                  People have already said this, but the European model is really something that needs to be considered more. Non-horse people watch show jumping and dressage, ffs, on television there. I love dressage, but even I can't imagine watching it on TV for any length of time. And yet, they have a different relationship to horses in many European countries than we do, their shows are cheaper and shorter so they are more accessible to more competitors, and more people find entertainment in watching them.
                  \.
                  So how are they presenting show jumping and dressage (!) on TV to make them entertaining? Or is it in the average person's close cultural relationship to horses and horse showing that makes it work?
                  The armchair saddler
                  Politically Pro-Cat

                  Comment


                    #49
                    Originally posted by StormyDay View Post

                    I think you've taken my statement to mean that everyone can afford to compete on the circuit. That isn't what i am saying. What I am saying is that most middle class people can afford to take a lesson or two a week. The cost of that lesson is less than many people spend on coffee in a week. And, if we put an emphasis on making showing cheaper, they definitely could afford to go to a local rated show once or twice a year. Which we should be able to do.

                    Not every person is going to (or even wants to) go jump a GP. But unlike other sports, it is totally possible for a 40 year old nurse who has had a kid and doesn't ride 7 days a week to buy a horse and compete under the lights at a big show. Heck, there are some ammies on here that have normal jobs but save up to compete in a few big classes every year.

                    IMO, the horse community and USEF need to:
                    - advertise. We need more general ads targeting people outside of the horse community.
                    - Inform the public about the horse shows and events. Get them in the local papers and magazines that talk about weekly events. Invite food trucks, local business vendors, etc to come and set up on the grounds and tell the public about it.
                    - Advertise and be more welcoming to non-white communities. Not only is it just the right thing to do, as a whole the community is ignoring a huge part of the population.
                    - Reduce fees, in general, both from USEF and USHJA and from the show costs themselves.
                    - sponsorships from large and small companies. Local companies can sponsor small jackpot rounds and derbies at local rated shows. A $200 2 ft derby would draw a huge number of entries and get that local company a lot of PR. Larger companies can sponsor the show and get benefits such as being an exclusive vendor of their product (Ex: acqua panna sponsors and is only water served).

                    We need to get creative if we don't want horseback riding to go the way of the Dodo bird.



                    Yes, but I think the person at the lesson barn hits an unpleasant wall (that they didn't know about) when they talk to their instructor about what it would take to maybe/kinda/sorta/ever go to a horse show. Heck, we see that here: If you want to jump bigger than 2'6" or go to a horse show, you have to start leasing (at least) or buy a horse of your own. Folks can feel shut out pretty fast.

                    Of course this didn't used to be the case in the last bit of yestercentury, before the mileage rule helped usher in the big, "destination shows" and those shows, later on, started offering the divisions that the whole schooling show and B/C circuit used to offer people. There were whole barns whose clientele rode school horses, lease horses or modestly-priced owned horses in those shows. In other words, the barrier of entry to the world of horse showing wasn't so high. It was easier to go to a big, out-of-reach-for-you show and still feel that your level of riding and showing made you part of that very elite world.

                    I worry about the effects of the 2008 recession and this one. If you take horse-hungry people and shut them out long enough, they'll get on with their lives and go somewhere else.
                    The armchair saddler
                    Politically Pro-Cat

                    Comment


                      #50
                      Originally posted by mvp View Post
                      Of course this didn't used to be the case in the last bit of yestercentury, before the mileage rule helped usher in the big, "destination shows" and those shows, later on, started offering the divisions that the whole schooling show and B/C circuit used to offer people. There were whole barns whose clientele rode school horses, lease horses or modestly-priced owned horses in those shows. In other words, the barrier of entry to the world of horse showing wasn't so high. It was easier to go to a big, out-of-reach-for-you show and still feel that your level of riding and showing made you part of that very elite world.
                      Precisely.
                      "Whether you think you can or think you can't, you are right." -Henry Ford

                      Comment


                        #51
                        Originally posted by mvp View Post

                        So how are they presenting show jumping and dressage (!) on TV to make them entertaining? Or is it in the average person's close cultural relationship to horses and horse showing that makes it work?
                        Well, as I said in the quote you used, they DO have a different relationship to horses than we do. There are lots of reasons for that, but the construction of a particular form of suburban lifestyle is one place to consider.

                        On the other hand, their shows are full of music and commentary and food for a fun, inexpensive outing. The riders are presented as athletes and the competitions are seen as sport, not elitist and closed.

                        I think the subjective, non-transparent judging of hunters doesn't really help us, either. Dressage judging is of course subjective, but a regular dressage test has a series of set movements that are scored, and the musical freestyles are choreographed so they have specific movements, like figure skating, that are scored. People can be educated as spectators about why this passage was better than that one, but after the 29th fat, slow, on its forehand hunter goes down the same line and jumps it in more or less the same way as the previous 28 horses, what is there to hold the average person's interest?
                        You can take a line and say it isn't straight- but that won't change its shape. Jets to Brazil

                        Comment


                          #52
                          Coming over from dressage land, where this discussion has been had several times. Regarding sponsors for shows: Someone earlier posted that show sponsors need to be obtained by the show itself and not USEF. This is absolutely true. But it is extremely difficult to get even local money. Corporate type sponsors are not donating. They are spending marketing $, and they want to see spectator numbers, demographics, income estimates and so on before even considering a commitment. If you cant draw spectators, they dont want to commit.
                          Sometimes you get lucky and have a personal connection - Local Land Rover dealer is brave enough to park a car in the jumper ring and pay maybe $5k to do so.
                          Back in my NE Ohio hunter days I worked a couple years on our big annual show. Sporadically we got lucky: Merrill Lynch office was title sponsor for a several years, then one of the banks. You need a team of people to raise the money and believe me it is hard, frustrating and time consuming.

                          Comment


                            #53
                            Originally posted by Tiramit View Post

                            The bold in the above is my doing.

                            What you've suggested could work, if the "we" actually cared to make a change. That's the heart of the issue, "we" (as in the governing bodies such as the USEF) have zero interest in making the sport more affordable. They do not care if the masses have access to shows. They don't care if the average working amateur who has ridden all her life and used to show, shows now. Actually it seems like they'd rather the masses and lessor amateurs kept away from the show ring.

                            As expected, these governing bodies have total control over rated shows. This translates into their willfully supporting the harmful mileage rule that prevents fair market competition within the shows and disallows rated shows in close enough proximity to minimize rider / horse travel. They've tacked on or enabled additional fees, and have membership requirements that add to the rider's bill. There's more, but this alone is enough to have helped push showing to its current grotesquely expensive state. We can (and have for years) about the prices. It all falls on deaf ears.

                            Perhaps lessons around you are more affordable than around me? Here if one has any desire to show at a rated show and is a beginner, they'd have to fork over more than a week's coffee budget to afford a lesson at a decent barn. Here, group lessons are around $75 each and privates in the $150 IF one has a horse. That's a lot of coffee. Add in the cost of driving to the barn (not a short commute, in my area) and it becomes a more expensive outing.

                            Also, for those who save up all year to afford that single rated show on a horse their budget allowed, they have to swallow the likelihood that, despite all of their hard work and savings, they have a poor chance of winning at that rated show against the experienced riders who show regularly on much more expensive, often trainer prepped horses. So to make that single show worthwhile as an experience (and expense because it's all money out at this point), it has to be FUN and worth blowing a week's vacation on. Not too many rated shows are all that much fun anymore, which is why fewer and fewer of the working amateurs show each year.

                            What I'm typing isn't sour grapes or a bash of those who have the means. All power to them. Rather, mine is a direct comment on where are rated sport is headed, which sadly does not appear to include the masses (or mass market sponsors).
                            I cant’ disagree with you. I’m not sure that USEF gives a hoot about the average Ammy. But they better. Because if no one can afford to show, and we all start going to the local shows, which are more affordable and really just one smart recording service away from being comparable to a rated show, then all of their salaries aren’t going to be paid anymore. Because it isn’t Karl Cooks and the like membership fees that are paying the bulk of their salary. It’s the Ammy rider who shows a few local rated shows a year.

                            However, dang, $150 for a lesson? I charge $45. Maybe I should up my prices 😂

                            Comment


                              #54
                              This is from the COTH's interview of new USEF president, Tom O'Mara, found here.

                              "
                              What are some things you’d like to explore as USEF president?


                              Growing a fan base is really important to any sport, and that I am very much committed to. A lot of that came about by work with colleges.

                              I’ve been examining it and studying it for years now—all sports—and I see what the differences are between those sports and our sport. When I see that difference, [I ask,] “Is it a good difference or a bad difference?” and, “Is it something that we could close the gap on or adopt within our sport to help it get in front of more people?”

                              Not as many people are really as familiar with our sport as they are with a lot of other sports. And that’s because our sport is participant-driven.

                              If we look at it structurally, there’s not as much awareness because it’s not on television. People don’t travel to horse shows just randomly to watch events—they do some, but not broadly.

                              In examining other sports, here is what my response to people has been for the last couple of years: The No. 1 watched sport on television in the United States is football. And 99 percent of men stop playing when we’re about 13 years old because we end up not being big enough or fast enough to play at the higher levels, and there’s no organized football for women when they’re young at all. Yet it is the No. 1 watched sport in America on television. None of us play it. Women watch it as much as men, by the way. You don’t have to do this sport to want to watch it.

                              Two, the No. 1 watched sport in person in the United States is NASCAR. Those cars cost a lot more than our horses, even our best horses—even ridiculous prices for horses. So yes, that’s a very expensive sport, and I don’t see people running around saying it is an elitist sport. I think what [people] mean is that it is expensive, so to me I don’t call that elitist. There are 150,000 people sitting in those stands watching those races.

                              Is our goal as a sport to get everyone in America to ride a horse? Or is our goal to get everyone in America to watch someone ride a horse?

                              "

                              These aren't the words of a president looking to draw more riders through more affordable and accessible shows.

                              What he's missing is that almost all adults have driven a car. They know how they work and what it takes to accelerate and maneuver in traffic. And women watching football? I'd hazard a guess that most were brought to the sport by someone who played the sport and shared their enthusiasm. It's hard to imagine young girls who have no personal connection to the sport suddenly becoming fans.
                              "Whether you think you can or think you can't, you are right." -Henry Ford

                              Comment


                                #55
                                Originally posted by Tiramit View Post

                                What he's missing is that almost all adults have driven a car. They know how they work and what it takes to accelerate and maneuver in traffic. And women watching football? I'd hazard a guess that most were brought to the sport by someone who played the sport and shared their enthusiasm. It's hard to imagine young girls who have no personal connection to the sport suddenly becoming fans.
                                I'm a football fan. Never played. Never had family who played. Never watched with family when I was young, so I'm not sure I have an answer as to why I'm a fan. I learned to enjoy it as an adult.

                                I am another who really misses the active B and C circuits. I used to show them in the '90s. It's all I needed to keep me happy. I do local schooling shows here and that's all I want to do. I really get the same experience (show at the same facility as the A shows) and I don't have to pay nearly as much, and they are typically run over two days. That works for me. If the rated shows were cheaper...then maybe.
                                My hopeful road to the 2021 RRP TB Makeover: https://paradoxfarm.blog/

                                Comment


                                  #56
                                  Originally posted by Tiramit View Post

                                  So to make that single show worthwhile as an experience (and expense because it's all money out at this point), it has to be FUN and worth blowing a week's vacation on. Not too many rated shows are all that much fun anymore, which is why fewer and fewer of the working amateurs show each year.
                                  I can’t really even picture what would make rated shows “fun” as an event, as someone in the demographic you’re referring to. Maybe just a failure of my own imagination!

                                  I mean, I am ambivalent about showing in general (and only do local/regional events because of cost and time constraints) so I also just may not be the audience. But I would love to love showing again so I’m intrigued!

                                  Comment


                                    #57
                                    What I find the most frustrating is that if you asked the majority of participants in the sport, not the majority of people who can already afford to show every weekend, who are actually in the minority of riders in the US, the vast majority want to find ways to make things more affordable for everyone. Even most people on this forum can all agree on some basic, easy things that can be done NOW to help make this happen.

                                    The folks who continue to keep this sport out of reach for the majority of the people who partake are in the minority. But since they are the ones with the money, they are also the ones with the majority of the power, and thus nothing actually gets accomplished. They are fine with the status quo.

                                    This isn't just a phenomenon unique to the horse world. I just don't know how to get past it.

                                    Comment


                                      #58
                                      Forgive me for cheating and copying and pasting part of what was in my USHJA Town Hall Summary yesterday but it is on point.

                                      For a little background I went to school for a broadcasting degree in Los Angeles. I worked in both the NBC Affiliate in LA and one of the top radio stations in LA. The pervasive opinions about horse sports then were the same at both media outlets with many laypeople who were unfamiliar. So a pretty good subject group.

                                      I did appreciate that someone asked the new "Karl Cook influenced" question about whether we were trying to get ESPN to bring in more coverage and thus more sponsors since ESPN is covering video games on tv now. I laugh because though I get the basis for the question: (https://www.theplaidhorse.com/2020/0...f1OTCHnDiFeHQw) we already know from extensive research when trying to get equine sports on tv over the last 40 years or so that the biggest issue is the perception of the inability of Joe Schmoe to go out, ride a horse over a course of jumps in a month. In my broadcasting degree courses it's referred to as "The everyman issue." The litmus test that is: "Can an average person go out and teach themselves this sport on equipment they can afford, easily and cheaply? AND can they understand the game and the goals to win?" Horse racing, they understand the way to win, and syndicates are helping more average folks to play, but for the rest of English equestrian sports, the answer is always no.

                                      But.. Video games....yes. Cornhole...yes. Darts..yes. bicycling....yes. Running...yes. Tennis, Soccer, basketball, Baseball, football, hockey...yes. Bowling...yes. Skiing...yes. Golf.... yes. Rock Climbing....yes. Nascar....yes....Swimming....yes. You get the picture.

                                      We cannot find a way to keep people's interest reliably until we find a way to mitigate the elitism and costs. And even Mary commented that we have no clue how to do this, but that we need to work on it. I will tell you when I worked in Los Angeles at the NBC affiliate on the NBC main studio lot....in the sports department. I couldn't convince one ego driven sports guy that the horse didn't do all the work. NONE of the 4 producers and 10 other interns who worked with me. And don't get me started with the on-air guys. YEESH.

                                      Em
                                      "Courage is not the absence of fear but rather the judgment that something is more important than fear. The brave may not live forever but the cautious do not live at all." ~2001 The Princess Diaries

                                      Comment


                                        #59
                                        Originally posted by Horsehusband View Post
                                        Thoughts?
                                        To repeat one of the pull quotes in that piece: “It’s almost impossible to win enough prize money to pay off a week of horse showing.”

                                        To me it seems like a pretty weird expectation that one would be able to. Over the years I've shown for a bunch of reasons, sometimes chasing year-end awards, sometimes because the overall experience (especially the social aspects) is a strange kind of fun, and sometimes to test myself and horse against ourselves and/or other competitors. Money rarely enters into it, and in the low classes where we're talking about growing participation I'd guess the cash part of the awards is totally irrelevant.

                                        That all actually seems OK to me. What's the problem?

                                        If equestrian sports existed (and in the US I would argue they mostly already do) as a participant-focused activity with no particular media coverage and with people paying for their participation because they want to be there for whatever reason, is it really a bad thing? I know various people who are very into various sports with little or no TV coverage (sailing, trap shooting, curling, to name three) and they all seem to have their own thriving cultures, and much like equestrian sports they complain that they end up in TV coverage of the olympic games (all are olympic disciplines, who knew?) only when they need a quick curiousity piece.

                                        PS: the last time I was conscious of money on the line was at a local summer jumper series on Wednesday nights (after work!) that awards $1000 and $250 to the top two season finishers on points, one each adult and junior, so $2500 total season prize money, which is put up by a local vet clinic every year. It runs on Wednesday nights, they have two rings of competition and one warmup ring, and it's well run. Classes run lead line up to 3'9". The entirety of the fee you pay the show to compete is $20/class. I'm pretty sure it's not USEF sanctioned in any way. It's a fun scene, super-friendly, and the crowd is a decent mix of society. You want to know what happened to the B/C circuits, I'd look there, and they even have a sponsor, but the sponsor isn't in there for the TV audience, it's to get them some name recognition and goodwill with the local horse crowd. What do we need the USEF shows for again?

                                        Comment


                                          #60
                                          For some reason, my post this morning about sponsorships remains "unapproved." I didn't berate anyone, name anyone, name a horse show, name a horse, or bring up politics. No mention of another website nor another thread, no advertisement, no attachments, no swearing, no bad words. Written in English. It was post #57. The post's box is in green. Since there's no explanation for the unapproval, I'll delete it. It's obviously upsetting someone.

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X