# Horse Movement - "Inverted" or "Round"



## gottatrot

I’d like to discuss horse movement, specifically what really happens with a "round back" vs what is commonly believed. Also I’d like to talk about the idea of a horse moving “inverted” or “hollow” and how that affects the horse.

I’ve always been taught that the best way for horses to move and carry the weight of a rider is with a rounded back. I’ve read many critiques of horses moving with their necks raised and nose out, and it's pretty commonly believed that these horses' backs are hollow and they are not using their bodies effectively.

From this site:
The Whole Horse No. 28 - Building Bridges Inside


> *This is the irrefutable relevance of the ring of postural engagement to ALL riding disciplines, not just dressage.*When the horse engages his abdominal core, it causes his pelvis to tuck under (or 'sit'), *which in turn flexes his spine*, causing it to lift up under the rider, and thus protecting the vertebrae from compression. Because the pelvis is tucking under more, the hind-legs step further under the horse's body mass, also helping to support the weight of the rider.
> The knock-on effect of this flexing of the spine is that the horse rounds his neck, and in this way both 'ends' of the spine are brought downwards, helping the middle (where we sit) to became tensile in the same way as an archer's strung bow. *When the spine has this tensile quality, it is capable not only of supporting our weight much better, but also of transmitting the full power generated by the haunches through towards the contact, thus channeling and amplifying the movement.*


That and the following pictures are a summary of what I’ve been taught about the horse’s back.


































Something I’m learning and reading about currently is that this greatly exaggerated from the actual anatomy of a horse. It is a theory of dressage, and one that many people take quite literally and believe in. It is spread around as a crucial part of riding.
Yet the horse’s spine is actually quite rigid. If you read about horse anatomy, you’ll discover that unlike with humans, the thoracic vertebrae of a horse has very little ability to flex upward and downward. The vertebrae are mainly flexible from side to side due to their shape.

Any effect of long and low exercises or stretching the neck out has little to do with the part of the spine where the rider sits. Look at the horse’s skeleton:
The grazing horse’s spine is barely more convex than the spine of the horse standing with raised neck. The parts of the spine that bend appreciably are the neck and the lumbar vertebrae, which do not support the weight of a rider. 
















I think a horse that is traveling with the head higher than he is anatomically suited for may brace his back muscles, which may cause soreness. But many horses are built with a higher neck set and this means they can effectively be using their body with their neck up and without causing soreness to their back muscles. Certainly they will have no difficulty carrying a rider and are in no danger of damaging themselves. 

This position also does not mean the horse cannot “collect,” which I believe has nothing to do with neck arching or head position but only has to do with shortened strides and an elevation of the front end of the horse. I don't believe that the nose of a horse pointing outward rather than being tucked in toward the chest has any bearing on the horse's movement other than aesthetics, and probably helps the horse breathe better. 

I've personally observed that horses can more easily build strong back muscles by being ridden up and down hills even when a critique would say the horse was traveling with a "hollow" back, than they can when being ridden "long and low" in an arena.
This horse is traveling with a shortened and lifted stride. The rider may think the horse's back is rounded and strong. Is that true or should the rider be more concerned about the long term effects of traveling with the weight shifted on the forehand?


----------



## gottatrot

The human spine in comparison is much more flexible forward and backward as compared to a horse:


----------



## greentree

True about the skeleton, but it is the muscles and ligaments, and tendons that you can FEEL raise, lower, tense and relax, that are doing the rounding and hollowing. 

Just like a lot of back pain in humans is not actually skeletal, but still referred to as back pain......


----------



## TXhorseman

Do we sit on the skeletal bones of a horse's spine or on the muscles associated with skeletal movement?

Good riding and training includes development of the horse's muscular movement and flexibility. When taken to extremes, stretching and exercising may prove detrimental. When conducted with understanding, exercise can improve health and endurance. Proper development of a horse's anatomy also improves the comfort of riding for both rider and horse.


----------



## bsms

*"This position also does not mean the horse cannot “collect,” which I believe has nothing to do with neck arching or head position but only has to do with shortened strides and an elevation of the front end of the horse.*"

First, there is a lot of discussion over hollow backs and rounded backs. People will tell you a horse's back "rounds up" when used "right", in contrast to "hollow". This reflects a misunderstanding of how the back flexes. The maximum measured distance between a horse's back at full sag and rounded up is about 2.5"."In1976 was also when Hans Carlson demonstrated that the main function of the back muscles was not to increase the range of movement of the horse’s vertebral column, as suggested in the video as well as in the show ring, but at the contrary, to protect the vertebral column from movements exceeding the thoracolumbar spine’s possible range of motion. Uneducated riders argue that the study was made on cats. Carlson’s study was effectively effectuated on cats, which demonstrates in fact, that visual impressions can easily lead to the wrong perception. Multiple studies have then been done duplicating the same protocol and the findings were similar with horses and most terrestrial mammals. Basically, all the theories promoting better performances and gaits through stretching and greater amplitude of the horse’s vertebral column movements are in direct contradiction with the way the horse’s vertebral column and surrounding muscles are designed to work. 

In 1980, Leo Jeffcott measured the range of possible movement of the horse’s vertebral column. Many studies after Jeffcott found differences in the location of vertebral column movements but they all found a limited range of motion. Basically, the back muscles do not increase the vertebral column range of movement but, at the contrary, resist forces induced on the horse’s vertebral column in order to maintain the vertebral column movements within the limits of its possible range of motion. This was 1980 and it was already demonstrated that theories such as the swinging back and stretching were in plain contradiction with the way the horse’s vertebral column and back muscles operate..."​In the second study, the backbone of a horse was supported at either end, and then they tried to bend it as much as possible. That is what gave the 2.5” of possible motion. Studies have been done since with live animals with similar results.

Equine Back Research

Dressage Wheelbarrow

That is why a bucking bronco, "rounding up" with all the violence strength it can, barely rounds its back at all. The function of the muscles of the back is to protect the spinal chord by limiting the movement of the spine itself. The spine is not the structural support for the rider, but something embedded in the muscles. The muscles support the spine. The spine does not support the muscles (or rider!).

A "hollow back" is essentially a hardened back, held rigid against a rider's weight to protect the spinal chord. If the rider is in synch with the horse and the horse is conditioned to carry him, then the back can relax. It can, to a very limited degree, "un-sag" the spine. But a ridden horse will not un-sag all the way back to the unridden state.

When the FEI defines collection, it refers to a shift in balance to the rear and a raising at the withers. This is an important distinction from rounding. The horse's front legs are not attached to the spine, and the spine and back can rise in relation to the shoulder blade.

Jean-Claude Racinet, in his post-posthumously published “*Falling for Fallacies, Misleading Commonplace Notions of Dressage Riding*”, measured the height of a mare's withers both unridden and ridden, using a low neck position, high neck position, and very high neck position. It all three positions, under a weight of 170 lbs (rider & saddle), the withers were 2 cm lower than unridden (about 1 inch).

*When the horse is in motion, it can change its strides to elevate (not round) the back. Using shorter strides in front and shifting the thrust from the hind end at a slightly upward angle will give the lift of the withers that constitutes part of collection. *

Second, the horse can be thought of as a plane. Planes need thrust and lift - thrust to go forward, and lift to keep from going down. The horse's hind legs provide thrust. The front prevent the horse from plowing into the ground. When a horse is standing still, it doesn't need thrust, so its hind legs can provide support. At a walk, little thrust is needed and a horse is typically balanced 57:43 front and rear.

As the horse goes faster, more thrust is needed in the horizontal. A race horse experiences a shift in balance toward the front, leaving the hind free to produce the thrust. Part of the goal of collection is to shift weight to the rear. With the weight carried toward the rear, a horse is prepared to turn quickly and to shift its front end quickly. Being no fan of collection for collection's sake, I experience it when a horse is nervous about what is in front and prepares to spin & run.

This shift of weight to the rear is not related to a supple back or a certain head/neck position. The head and neck are roughly 10% of the horse's weight. If you stick your arms out in front of you, you will shift your center of gravity forward. If a horse sticks its head out in front, it will shift its weight forward. It CAN adjust its strides to counteract the changed balance, but a horse with its head forward will ALWAYS have to work harder if it is also trying to shift its center of gravity to the rear. If the head is high, with the neck almost vertical, there is a tiny shift in balance toward the rear (<2%).

Likewise, a horse can learn to elevate the withers & shift weight toward the rear with a supple back OR one like an I-beam. My experience on my Craigslist horses is mostly the latter. This is very understandable if one remembers that the primary action of the back is to protect the spine for excessive motion. However, it may be important to distinguish a difference between when a human requires a head position, and a horse chooses one. Bandit retains some flex in his back when he gets nervous and raises his head until the neck is vertical. It is not a supple as a relaxed back, but neither is it an I-beam like when he trots. The latter is probably the lingering effects of how he was ridden at a trot in the past. Regardless, he can elevate his neck to a very high position without the degree of rigidity in hs back that he is capable of producing. OTOH, I think my PULLING his head into that position would get me a ton of bracing (and resentment).

Third, the horse's back tends to pivots around the center of gravity. This is easiest to see at a canter. The center of gravity of the horse is where the weight must pivot around. Like a teeter totter, the horse moves up and down in front and back of the pivot point, and that pivot point normally is where there is equal weight both in front and rear. Like a teeter totter, if more weight is on one side of the pivot point, that end will go down and stay down...except a horse has legs, and how it strides can change the 'wave' of the back.

As a rule, this is why the rider is most comfortable, and the horse the most efficient, when the rider's center of gravity is in synch with the horse's center of gravity. It is the spot on the horse that has the smallest up/down motion, and thus disturbs the rider the least. And when rider and horse are in synch, the horse's pivot point does not have to fight the rider's weight, making it easiest on the horse as well.

Below are some pictures of horses rounding their backs as much as a horse's back can be rounded:








​ 






​ 
There is no such thing as this:








​ 
Nor is there a ring of muscle. It simply does not work that way:"First, there was a study that tested the longissimus dorsi and the rectus abdominis at the same time to see when during the stride these muscles were active. (2) In this test, they only measured one side, with one electrode registering the electrical activity in only one place along the longissimus dorsi (next to L3), and another electrode positioned to the side of the umbilicus checking out the rectus abdominis. They also had a camera set up to confirm the movement of the back as discovered in previous studies (it did) and, in addition, to see what effect changing the speed of the trot had on these factors. (For the record, as the speed increased, the range of motion of the back decreased. There was less flexion and extension for each stride as the horse trotted faster. Makes sense.)
*So what did they find?*

For every full stride, each muscle showed two, non-identical bursts of electrical activity. So each muscle would have been contracting twice, which makes sense because the back flexes and extends twice during a full stride. (The activity of the longissimus dorsi was higher when the leg on the same side was in stance phase and less when the leg on the other side was stance phase, though it still fired during that phase of the stride.)
Remember, from the time of contact to the time of midstance, the back was extending. Which muscle will cause extension when it contracts bilaterally? The longissimus dorsi. Right. So which muscle actually was active when the back was extending? The rectus abdominis!!! Really...
And from the time of midstance to suspension, the back was flexing. Which muscle will cause flexion when it contracts bilaterally? The rectus abdominis. Right again. And which muscle actually was active when the back was flexing? The longissimus dorsi!!!
*
HUH????*

Once again, just like when we learned that horses sometimes breathe out when their chest is expanding, the ideas we have of how things have to work based on how they look is incorrect, because things are much more complicated in real life than they look like they should be. (Which is why evolution is untenable as a theory. Read Darwin's Black Box for more information about that...) 
*
So what is really happening? *

The conclusion these and other researchers have come to is that these muscles, which can and do induce the back movements we expect when they are stimulated to contract bilaterally, don't actually work that way during normal movements of the horse. It isn't really the activity of these muscles which causes the back to flex and extend. It is a lot of other factors.
*
And what are those factors?*

One paper (1) suggests that "the back extension may be attributed to the accelerations applied to the mass of abdominal viscera. This extension force is counterbalanced by the activity of the rectus abdominis muscle. In this way, this muscle supports the abdominal viscera and limits the back extension." Remember how the gut sloshes front and back in the abdomen at the canter and gallop, putting pressure on the diaphragm and affecting the breathing? Well, it also has weight and will move up and down, especially at the more pounding gait of the trot compared to the walk. So the legs hit and stop the main skeleton from going down too fast, but the gut, surrounded and held up by the abdominal muscles, keeps heading towards the ground. This causes the back to extend, but that movement is limited by the abdominal muscles, especially the rectus abdominis.

They go on to say, "the back flexion may be attributed in part to the changes in the trunk accelerations and to the release of elastic energy stored within the intervertebral ligaments and fibrous tissues of the abdominal wall which have been stretched in the extension movement. This flexion movement is now counterbalanced by the activity of the longissimus muscle." In other words, when things pull down, they cause stretching of a lot of tissues. When the force downwards is decreased, all these stretched fibres want to go back to their normal state, and the longissimus dorsi is what stops everything from over-flexing.
Another paper (3) states, "The propagation of a wave of flexion-extension along the spine depends on the forces acting on the spine... The forces include gravitational, inertial, muscle forces (from many muscles), forces from passive skeletal tissues and forces transmitted from the front and hind limbs." This agrees with other reading I have done (4) which shows that the movement of the legs is a huge factor in causing the back movements we see at different gaits. For instance, the hind leg stretching forward tilts the pelvis and causes flexion of the lumbosacral joint and, depending on the gait, affects flexion in the caudal part of the back too. And the longissimus dorsi acts to stop over-flexion as a result of all these forces.
So basically, the back moves because all sorts of things act on it to flex, extend, twist and turn it. And the muscles we are discussing actually spend a lot of time _*limiting*_ the amount of back movement. One study (5) concluded that "activity of the longissimus dorsi muscles is mainly responsible for stabilization of the vertebral column against dynamic forces." Said in another way, they "stiffen" the back. 
*
OK, but we don't want a "stiff" back, do we?*

Don't we want the back to be flexible and mobile? Absolutely yes, but if we let the back go to the extremes it would without that "stiffening" influence, it would hyper-extend and hyper-flex, resulting in damage to ligaments, bones, etc. "All things in moderation." So while we don't want any muscles to be constantly contracted (anyone with a stiff neck knows what that feels like) we do want them to be alternately contracting and relaxing - in other words, working normally, the way they were intended to work. 
Paper #3 goes on to say "The elasticity and stiffness are a combination of passive components from the spinal column (note: this would be tendons and ligaments primarily) and active components provided by the muscles contracting around the spine." Just because researchers can't measure the multifidus, psoas major and minor and all the other muscles we talked about (they are too deep in the body to easily access) doesn't mean they aren't active too.
*
Testing the longissimus dorsi in multiple places*

Other studies (3, 5) have checked out the EMG of the longissimus dorsi in a few places down the spine. The longissimus is a segmented muscle, and the segments are not all connected to the same nerve. Therefore, they can contract at different times. But do they?
Yup. One study (5) tested the EMG at three different places along the longissimus dorsi - beside T12, T16, and L3. They found that at the trot, "the EMG activity peaked slightly later at L3 than at T12 and T16." However, another study (3) didn't find this same correlation, which might be due to the different stats used. (I don't understand much of that part of the papers - yet...) But they did find definite differences in timing between electrodes placed beside T14, T16, T18 and L2. So there is no question that the segments of the longissimus dorsi contract at different times during the stride. And this fits with the idea that the movements of the spine are a flow.
*
What about lateral flexion?*

A couple of studies also checked out the lateral bending motion and how it correlates to the EMG results from the longissimus dorsi, but their comments come more from the tests done at the walk. One study (6) noted "maximum EMG activity occurs during the early part of the maximum lateral excursion of the spine, which can be interpreted as pre-emptive tension." In other words, the longissimus dorsi acts to "stiffen" the spine laterally as well as during flexion/extension. Another study (3) concluded "the longissimus dorsi has a greater role in generating lateral bending movement for the less demanding walking conditions." 
That study also commented "the role of the longissimus dorsi for generating lateral bending moments is more dominant at the more cranial recording sites, and this is a general result across the range of walking and trotting conditions tested." So not only is there a time shift in when different segments of the muscle contract, but they can also have different effects on the spine - some more cranial sections seeming to affect lateral bending more and some more caudal sections affecting flexion/extension more. They suggest that this is probably based on the angles at which the muscle fibres are arranged and how they are attached to the vertebare, but that hasn't been totally documented yet.
*Conclusions*

1.) The muscles we might think would act to make the spine move, actually work most of the time to dampen excessive spinal movement caused by other factors. The longissimus dorsi and rectus abdominis are active at phases in the stride opposite to what we might expect.
2.) The longissimus dorsi is a segmented muscle and doesn't act as all at one time. Different segments at different levels of the spine contract at different times and seem to have different effects in terms of the amount of lateral bending versus flexion/extension. The conclusion in one study (3) was "the mechanical function of the longissimus dorsi should not be considered as a general property that is applicable to the whole muscle, but instead varies between segments, between locomotor conditions and is under the control of the central nervous system."
3.) Different gaits, speeds, amount of incline, etc. all affect when and how much activity exists in the longissimus dorsi and the rectus abdominis. It just ain't real simple!! And that is the truth about all biological systems. They are WAY more complicated in how they act than in how they first appear. We just know the tip of the iceberg of what there is to discover."


Back movement and muscle contractions
​When you test the muscles to see if the tummy contracts to round the back, you find it contracts at exactly the wrong time. It is as if the string get pulled at the same time the bow is getting straighter. It just does not match. The timing is wrong.


----------



## bsms

*Effect of head and neck position on vertical ground reaction forces and interlimb coordination in the dressage horse ridden at walk and trot on a treadmill - Equine vet. J., Suppl. 36 (2006) 387-392*​ 







​ 

Vertical ground reaction force and time parameters of each limb were measured in 7 high level dressage horses while being ridden at walk and trot on an instrumented treadmill in 6 predetermined HNPs: 

HNP 1 - free, unrestrained with loose reins; 
HNP2 - neck raised, bridge of the nose in front of the vertical; 
HNP3 - neck raised, bridge of the nose behind the vertical; 
HNP4 - neck lowered and flexed, bridge of the nose considerably behind the vertical; 
HNPS - neck extremely elevated and bridge of the nose considerably in front of the vertical; 
HNP6 - neck and head extended forward and downward. Positions were judged by a qualified dressage
judge.

Results: At the walk, stride duration and overreach distance increased in HNP1, but decreased in HNP3 and HNP5.

Stride impulse was shifted to the forehand in HNP1 and HNP6, but shifted to the hindquarters in HNP5. 

At the trot, stride duration increased in HNP4 and HNP5. Overreach distance was shorter in HNP4. Stride impulse shifted to the hindquarters in HNP5. 

*In HNP1 peak forces decreased in the forelimbs; in HNP5 peak forces increased in fore- and hindlimbs.*

Conclusions: HNP5 had the biggest impact on limb timing and load distribution and behaved inversely to HNP1 and HNP6. *Shortening of forelimb stance duration in HNP5 increased peak forces although the percentage of stride impulse carried by the forelimbs decreased.*

Discussion: At the walk, regardless of the statistical significance, virtually all changes of force and temporal parameters showed a concurrent direction in HNP1 and HNP6, and a concurrently opposite direction in HNP3 and HNPS.

Vertical impulse was redistributed from the hindlimbs to the forelimbs in HNP1 and HNP6 and in the opposite direction in HNP5 (Table 2). This appears to correspond to the extended neck in HNP1 and HNP6 where the centre of mass (COM) of the neckhead segment is shifted cranially [forward]; whereas the shortened and elevated neck in HNP5 shifts the COM of the neck-head segment caudally [rear]. 

In HNP1 and HNP6, the general forward-downward motion is characterized by longer SL [stridelength]. *Both these positions represent the horizontal type of motion a horse assumes of its own free will moving forward in the most efficient way...*

...HNP3, and more clearly HNP5, showed a clear intervention of the rider's action on the horse's movement patterns. *The general idea behind raising the neck and head is to create a greater degree of elevation by redirecting the horizontal movement towards a more vertical direction.* Accordingly, we observed a shift in weight to the hindquarters and a shortening of SL and OR.

Increased s.d. of SD and OR suggested that the horses were moving inconsistently. During the trial, it was obvious that the horses had difficulties coping with these HNPs, especially with HNP5. Further evidence of this phenomenon is the significantly reduced range of movement and symmetry of movement of the thoracolumbar back, seen in simultaneous kinematic measurements (Gomez Alvarez et ai. 2006)...

...*Although the impulse redistributions between the forehand and the hindquarters seen in HNP1, HNP6 and HNP5 were statistically significant, it should be noted that these load shifts were small (between 1-1.8%). Similarly small shifts in load to the hindquarters «1.8%) are reported by Roepstorff et al. (2002)*...

...At the ridden walk 58.3--60.1% of the weight was carried by the forehand. This indicates that despite raising the head and neck to extremely high positions, the riders were not able to recreate the weight distribution between forehand and hindquarters of the freely moving, unridden horse. The biggest shift of weight and, therefore, of the centre of mass towards the hindquarters was observed in HNP5 at the walk as well as at the trot. 

However, it must be emphasized that when the higher peak forces in the forelimbs and restricted movements of the limbs and back induced by HNP5 are taken into account, this position can not be recommended. It is believed that working the horse with a high elevated neck and the back in extension definitely contributes to degenerative pathologies of the back (Johnston et al. 2002)...

...At the walk, HNP4 showed surprisingly few differences to the reference position HNP2. Reviewing the video sequences showed that although all horses had the bridge of the nose considerably behind the vertical, two of the seven horses carried their necks higher than in the heavily debated 'rollkur' position. Generally, it seems that the height of the neck influences the movement more than the flexion at the poll. Therefore, HNP4 in these horses would not very differ biomechanically from HNP2...

...*Collection may, therefore, be a reflection of an increased vertical impulse of the body that indicates a more impulsive gait*. The decreased StD promotes a faster build-up of force, increased FZpeak and results in prolonged SpD. *Perhaps the perceived shift in weight due to a reorientation in movement direction towards the vertical as is indicated by the concomitant increased loading of the fore- and hindlimb*. We therefore suggest that the impulse shift to the hindlimb is a compensatory mechanism. *To achieve the redirection of the resultant force vector acting on the centre of gravity of the horse into a more vertical direction, the body has to increase stiffness*. This reasoning is supported by the decrease in range of movement of the whole thoracic back (TIO-T17) in HNP5 (Gomez Alvarez etal. 2006).

In conclusion, no impressive shifts in load distribution between forehand and hindquarters caused by changing the HNP were observed. However, in the unrestrained position and in the position with the neck and head extended forward, load was shifted at the walk towards the forelimbs, whereas in the extremely elevated position load was shifted to the hindquarters at walk and trot. *A shift of impulse from the forehand to the hindquarters is not necessarily associated with a reduction of FZpeak in the forelimbs.* In a movement pattern where forelimb StD decreases, as observed in HNP5, higher peak forces are to be expected. The experiment demonstrated that an extremely high neck affects functionality much more than an extremely low neck.


----------



## Golden Horse

I have issues with some of this, mainly as others have said, we know the skeleton is fixed, but the muscles and ligaments that support it are not, and getting them into the best shape possible to carry the weight of a rider only makes good sense.

Second, I wish we could BURY the term collection, it is so misunderstood and misused as to make it mainly meaningless, outside of a select few. I wish we could took more about engagement, that is what we should be striving for, to have the horses body engaged and working, and yes part of that involves the neck, and getting the back lifted. What it doesn't involve is the head, and all to many people start with the head when they talk about collection.


Embarrassing story, I am going through another fragile time with my riding, my confidence is on a leave of absence somewhere, I was worried last ride, because I thought she was about to buck, Coach was going "HUH" I explained that she just felt "up' under the saddle, well guess what, she was, she was engaged and up, rounded and working properly, (if only for a short while) and if just feels different. 

If you haven't felt it, and the lightness it brings, then it is hard to explain, but feeling that difference, well it makes a difference, the horse is carrying itself lighter.

My worry here is that there are those who will take this at face value, and rush to justify their riding, saying "look I was right all along" and we would see ever more inverted horses running around.


----------



## bsms

Jean-Claude Racinet

"Jean Claude traveled world wide giving clinic and has left behind many devoted students, however his greatest accomplishment in preserving Francois Baucher’s work might be in the books he wrote: Another Horsemanship, Racinet Explains Baucher and Total Horsemanship published in the United States. They have also been translated into French and German. He contributed articles to “L’Information Hippique,” “Dressage and CT,” “Riding in Lightness” and “Horses for Life” magazines. Mainly through Jean Claude’s efforts Baucher’s teaching has been made available in the United States.

Among his earlier equestrian accomplishments Jean Claude completed the Superior Equitation Course in the Cavalry School of Saumur (1953-54), became a member of the Jumping Team of the Military School in Paris (1953) and won the title of Champion of Tunisia in open jumping (1956).

Besides being a clinician and author Jean Claude was a decorated war hero. He was wounded two times in Korea while fighting with the UN forces (1952-53). He also served as an officer in the French army in Tunisia and Algeria (1954-61), where he was awarded the Croix de Guerre for heroism in battle."

Dressage
​ 
One of the chapters in Jean-Claude Racinet's book is "Fallacy: That when a horse is collected, his center of gravity moves backwards". He argues from the horse's structure that it's center of gravity moves backwards 1.5 inches at the most. His structural argument didn't really impress me when I read it Tuesday, until I re-read the study that said "...Although the impulse redistributions between the forehand and the hindquarters seen in HNP1, HNP6 and HNP5 were statistically significant, it should be noted that these load shifts were small (between 1-1.8%)."

One of the things I was taught (via the Internet and books) is that collection is defined by a shift of weight toward the rear. The idea -and rational for desiring it - was that a shift in balance results in more equal loading of the front and hind legs, and that in turn would reduce injury and damage to the front legs. It was in this sense that collection is called "better balanced" than uncollected.

But the shift in balance, while it does occur, is not very dramatic. Nor can a horse sustain a collected gait for hours, nor do they spend any significant time collected when not ridden.

I've got some more studies I want to read, and I'm not going to promise I understand all of them anyways. But it seems what is REALLY happening is what gottatrot wrote: "*...but only has to do with shortened strides and an elevation of the front end of the horse.*"

The back does not round, and by rounding create a different balance and stride. Instead, the horse adjusts its stride, primarily in the front, to convert forward (horizontal) motion into vertical motion, which in turn "*increased peak forces although the percentage of stride impulse carried by the forelimbs decreased*". In essence, the horse braces its front legs against the forward motion the way a pole vaulter does, and converts the forward into an upward - at the cost of higher peak forces on the front legs! The horse, being practical, normally rejects "collection" and moves "*forward in the most efficient way*", reducing peak impact on its front legs.

In collection, *the back does not create the stride. The stride creates the back*. By using its front legs like a pole vaulter and stiffening the sling between the front legs and the back (remember, the front legs are not connected to the back except through muscle), the horse elevates the front end without excessive tightening of the back, *creating the illusion of a round back and free motion*. The horse works harder so the rider can feel better about hos relaxed his horse is.

Another chapter of Jean-Claud Racinet's book is "Fallacy: That lifting a horse's neck is bound to hollow his back". I won't attempt to replicate his discussion, which goes on for pages and is illustrated with pictures to help discuss how muscles attach and how this impacts what segment of a muscle is engaged at any given time. Jean Luc Corrnille, in his book “Practical Application of the Most Recent Discoveries on the Biomechanics of the Horse's Vertebral Column” (a good magazine article or $5-10 book turned into a $40+ book) gives a lot of pictures (and very little text) - but the pictures also help explain the fallacy that raising the neck must hollow the back. The two are independent. Both can happen, neither can happen, and either can happen without the other.

"_If you haven't felt it, and the lightness it brings, then it is hard to explain, but feeling that difference, well it makes a difference, the horse is carrying itself lighter._"

Unfortunately, our rumps are poor sensors for detecting reality. When measured, the horse is carrying itself higher on the front, and is doing so without tensing the back...by increasing the peak forces in the front legs. We cannot feel tension in the front shoulders because we are not touching the horse there. Nor can we feel the peak force of each leg. Only the horse feels those. We feel the lift to the front and how it is being done with a supple back, and conclude the horse is doing something that it is, in reality, not doing.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs

JMO

What is the purpose of obtaining collection? Impulsion. What is impulsion? It is energy directed movement (impulsion can be witnessed when backing up as well as going forward). 

Anytime you bring the bit below the desired line of forward impulsion you are interfering with forward movement by blocking the natural energy of the horse's movement. 

If you wish backwards impulsion as seen in in some cases of western reining, bringing the bit well above the horse's hip would also be counterproductive. 

Both put the horse off balance and sacrifice natural impulsion. 

If in seeking the rounded back, you are needing to bring the bit into a line below the horse’s hip hoping to create impulsion, you are in effect working against the very thing you are seeking to achieve. 

It makes you and the horse have to go through all sorts of contortions in order to achieve what can be had naturally when done correctly. 

IMO the resulting "impulsion" achieved through forced collection, will look awkward and I think it is where most people have a beef with both dressage and some western events.


----------



## bsms

"Falling for Fallacies: Misleading Commonplace Notions of Dressage Riding" by Jean-Claude Racinet. Well worth the price if one is interested in the subject! 

Lots of good reading here for free from Jean Luc Cornille:

Science Of Motion™ Horse Trainer,Lameness ,Dressage Jumpers and 3 day event Horse Training


----------



## jaydee

Whenever 'collection' is mentioned there are always going to be some people that can't understand that there are degrees of collection and its not all about Piaffeing (is that even a word?) around an arena
If you want to truly understand what it means you have to know how it feels and to do that you have to ride a horse in the various degrees of collection at all paces and compare it then to riding a horse that (a) Isn't collected but balanced, in contact with the hand and moving forwards on a free rein at all paces (b) Riding a horse that's got its nose pointing skyward with a hollow neck and back at those same paces


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs

jaydee said:


> Whenever 'collection' is mentioned there are always going to be some people that can't understand that there are degrees of collection and its not all about Piaffeing (is that even a word?) around an arena
> If you want to truly understand what it means you have to know how it feels and to do that you have to ride a horse in the various degrees of collection at all paces and compare it then to riding a horse that (a) Isn't collected but balanced, in contact with the hand and moving forwards on a free rein at all paces (b) Riding a horse that's got its nose pointing skyward with a hollow neck and back at those same paces


 The easiest way for a rider who has never experienced collection and wonders how to know the difference is to simply back your horse up a slope and concentrate on the difference in feel. The horse will naturally collect.


----------



## Golden Horse

jaydee said:


> Whenever 'collection' is mentioned there are always going to be some people that can't understand that there are degrees of collection and its not all about Piaffeing (is that even a word?) around an arena
> If you want to truly understand what it means you have to know how it feels and to do that you have to ride a horse in the various degrees of collection at all paces and compare it then to riding a horse that (a) Isn't collected but balanced, in contact with the hand and moving forwards on a free rein at all paces (b) Riding a horse that's got its nose pointing skyward with a hollow neck and back at those same paces


As I said, collection, the most misunderstood thing, (apart from WP, Racing, or anything else that one hasn't tried) out there, and certainly NOT all about piaffe.....the % of the riding population who ever gets to riding a piaffe is so minimal as to be fairly insignificant.....however I've seen horses who would score a 10 for passage, and maybe piaffe, while goofing around in the paddock.

As to the last paragraph, :rofl: I had the pleasure if watching the trainer ride Fergie this week, I'm sure I saw all those points, I know I have ridden all of them, and the inversion is horrible, *when* she is balance she is beautiful, and the odd step or two of collection that we have achieved was amazing, but we are not really ready for that.


----------



## jaydee

Compare the way this less advanced horse moves on a loose rein but allowed to stretch out - in contact but not collected




 
With the way this horse that's in a much higher state of fitness and level of training works when its asked to trot in 'collection'


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs

....and another type of "collected" movement. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IA8D268MXgI


----------



## tinyliny

bsms,

I cannot tell what is YOUR writing/opinion and what you are quoting. could you use , say, a different color for when you are writing in your own words?


----------



## Smilie

level of head and neck carriage , during collection, are related to how that neck ties into the withers, and there is no 'one' level fits all, and has nothing really to do with collection itself
A back is lifted by contraction of the abdominal muscles, and not the back itself
When a horse raises his head, beyond his natural way of going, as resistance to a bit, then , yes, he is bracy, and also hollowed out. This frame also has nothing to do with a horse striding out normally, in a head position natural for him, on a loose rein, just trail riding.
However, if someone is trying to force ahead set, and that horse in turn resists by elevating the head, bracing against that bit, you will get a hollowed out frame, which is harmful
Of course we don't ask a horse to move collected at all times, but true collection is required for any controlled athletic maneuver, be it great walk or stop to lope transitions, , precise lead change , independent of direction change, good hind end stop, and a way of allowing instant response for many maneuvers


----------



## Smilie

Reiningcatsanddogs said:


> ....and another type of "collected" movement.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IA8D268MXgI


Shawn Flarida is one of my favorite reiners!

Yes, colection does not require a head on the vertical, nor tight rein contact. 
It is a horse that is 'together', and in the best frame to perform athletic maneuvers Think of collection, versus strung out


----------



## bsms

Tiny, I have indented for longer quotes and include quote marks for shorter quotes. Post #6 is entirely a quote from the paper at the top in bolding.

"_that's got its nose pointing skyward with a hollow neck and back_"

No one wants a horse who is stargazing with a rigid back. But the back does not hollow to a significant degree. It braces to prevent hollowing and pain. The bracing is easy to feel and obviously not desirable. A supple back is a worthy goal, but using terms like round and hollow misleads about what happens.

Because of the way muscles attach, the neck can be raised significantly without any impact on the back. A horse can also brace its back with the head down. Either way, the back will not round up significantly. It simply is not capable of it. Regardless of head and neck position, a supple horse will feel better - for both horse and rider.

Collected gaits may well be fun to ride. I do not object to someone teaching a horse to use a collected gait under saddle. But it is misleading to say that is better balance, or that the horse is capable of carrying more weight that way, or that the horse is actually lighter on the front end. It is ELEVATED on the front, but the changes in front leg loading are not all positive.

I'll point out that the two writers I've quoted the most from are (were) dressage lovers. I've just ordered two more books on dressage, hoping to get ideas on how to teach Bandit to move with greater suppleness. He's become mentally a calmer and more confident horse, but his trot needs a LOT of work!

But we also need to avoid the errors that flow from the mental picture of a rounded back. It is hard to teach a horse to use its back properly under saddle if we ourselves do not know what a horse's back is capable of doing - or not!

"_A back is lifted by contraction of the abdominal muscles_"

That is an incorrect statement. The tummy muscles contract at the wrong time for it to be true.


----------



## Smilie

I personally do not like the 'collection', where tight rein contact is part of the package, with the face behind the vertical, and that bow in the neck,


----------



## updownrider

Horses Inside Out is an organization "which gives a fascinating insight into equine locomotion, training and management from an anatomical perspective". I think the videos on the website are interesting. 

Horses Inside Out Homepage Gillian Higgins

some videos from the website

Dressage
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlY7dcLqJGc

more
Horses Inside Out Videos


----------



## jaydee

bsms said:


> "_that's got its nose pointing skyward with a hollow neck and back_"
> 
> No one wants a horse who is stargazing with a rigid back. But the back does not hollow to a significant degree. It braces to prevent hollowing and pain. The bracing is easy to feel and obviously not desirable. A supple back is a worthy goal, but using terms like round and hollow misleads about what happens.
> 
> "_A back is lifted by contraction of the abdominal muscles_"
> 
> That is an incorrect statement. The tummy muscles contract at the wrong time for it to be true.


A braced inverted neck is a sign of tension, that tension will travel throughout the rest of the horses body, when the muscles along the topline are tense they push the horses back down and in turn cannot support the weight of the rider as well as they should. 
Since the term 'hollowed back' is one commonly used in horse circles and has been for years there's no reason why it should be misleading to anyone that takes the time to ask questions or research things like that
The abdominal muscles work in time with the gait in a sort of pumping action, relaxing and contracting.
If you ever use an Equine Physio, or an osteopath or chiro on your horse then you will see how they do a 'belly lift' on the horse to cause the muscles to contract and you will see the back lift as this happens so no that is not an incorrect statement


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs

This may be a website with the most common sense I have read in a while regarding this subject and I think one that may have some common ground points between the English and Western disciplines. Lots of good explanations and graphics. Settle in though before reading it as it is a small book. 

::: Sustainable Dressage - Collection & Its Evasions - True Collection - What It Is and How to Achieve It :::


----------



## Saddlebag

Too long to read just now but I'd like to add that I was riding my trail horse bareback and for some reason decided to tighten my thighs into him. I could feel him lift and widen. When he trotted it felt like we were floating.


----------



## gottatrot

Great discussion, interesting points.



> Just like a lot of back pain in humans is not actually skeletal, but still referred to as back pain


 (Greentree)

True, it is back pain but only skeletal back pain is damaging. Muscular back pain is what weight lifters experience after working their back muscles and is part of the process of strengthening the back.



> *When the horse is in motion, it can change its strides to elevate (not round) the back. Using shorter strides in front and shifting the thrust from the hind end at a slightly upward angle will give the lift of the withers that constitutes part of collection.*


(Bsms)

So the lift is actually from creating more braking action on the front end along with more thrust from the hind. This means the emphasis is as much on the front end of the horse as the hind, which explains the huge shoulders most of the top dressage horses have. This is a different idea altogether than "collection is the horse lifting and rounding the back which makes it easier to carry the rider," versus "collection is the horse creating more thrust from the hind end and more braking on the front end so the gaits are more elevated and beautiful (while the horse works harder)."



> If a horse sticks its head out in front, it will shift its weight forward. It CAN adjust its strides to counteract the changed balance, but a horse with its head forward will ALWAYS have to work harder if it is also trying to shift its center of gravity to the rear.


(Bsms)

To me this says that what works for galloping, extension and forward movement does not work well anatomically for collection. Extension should have a more extended head and neck, collection should have a more raised head and neck to be easiest on the horse’s body.



> The conclusion these and other researchers have come to is that these muscles, which can and do induce the back movements we expect when they are stimulated to contract bilaterally, don't actually work that way during normal movements of the horse. It isn't really the activity of these muscles which causes the back to flex and extend. It is a lot of other factors.


(Bsms)

This is something I believe in…rather than trying for a certain position of the head, neck or other body parts, can I feel the back working underneath me in flexion and extension? There really should be a lot of back motion underneath the rider in a properly working horse. 



> The biggest shift of weight and, therefore, of the centre of mass towards the hindquarters was observed in HNP5 at the walk as well as at the trot.
> 
> However, it must be emphasized that when the higher peak forces in the forelimbs and restricted movements of the limbs and back induced by HNP5 are taken into account, this position can not be recommended. It is believed that working the horse with a high elevated neck and the back in extension definitely contributes to degenerative pathologies of the back.


(Bsms)

As is often the case, what humans perceive as aesthetically pleasing and justify with all kinds of pretty language may not be what is best for the animal. 



> My worry here is that there are those who will take this at face value, and rush to justify their riding, saying "look I was right all along" and we would see ever more inverted horses running around.


 (Golden Horse)

What is important is that we understand the science, and I want to know if what we perceive as inverted is detrimental. Wouldn’t it be worse if what we’re promoting is actually harder on the horses’ bodies than being inverted? Then where would the worry be? I wonder if the emphasis should be less on looking inverted or round (which changes the spine very little) and more on teaching riders to feel if the horse is bracing against the bit or saddle, and whether the back muscles are moving well underneath the rider at all gaits. 



> Since the term 'hollowed back' is one commonly used in horse circles and has been for years there's no reason why it should be misleading to anyone that takes the time to ask questions or research things like that


(Jaydee)

I can't agree with this. I've been reading about and studying horses for many years and I believe (as is being discussed) that this term is highly misunderstood. I've heard and seen it applied to horses that were moving beautifully just as often as I've heard people say a horse with the neck curved over was collected. This is something I'd like to understand a lot better as a rider. I'd prefer the term "braced" to inverted. Inverted implies that the neck up and head out is anatomically wrong, when some breeds such as Icelandic horses actually have the neck and shoulder anatomy tie in differently to other horses and may appear "inverted" when they are not braced and moving well.


----------



## bsms

"_A braced inverted neck is a sign of tension, that tension will travel throughout the rest of the horses body, when the muscles along the topline are tense they push the horses back down and in turn cannot support the weight of the rider as well as they should._"

The back does not go down because it is braced. It is braced because the horse needs to prevent it from going down. It braces to PROTECT the spine from further sagging. Bracing is how the back protects the spine from more weight than it is ready to support freely.

"_Since the term 'hollowed back' is one commonly used in horse circles and has been for years there's no reason why it should be misleading..._"

Except it does not reflect reality any more than a "rounded back" does.

"_The abdominal muscles work in time with the gait in a sort of pumping action, relaxing and contracting._"

The indications are that the abdominal muscles contract to control the descent of the gut. There is definitely a pumping action affecting the breathing of a horse. But the tummy muscles, by tensing, do NOT act as the string on a bow and round the bow.

"_you will see how they do a 'belly lift' on the horse to cause the muscles to contract and you will see the back lift as this happens so no that is not an incorrect statement_"

On a STATIONARY HORSE, the tummy muscles can contract and cause a minor lift in the back. But when the horse is moving, they are needed to support the weight of the gut and the horse cannot afford to hunch up - nor can a horse hunch up to any significant degree.

The back acts to minimize motion of the backbone in the vertical and to transmit thrust from the hind legs to the rest of the body. It never acts as an arch.

"_ Lots of good explanations and graphics._"

Unfortunately, most of those good sounding explanations do not account for what gets measured when people take measurements. One of the first lessons a professional pilot learns is to trust the instruments. What your senses are telling you is happening all too often will disagree with the instruments, and the instruments are right at least 99% of the time. I several decades of flying, I never had a case where "the seat of my pants" was more accurate than the instruments.

That is not to say that website is "wrong". It is right about a number of things. I've used it for reference for years and like it. It may well have a better track record for accuracy than I ever will. But there is a lot to re-think about the movement of a horse's back, given the combination of optical illusions and "seat of the pants" illusions, and plausible explanations built on those illusions.


----------



## jaydee

bsms - My only response to your post is to suggest that you ride a horse that that can use its muscles to lift its back and then you will believe what all the experts have been teaching for years

Gottotrot - I would think that Icelandic pony is probably not hollowed in its topline at all, there's likely a very arched crest under all that mane and its back muscles are very strong and supporting as they're supposed to be. The breed has a rather unique gait

The hollowed neck outline you get comes from a combination of stargazing (which makes the horse very hard to hold if it decides to bolt) and bracing the underside of the neck
In the one photo you can clearly see the whole topline hollowing out, the last one is an extreme example - I find the longer a horse goes with its neck braced and head in the wrong position the worse they can get and these horse will eventually develop severe back problems because too much pressure is being put on the spine by the rider and saddle and they become fractious to ride


----------



## bsms

"_Bsms - My only response to your post is to suggest that you ride a horse that that can use its muscles to lift its back and then you will believe what all the experts have been teaching for years_..."

Your photos show a hollowed NECK, not a hollowed BACK. The third picture is, of course, something no one is advocating.

A horse can minimally use its muscles to round the back while ridden, and only very minimally. Those muscles are the muscles next to the spine. The total movement physically possible is small and does not raise the back up to the unridden position. It can LIFT the back, and the withers with the back, by adjusting its stride - not its muscles.

This involves measurements, not what someone's butt feels. The butt is not a well calibrated gauge of motion. Never has been and never will be. What you or someone else FEELS is not as important to the horse as what the horse is actually DOING."Third, with weight, the back was constantly more extended (hollowed) in all three gaits, but the range of motion was the same as without weight. In other words, the back moved up and down the same amount, but it was more hollow at the most hollow and not as flexed at the most flexed. Overall, under weight, a horse’s back sags. They do not, in and by themselves, round their backs to carry weight."

Effect of weight on the horse's back - part 2​Meanwhile, I'll toss in this view of collection by Jean-Claude Racinet:"When the horse tries to move at high speed without allowing for the possibility of sudden stopping, the backward resistance is limited to the amount of energy needed to prevent the horse from falling forward and down, i.e., from tripping. But, if the horse, because of the possibility of some unforeseen event, moves fearfully or cautiously (i.e., when he takes into account the need for suddenly stopping or for preventing a fall), then his mind will literally be torn between the two contradictory necessities. Nowhere other than in the High School movement called the "passage" is the phenomenon of "inhibited thrust" more obvious: while the thrust of the hind legs remains powerful, it is counteracted by an equally powerful hesitancy. And it is this combination which makes all the charm of this movement...

...horses in the wilderness will assume a collected posture, characterized by a constant "coiling under" of the pelvis and a high head carriage...

...Collection is, therefor, a posture which, without hampering his forward movement, allows the horse, if necessary, to check it immediately. For this body attitude, the horse has to permanently brace muscles which otherwise would only be braced occasionally, namely only in those movements when a deceleration occurs."

"Falling for Fallacies: Misleading Commonplace Notions of Dressage Riding" by Jean-Claude Racinet
​By that definition, at least, I have frequently ridden, for brief times, a well-collected horse! :wave:


----------



## tinyliny

bsms said:


> "_Bsms - My only response to your post is to suggest that you ride a horse that that can use its muscles to lift its back and then you will believe what all the experts have been teaching for years_..."
> 
> *Your photos show a hollowed NECK, not a hollowed BACK.* The third picture is, of course, something no one is advocating.
> 
> A horse can minimally use its muscles to round the back while ridden, and only very minimally. Those muscles are the muscles next to the spine. The total movement physically possible is small and does not raise the back up to the unridden position. It can LIFT the back, and the withers with the back, by adjusting its stride - not its muscles.
> 
> :wave:



there is most definitely a different feel for the rider to a horse that has his neck up in that position (the first horse of the triptych posted as examples of a hollow back) verses one that is not hollowing his neck out. I think the muscles that , as you say, engage to support the spine , create a very hard surface. not only does this make it hard for the rider to sit down into the rythm of the horse, it means that bounces are magnified. And, a back that is stiff longitudinally, is stiff against any sort of lateral movement, too.

this is one reason that gaited horses tend to be less laterally flexible or adept. they keep the back straighter and stiffer so that most of the movement comes only from the legs working off the spine, as if it were a board. that board, not flexing side to side, nor going up and down a lot, give the rider that smooth ride. a lot of leg work under a quiet , still board. but, ask a gaited horse to move in a small circle and you'll feel how inflexible they are. 

that flexibility is about the horse being able to step under it's belly, crossoing one leg over, maybe even in front of teh other. to do that, the horse must be able to contract the abdominal muscles (and if back is tight, then this is hard because the muscles will be working AGAINST tension in the back). AND, the hip will rotate to the side, and tuck under a bit to allow that "engagement" of the hind leg that is needed for balanced lateral work.

also helping engagenment is having the horse better able to put a bend in his hock, and bear weigth on that bended hock. the classical dressage movements all require a lot of bend in the hock, while bearing weight. this is hard for a horse, and thus takes years to build up the muscles to be able to do this. this is part of how teh horse lifts the front of the body; by accordioning the hocks to lower the back.

and, like you were saying bsms, for collection the horse turns more of the forward thrust of the hind legs, which happens more at the last part of the stride when the leg is further out behind the hip, into lift, which happens when the leg is right under the hip. in collection, the horse turns more thrust into more lift. 
then, to keep the hind end from popping up and down , by accordioning the hock, the horse can compress the power to more leg moveing up and down, whole hind end dropped and HELD dropped while the legs spring up and down without ever really straightening out. NOT an efficient way of moving to cover distance, but a beautiful test of their strength and obedience.


----------



## paintedpastures

Just read today,helps show some of what is being discussed

Develop Your Eye for Correct Connection in Stretchy Trot – Dressage Fundamentals


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs

bsms;8653322
"[I said:


> Lots of good explanations and graphics.[/I]"
> 
> Unfortunately, most of those good sounding explanations do not account for what gets measured when people take measurements. One of the first lessons a professional pilot learns is to trust the instruments. What your senses are telling you is happening all too often will disagree with the instruments, and the instruments are right at least 99% of the time. I several decades of flying, I never had a case where "the seat of my pants" was more accurate than the instruments.
> 
> That is not to say that website is "wrong". It is right about a number of things. I've used it for reference for years and like it. It may well have a better track record for accuracy than I ever will. But there is a lot to re-think about the movement of a horse's back, given the combination of optical illusions and "seat of the pants" illusions, and plausible explanations built on those illusions.


 
The difference is that horses are not machines and do not come with computer provided real time data readouts. That is what feel is for. Unlike a plane, a horse does not perform to a median or average, they are unique from their builds to their brains and a rider needs to know how to adjust to get the best out of that particular mount. Without accounting for feel, all of the measurements in the world are useless and you may as well ride a brick.


----------



## gottatrot

Of the three pictures posted by Jaydee, the first horse I believe has anatomy that makes it difficult for him to move athletically which I don't think could be improved on much by how he is ridden. He has a very long back and a short neck, so perhaps needs to move that way in order to balance forward movement. The second pic of the racehorse may just be a bad moment in time rather than how the horse moves, judging by the jockey who is also in a rather bad position. 

Jaydee mentions horses going with a wrong "head position." I would like to question what the head position has to do with the horse's movement at all, other than providing some balance or changing the way the bit action works on the horse's mouth. Horses can also bolt quite well with their head and necks low, in fact it is an evasion some horses learn, to lower the neck and run. 

I think it's important to separate the elevation of the neck and whether it is arched or not, versus a horse that is bracing with the lower neck muscles. 
This horse is built with a high neck set. He will be able to use his back properly with his head and neck in a position where another horse might be bracing. He may be bracing a bit due to rider position and saddle fit, but it's not because of the way he carries his neck.








This horse may move like this under saddle without bracing too.








This horse is almost certainly bracing.








Horses are built with high neck sets and low neck sets, with or without an arch. The arch in the neck or the way the horse holds the neck does not have much to do with how the back functions unless the horse is using the neck to compensate for bracing. 








Something I learned this last year is that if the hind end is weak or the horse is being asked to use the hind end more than he can, he will develop very strong back muscles. The horse can compensate with the back and abdominal muscles for what he can't accomplish with the hind end. My mare had a vitamin E deficiency that over time made her hind end progressively more weak. Her back muscles were well developed and made a firm, strong platform on either side of her spine, which you could not visualize or feel except as a slight depression between the muscles. At first I thought my saddle fit was just wonderful and that our riding was helping her develop such a strong back. But it turned out she was using her back to compensate for her hind end in athletic maneuvers. This became obvious when she got more weak and was propping herself up using her front end and back. After correcting her deficiency, her back looks less strong but is more supple.
Check out this Akhal-Teke doing endurance:








Not the classic outline of a horse going up Cougar rock, but a horse using the hind end well and going on a 100 mile ride. 
I'm not "for" horses being ridden with a braced neck. I am questioning the common idea that an elevated neck with outstretched nose means a horse is not using their body well and will have difficulty carrying a rider without strain.


----------



## gottatrot

Reiningcatsanddogs said:


> The difference is that horses are not machines and do not come with computer provided real time data readouts. That is what feel is for. Unlike a plane, a horse does not perform to a median or average, they are unique from their builds to their brains and a rider needs to know how to adjust to get the best out of that particular mount. Without accounting for feel, all of the measurements in the world are useless and you may as well ride a brick.


But we base a lot of our riding on theories and science, and if the science of horse physiology says what we are believing is wrong, then that is something to pay attention to. I've also read the sustainable dressage site for years and learned many things and thought a lot about the ideas listed on there. Some I feel are correct, others I've learned may be incorrect. 

I think you need to have both the "feel" and experience of riding, along with the knowledge of scientific facts. In my job, we say "don't treat the numbers." The numbers are a clue that something is wrong, but since instruments are sometimes inaccurate, the measurements have to be supported by what you see and what you've learned from experience. If you can't say for certain the numbers are wrong, then you must go by the numbers. If you can support what you are doing with what you see plus the numbers, then you can be certain everything is right. 

The theories I've read must be supported by science, otherwise they must be wrong. My husband is a scientifically minded guy (non-horse person) and also an athlete who has studied human anatomy and physiology. A few years ago, I came home from a dressage lesson all excited and began to explain to him about the circle of muscles. He said, "That makes no sense." I told him I must be explaining it wrong, so I went and read about it more in depth and then tried to explain it to him again. He told me that muscles don't work that way, that it didn't make sense based on the laws of physics, and that horse people were deluding ourselves if that was what we thought was happening. 

If it is correct that horses need their head and neck in a certain position to have a strong back and to move athletically, we will see that supported by evidence. The studies will show this is the case. When we ride our horses, we will see their muscles developing better and that they can perform more athletically when they are moving with their neck held lower and the nose just in front of vertical. 

What I've seen instead is that horses have better muscle development and perform better athletically when they are allowed to use their head and neck freely based on their particular anatomy. No matter how long you train them, they don't at some point begin to naturally carry themselves in a certain aesthetically pleasing way because that's the easiest and most efficient way to do it (I've been told this would happen from dressage instructors). Instead, when trained athletically they learn to carry themselves in a way that is most efficient for their body type and structure, as long as the rider and tack don't interfere.


----------



## bsms

"_Without accounting for feel, all of the measurements in the world are useless and you may as well ride a brick_."

When the feel of your butt says something different that measurements of stride impact forces, trust the measurements of stride impact forces. I'd have died years ago if I didn't know how to trust instruments instead of the seat of my pants.








​ 
The very high neck position is associated with tension in the back, etc: "_During the trial, it was obvious that the horses had difficulties coping with these HNPs, especially with HNP5. Further evidence of this phenomenon is the significantly reduced range of movement and symmetry of movement of the thoracolumbar back, seen in simultaneous kinematic measurements_.._.However, it must be emphasized that when the higher peak forces in the forelimbs and restricted movements of the limbs and back induced by HNP5 are taken into account, this position can not be recommended. It is believed that working the horse with a high elevated neck and the back in extension definitely contributes to degenerative pathologies of the back (Johnston et al. 2002).._." I'm not arguing - NO ONE is arguing - that we want inverted necks and star gazing.

OTOH, not all raised necks create tension, or as the chapter in Racinet's book says, a raised neck is not bound to hollow the back. It CAN create tension and a braced back. Or not. And the rider should have no trouble figuring out which is which, since a relaxed back feels very different from a tense, braced back.

In the positions tested, HPN5 had both the greatest transfer of weight to the rear AND the most tension in the back:








​
HPN 2 & 3 did not. George Morris's example of a two time Olympic Gold Medalist in Dressage riding at Aachen has nothing to do with how I want my horse to look, but it seems a bit unlikely that he was riding an inverted, hollowed, braced-back horse:








​ 
The neck does not hollow the back. The back actually has very limited ability to hollow at all. It can certainly brace, and become rigid, and it can do so for a variety of reasons - but neck position is a poor predictor of it. Bandit has shown the ability to trot like an I-beam with a lowered head, and trot much better with a higher one. Or not. They are independent actions, except at the extreme.


----------



## sarahfromsc

gottatrot said:


> Great discussion, interesting points.
> 
> (Greentree)
> 
> True, it is back pain but only skeletal back pain is damaging. Muscular back pain is what weight lifters experience after working their back muscles and is part of the process of strengthening the back.
> 
> (Bsms)
> 
> So the lift is actually from creating more braking action on the front end along with more thrust from the hind. This means the emphasis is as much on the front end of the horse as the hind, which explains the huge shoulders most of the top dressage horses have. This is a different idea altogether than "collection is the horse lifting and rounding the back which makes it easier to carry the rider," versus "collection is the horse creating more thrust from the hind end and more braking on the front end so the gaits are more elevated and beautiful (while the horse works harder)."
> 
> (Bsms)
> 
> To me this says that what works for galloping, extension and forward movement does not work well anatomically for collection. Extension should have a more extended head and neck, collection should have a more raised head and neck to be easiest on the horse’s body.
> 
> (Bsms)
> 
> This is something I believe in…rather than trying for a certain position of the head, neck or other body parts, can I feel the back working underneath me in flexion and extension? There really should be a lot of back motion underneath the rider in a properly working horse.
> 
> (Bsms)
> 
> As is often the case, what humans perceive as aesthetically pleasing and justify with all kinds of pretty language may not be what is best for the animal.
> 
> (Golden Horse)
> 
> What is important is that we understand the science, and I want to know if what we perceive as inverted is detrimental. Wouldn’t it be worse if what we’re promoting is actually harder on the horses’ bodies than being inverted? Then where would the worry be? I wonder if the emphasis should be less on looking inverted or round (which changes the spine very little) and more on teaching riders to feel if the horse is bracing against the bit or saddle, and whether the back muscles are moving well underneath the rider at all gaits.
> 
> (Jaydee)
> 
> I can't agree with this. I've been reading about and studying horses for many years and I believe (as is being discussed) that this term is highly misunderstood. I've heard and seen it applied to horses that were moving beautifully just as often as I've heard people say a horse with the neck curved over was collected. This is something I'd like to understand a lot better as a rider. I'd prefer the term "braced" to inverted. Inverted implies that the neck up and head out is anatomically wrong, when some breeds such as Icelandic horses actually have the neck and shoulder anatomy tie in differently to other horses and may appear "inverted" when they are not braced and moving well.



This particular Icelandic is tolting beautifully; not all do. And as with any horse breed in any discipline, it comes down to how good, or not, the training is.

His shoulder is lifted and the hip dropped, and he has good angulation of his hind leg. His throat latch looks nice an open and I agree with jaydee there is more telescoping of the vertebrae under all that mane (never, ever let an Icelandic break through a face and get into a briar patch. Voice of experience).

There is so much more than hollowed backed versus not. It is not just the back, or where the neck is positioned.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs

BSMS, 

I don't know about you, but when the feel of my butt says something on the trail, I hardly get off my horse and take measurements or refer to a book. 

The other day we were riding and Oliver felt "off". I asked my trainer if he looked like Ollie was lame and the trainer watched for a while and said no. He still felt off, so I dismounted and sure enough he had picked up a small rock in his hoof. Took it out and everything was back to normal. Feel. 

Nor do I assume that because some study found X that it necessarily applies to my particular horse anymore than I give credence to one particular trainer who says Y is the only way to go. I make adjustments in the here and now until the feel of my butt changes to something acceptable. Reading enhances doing but does not replace feel.

I might not have flown planes but I did start riding in 1975 on some pretty rank horses. If I couldn't make those adjustments based on feel (long before the internet or Amazon was available for "research") I would have probably died years ago riding. 

Theories, that is all we are dealing with here.....theories.

All living things seek equilibrium and the means of obtaining it is individualized.


----------



## gottatrot

sarahfromsc said:


> This particular Icelandic is tolting beautifully; not all do. And as with any horse breed in any discipline, it comes down to how good, or not, the training is.
> 
> His shoulder is lifted and the hip dropped, and he has good angulation of his hind leg. His throat latch looks nice an open and I agree with jaydee there is more telescoping of the vertebrae under all that mane (never, ever let an Icelandic break through a face and get into a briar patch. Voice of experience).


(It's actually the flying pace, I believe). 
Icelandic Horse Connection: Icelandic Horse Neck Conformation
From the above site:


> *The cervical spine in horses can be shaped very differently.
> 
> There are some straight necks, but for the most part, the cervical vertebrae are shaped in an "S".
> 
> The top curve of the "S" can be straight, wide curve, or narrow curve.
> 
> The bottom curve of the "S" can be straight, wide curve, or narrow (shallow) curve.
> 
> The shape of the curve can be enhanced to a small degree by the way the horse uses it's muscles, or how the rider affects the horse with contact and exercises; but the basic shape will remain the same.*
> 
> 
> *The pictures below will show different "S" shapes of the cervical neck of the horse.
> 
> The horse with the wider curve at the top, and the less curve at the bottom, will have more athletic ability than one with a shallow curve at the top and wide curve at the bottom.*
> 
> 
> *Icelandic Horses generally have shallow curves at the top, and wide curves at the bottom. The shallow curve at the top restricts the area between the vertebrae and the jaw, and does not allow the horse to easily flex. Flexing can constrict the windpipe.*


My little bay mare behind in this photo is extremely athletic and as you can see her back is very strong, but she tends to carry herself with the head and neck quite elevated.


----------



## TXhorseman

Theories may be based on experience, desire, or simple imagination. This includes "scientific" theories. 

Scientific experiments support or refute theories. While "facts" are based on measured experiments, these facts are limited to the conditions of the experiment. Each time one condition changes, the results may change. This is why it is so hard to replicate experiences. When we conduct the same experiment with somewhat different variables and obtain similar results, support for our theories increases. Still, this does not mean they will be supported in every instance.

Riding theories are often influenced, as well, by desired results. Do we desire speed in one basic direction? Do we desire quick turns? Do we desire quick stops at any price or smooth stops despite the distance required? Do we want smooth movement with little variability so we may be comfortable no matter how we sit or move, or do we want smooth movement with great variability which requires our own bodies to move to a greater degree?

We might ask ourselves even more questions. While our choices get the desired results now, will we get the same results over a longer period of time? Will our choices cause our horses to break down more quickly or will they prolong the life span and quality of life of our horses?

Theories are useful, but we must not depend solely on theories. We must pay attention to what is happening with our horses and with ourselves. We must accept the fact that we may need to change our habits to achieve our goals. We might even need to accept the fact that we must change our goals.


----------



## greentree

I can tell you this...sorry, no measurements or data, or French name to back it up, but only my own two eyes.

I was invited to audit a clinic a few years ago. The clinician was famous for speaking his mind with no regard for feelings, and he told me that it was probably too advanced for my participation. He knew nothing of me, nor my horse. 

One of the "advanced" horses in the clinic came in. I turned to DH and said...that horse is not advanced, but wrong. It is developing a sway back from bracing, and improper carriage. 

The next time I saw the clinician, I told him that. The owner started working with a different trainer at home, and a year later, the horse no longer looked like it had a sway back. His scores went up.

I wish I had before pictures of my Mennonite Morgan. He has many, many road miles with a fairly strong over check. He naturally has a gorgeous , arched neck. His back was hollow, he barely stepped 12" with his rear leg at speed, and his croup was lacking muscle, so his tail head was prominent. 

For 1.5 years, the girls rode him(they are confident teens with no formal knowledge), and he remained this shape. 

Then, I decided he needed to be in better physical shape for parades and sleighing, and I began driving him regularly. Now, he carries his head in that lovely arch, and his back and croup have filled in. The only difference is HOW he has been worked.

As my old teacher used to say.."it's not the groceries...it's the exercise!"


----------



## sarahfromsc

gottatrot said:


> (It's actually the flying pace, I believe).
> Icelandic Horse Connection: Icelandic Horse Neck Conformation
> From the above site:
> 
> My little bay mare behind in this photo is extremely athletic and as you can see her back is very strong, but she tends to carry herself with the head and neck quite elevated.


I know a friend shows her Icelandics and has explained what breeders look for in the breed. She also has a beautiful stallion who deserves to be called that.

My post was in regards to his more upright neck and nose out, but still travelling rounded. Whereas some Icelandics can and do travel hollow due to training. And as with any breed, it all boils down to training the horse.

I have an Arab, so we know how he travels. However, my point is that a horse can travel with a higher neck carriage and still be rounded, or the horse can travel with neck level to topline and still be rounded. It has to do with what the neck is doing, how the shoulders and withers are lifted, along with the rest of the spine, not how the neck in of itself is being carried.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs

gottatrot said:


> But we base a lot of our riding on theories and science, and if the science of horse physiology says what we are believing is wrong, then that is something to pay attention to. I've also read the sustainable dressage site for years and learned many things and thought a lot about the ideas listed on there. Some I feel are correct, others I've learned may be incorrect.
> 
> I think you need to have both the "feel" and experience of riding, along with the knowledge of scientific facts. In my job, we say "don't treat the numbers." The numbers are a clue that something is wrong, but since instruments are sometimes inaccurate, the measurements have to be supported by what you see and what you've learned from experience. If you can't say for certain the numbers are wrong, then you must go by the numbers. If you can support what you are doing with what you see plus the numbers, then you can be certain everything is right.
> 
> The theories I've read must be supported by science, otherwise they must be wrong. My husband is a scientifically minded guy (non-horse person) and also an athlete who has studied human anatomy and physiology. A few years ago, I came home from a dressage lesson all excited and began to explain to him about the circle of muscles. He said, "That makes no sense." I told him I must be explaining it wrong, so I went and read about it more in depth and then tried to explain it to him again. He told me that muscles don't work that way, that it didn't make sense based on the laws of physics, and that horse people were deluding ourselves if that was what we thought was happening.
> 
> If it is correct that horses need their head and neck in a certain position to have a strong back and to move athletically, we will see that supported by evidence. The studies will show this is the case. When we ride our horses, we will see their muscles developing better and that they can perform more athletically when they are moving with their neck held lower and the nose just in front of vertical.
> 
> What I've seen instead is that horses have better muscle development and perform better athletically when they are allowed to use their head and neck freely based on their particular anatomy. No matter how long you train them, they don't at some point begin to naturally carry themselves in a certain aesthetically pleasing way because that's the easiest and most efficient way to do it (I've been told this would happen from dressage instructors). Instead, when trained athletically they learn to carry themselves in a way that is most efficient for their body type and structure, as long as the rider and tack don't interfere.




In education I conducted experiments myself, which were then reviewed. I had to learn physiology, kinesiology and biology. Only in my job, when I had to put what I learned into practice, then and only then, could I discern what was reality and what needed to remain in textbooks and studies. In a way it was very mentally liberating because it meant it was okay to think for myself. 

In any "study" How many of the horses they tested were post legged? What were the ratios of the cannon to the fetlock? What breed were they? Were any of them cow hocked and to what degree? Any sickle hocked, pigeon toed, **** footed? What was the ratio of the neck to the barrel to the croup in the horses they tested? Were any of them paddlers? How big was their head as a percentage of body weight? Were their croups level with their withers? Did they have shark fin withers or mutton withers? Where did the neck tie into the chest? What was the width of the pelvis in comparison to the shoulders? How much prior training did they have? Any pasture puffs? What environment; plains, stall, mountains, hills did they spend most of their time in? Were they shod or barefoot? How tall were the horses? What was their leg length in comparison to their overall height? How old were they? Did any of them ever have any injuries? Where do their tails tie into the croup? 

On this we appear to agree: Form follows function. It is why equestrians often get caught up in using certain breeds for certain things and look for "good" conformation. That result did not come about because of any study, but because of results. A TWH for instance does not move like an Arabian and forcing it to do so may not only be an exercise in futility (experience), but dangerous to the long term well being of the animal (science).

All of those things listed above can have an effect on the measurements and also be confounding factors if not otherwise accounted for in the results. That is where our own assessment of a particular situation (feel) needs to kick in. Your horse’s conformation and listening to what the horse is telling you will dictate how best to obtain a particular result or if that result is even possible. 

My point is that “Science” needs to be taken with a grain of salt, never as absolute predicate for your action.


----------



## jaydee

Aside from the fact that the horse in the George Morris example that bsms posted wouldn't even get placed in the top 10 against the modern day dressage horse if you read his comment - 'wonderful elasticity of the horses back' you would understand that the horse doesn't have a hollow back from poor action but excellent muscles from good training that will allow him to raise, lower and stretch his back to suit the particular movement being asked of him during the test - I'm sure if you saw the same horse performing something different you'd see another outline entirely
A horse that consistently works with a hollow neck and back will always be putting a strain on the sacroiliac area resulting in the poor topline people are frequently asking for advice on 'how to fix'
This horse that gottotrot posted has a high head carriage but that back is stretched *not* hollowed or bracing- again not an example of poor back muscles but really powerful strong ones - something you'll often see in showjumpers jumping big spreads


----------



## Beling

A long but interesting thread.

As I have recently gone back to "square one" with my horse, trying to find out where her core problem is, I have been riding in her normal frame. And what I'm coming to believe, and also get from this thread, is that the idea that a rider can actually _change_, or _should change_, the horse's natural way of going, is, if not wrong, at least problematic.

*Horses know how to move!* I conclude, one should not train for a movement which is outside a horse's natural range, but develop what he's capable of. Any horse can be "light" and responsive, and have a more-or-less lifting impulsion; but in this state, each horse will, and should, have his own unique look, according to his own anatomy and spirit.


----------



## tinyliny

Beling said:


> A long but interesting thread.
> 
> As I have recently gone back to "square one" with my horse, trying to find out where her core problem is, I have been riding in her normal frame. And what I'm coming to believe, and also get from this thread, is that the idea that a rider can actually _change_, or _should change_, the horse's natural way of going, is, if not wrong, at least problematic.
> 
> *Horses know how to move!* I conclude, one should not train for a movement which is outside a horse's natural range, but develop what he's capable of. Any horse can be "light" and responsive, and have a more-or-less lifting impulsion; but in this state, each horse will, and should, have his own unique look, according to his own anatomy and spirit.



I think the object is to have a hrose that is capable of moving as he pleases AND as the rider pleases.

going down a steep , rocky, rooty trail, my mount would rather just string out and trot down it. It's easiest for him in the sense that it takes less muscle exertion. it's harder on his legs, more likely to result in a trip, and a lot less comfortable to me. I need him to be able to slow himself, exert the muscle strength necesary to hold his descent and rock back onto his hind end and do a controlled descent, able to stop at any time and back up the hill if I ask. 

now, I wouldn't expect that if it was impossible for him to control, or if I was riding a Man from Snowy River race, but it IS better for him to be shaped, in this context, and it's a lot better for me.


----------



## gottatrot

Beling said:


> And what I'm coming to believe, and also get from this thread, is that the idea that a rider can actually _change_, or _should change_, the horse's natural way of going, is, if not wrong, at least problematic.
> *Horses know how to move!* I conclude, one should not train for a movement which is outside a horse's natural range, but develop what he's capable of. Any horse can be "light" and responsive, and have a more-or-less lifting impulsion; but in this state, each horse will, and should, have his own unique look, according to his own anatomy and spirit.


This is also the conclusion I've been coming to. Which goes against a lot of the competitive world, and also the common idea of getting a horse to carry himself a certain way that looks right to us and justifying it based on the theories of the arched back, the bow and string, etc. 

Most of what everyone writes supports the idea of the horse as an individual. As greentree says bracing against an overcheck will not teach a horse to use his muscles as they were naturally meant to develop. Neither will bracing against a bit in a "rounded and low" form. If a horse is not comfortable with moving with an arched neck that stretches forward, forcing that movement will not create the correct muscles for good movement (been there, tried that). If you want a horse to look that way, you can buy horses from a few different breeds that are bred to balance that way. 

Lightness is very important. I have tried with many horses to work them and develop the muscles properly by teaching them to use their bodies. I'm learning the best way to develop correct movement is to get the horse working without the rider or tack getting in the way. If the saddle doesn't fit or the horse braces, you can't develop the horse properly. If the rider doesn't stay with the horse's center of gravity or rides crookedly, the horse can't develop properly. You can improve a horse's movement. But you can't do that by tying them into the position you want and working them in that way. That will degrade their movement. At first it may appear brilliant, but it will degrade over time (as with Totilas).
Totilas. How a Magnificent Stallion Became a Poor Creature. | Bee and the Horse

Many people who show Arabs believe the breed should move like this:








Not like this:








In the top photo the pairs of legs are not even moving together at the trot. The neck muscles are bracing. It looks more glamorous, but is it really better for the horse?


----------



## bsms

This is a picture of Bandit before he came to me:










Notice how the high neck position has hollowed his back? I haven't. And when I'm on his back, and he puts his head up this high, his back barely tenses. I know how he feels tense - darn near every time we start a trot, although he is getting better. But he can put his head up like that and not tense his back.

The bottom line in terms of function is he cannot invert his back to any significant degree. He can tilt down at the pelvis a little, with the rest of the back remaining fairly straight, which is about as inverted as a horse can get.

Any horse CAN brace their back, and Bandit does it with disturbing consistency when we start a trot. I'm not a fan of the 20% rule, but I think I can say an 800 lb horse has no business trotting 6-12 miles with a 220lb rider and 30 lb saddle! Mia would brace her back when nervous about what was ahead. Light on the front end, but with a rigid back. Bandit, OTOH, tends to stay pretty loose in the back with his neck almost straight up.

But hollowed? The back isn't built to hollow significantly, nor to "round" up. It can MOVE up, but not ROUND up. And when someone realizes the horse is raising his front end, and not rounding his back into an arch, that more accurate mental picture helps to understand what the horse is doing and why it is hard.

"_Going down a steep , rocky, rooty trail, my mount would rather just string out and trot down it. It's easiest for him in the sense that it takes less muscle exertion. It's harder on his legs, more likely to result in a trip, and a lot less comfortable to me._"

That is interesting. Mia, Trooper, Cowboy and now Bandit have all figured out a steep descent means go slow. I think trotting down DID hurt their legs, and they decided to stop doing it. Bad judgment creates experience, and experience creates good judgment, and good judgment is one of my goals for training my horses - for THEM to have it, if not me!

I have no objection to anyone wanting to teach collected gaits. As long as they do so without hurting their horse, and their horse seems happy, then I am happy for them. I've ordered two dressage books, one by Mr Racinet, which should arrive tomorrow. I'll be interested in how he says one can teach a horse collection!

I'm not a horse sport enthusiast, so it is hard for me to relate to someone who loves riding in an arena and working on things like flying lead changes and collected gaits. I don't object to them, although I don't really understand either.

My objection is when people talk about "rounded" horses - which too often results in the Slinky Theory of Training. Or the belief that a collected horse is "balanced", and an uncollected horse is "bad". I object to the idea that the theory of dressage has universal application, and that riders NEED to learn dressage theory to become good riders.

To be honest, I increasingly object to the idea of putting a horse "on the bit", because a horse can be very responsive and controlled while "off the bit". But what they do with their horses remains their business, as long as they are not hurting their horses - and good dressage training will NOT hurt the horse.

However, some of the foundational thought of dressage - shifts in balance, rounding, on the bit - needs some reevaluation in light of what we now know about how horses move. Long and low training may need reevaluating as well.


----------



## jaydee

I've ridden quite a few show arabs in the US and most of them were trained to have a fixed headset - that is not remotely the same as training a horse to come into a collected frame when asked and neither is using something like rolkurr.
The other Arabian is just looking up and ahead on a trail - something I'd expect of any horse - including one that's trained to work in a collected frame
I'm struggling with this idea that some of you have where you seem to believe that a horse that's schooled to work in collection is always ridden in collection - riding in 'contact' is NOT collection
A horse that's over developed on the underside of its neck is a horse I would never buy because its a sign that they have a tendency to get above the bit to avoid it and then brace themselves - the pressure of the bit goes up into the corner of the mouth instead of on the bars and they can be impossible to stop if they decide to take off with you


----------



## Beling

Part of the problem for most of us is that we acquire horses which have already been ridden, have formed habits, what I'll call "protective postures" and other ways of going we'd like to change.

In my experience, most young horses will not trot down a steep hill unless they're running with the herd. They are cautious. Of course we want then to stay in balance, with our weight. I believe that taking a young horse on easy rides with increasingly steep downhills would result in a balanced downhill horse. So much better than having to pull on the reins to get him to come together.

_Re-schooling_ is much easier with a good, steady bit-connection, along with body/seat aids. It's why I think being "on the bit" --- that is, being able to pick up a communication with your horse (much like taking someone's hand) is one of the first things I want to teach a horse. I want it there if my horse wants to rush downhill, or there's something spooky ahead. It's not a Magical Collection device. It's not something you maintain throughout a ride, either, in casual riding. But when you do take up the reins, you're asking for full attention: something is going to happen, some task is going to be asked for.


----------



## Golden Horse

What many people forget is that there is a long journey for any horse to true collection, and again, not so many horses and riders get there....what you are seeing often are the steps on the way.


----------



## gottatrot

jaydee said:


> I'm struggling with this idea that some of you have where you seem to believe that a horse that's schooled to work in collection is always ridden in collection - riding in 'contact' is NOT collection
> A horse that's over developed on the underside of its neck is a horse I would never buy because its a sign that they have a tendency to get above the bit to avoid it and then brace themselves - the pressure of the bit goes up into the corner of the mouth instead of on the bars and they can be impossible to stop if they decide to take off with you


I'm not one that thinks horses schooled to work in collection are necessarily always ridden in collection. But many people who believe a horse must travel with a "rounded back" in order to carry a rider without hurting himself follow this thinking with the idea that a horse must always have his neck and head in a certain position in order to be carrying himself properly. That's because they've been taught this idea that the back hollows if the horse raises the head and neck. 

Many horses will comply with these signals and learn to put the head where the rider says, whether it be down and stretched forward or high with an arched neck. Over time, like a body builder they can develop enough neck muscle to hold the position for longer periods of time. This is often seen as success, that the horse is developing properly and as a sign that the horse is becoming trained. It's simply training the horse a position, and people practice it by giving the horse a period of rest and then doing the training again. Although dressage people say the rest of the world teaches a "headset" and that they teach "collection," I've been in both worlds and seen that it is taught in the exact same way. No horse ever goes through the supposed dressage ladder steps and then begins to hold himself that way without being held that way and taught he must in the first place. 

If the horse gets his head and neck out of position, the rider increases the contact or half halts or jiggles the reins until the horse puts his head back where they want it. This practice is extremely common, and seen with both english and western riders. Many don't do it for the purpose of showing or teaching dressage, but because they feel the horse needs to be taught to move this way in order to not harm the back or to develop a strong back.

Horses that have developed the underside of the neck by bracing can be taught not to brace and to work properly. Many of those horses have been ridden in a tie down or draw reins. With the seat and legs you can teach them to respond to the bit, if their head gets high you don't brace, and lower the hands while half halting and driving forward, which helps them learn to lower when there is nothing to brace against. It's an uncomfortable position for them and something horses go to when they feel they must. For me it hasn't been a long process to untrain the habit, anymore than untraining the habit of curling behind the bit and running off or reaching the neck long and forward while rushing off. All are evasions horses learn to get away with and it just takes consistency to untrain them. 

Several well-trained riders (and trainers) who have ridden one of my mares have tried to get her to carry herself where they feel she should. It amuses me a bit because I went through a long period of time trying to teach this mare to "develop properly" and did endless long lining and such, as well as many dressage lessons on her. She does not wish to carry her head in those positions where she can't see or can't breathe right, so will always thwart their progress and they end up riding her the way she prefers. 

Being ridden on contact is another story. There is no difference to a horse's comfort if a rider has good hands and has a light feel on the rein that could be maintained if the reins were made of yarn versus the horse being on a loose rein. I ride with this type of contact and it means I can be ready to give a rein cue in an instant. This type of contact cannot be used by riders that try to use their reins for balance and bump the horse unintentionally. 
Many riders feel that contact is pounds of pressure exerted continually on the reins which the horse must accept. Studies have shown this type of contact is stressful to horses. 

My friend bought a horse from a dressage trainer. I'm not saying a good one. :wink: When we went to try the horse, she insisted we (my friend and I evaluated the horse) ride the horse collected up through every gait, even though we asked to let the horse extend so we could see all the gaits. Well, the horse collected well and moved beautifully. The trainer said she was afraid to take the horse on trails and had only done it once. It seemed ridiculous to keep a horse collected so we wouldn't "ruin" the training in case we didn't buy the horse, but whatever. My friend bought the horse. After several rides at home, the horse kept flinging her neck to the side like a nervous tic. The chiropractor came and both her neck and pelvis were out. My bias was that the horse was trained improperly with only collection and never extension, and this was hard on her body. She's a wonderful, very athletic horse now but she still has occasional back and pelvis issues. I know good trainers don't try for collection after only several months of training or insist horses always move in collection. But if this rounded neck and hip are so good for the horse's back, then why did this horse have such issues? She was only 5 years old and has great conformation. I believe the biggest issue is the force the rider uses to get the horse working this way.


----------



## bsms

This is a picture from "Racinet Explains Baucher" - hardly an "anti-dressage" book:








​ 
I think it clarifies his thinking and explains the results seen in studies far better than this:








​ 
When you remove the lower picture from your mind and replace it with the top picture, you are free to focus on what the horse is doing, and hopefully train the horse in a more efficient, effective and easy-to-understand manner. The upper picture leaves no room for the Slinky approach to collection. It doesn't pretend collection is more efficient or makes it easier for a horse to carry a rider. But it does allow for someone to seek collected movements for the pleasure of them.

Collection - as in a sustained, collected gait - take a lot of work - both for the horse to perform, and for the horse to learn. Brief collection is something horses DO understand. It isn't wrong to want to teach a sustained collected gait, but it is a bit elitist to think other riders have never experienced collection (at least to some degree).

fftopic:​ 
"_It's why I think being "on the bit" --- that is, being able to pick up a communication with your horse (much like taking someone's hand) is one of the first things I want to teach a horse._"

This is where we part company. There is no requirement for tight reins or constant contact to communicate with a horse. Your posture, your voice, your legs, your posture, even how SLACK you have the reins, can communicate tons.

Constant contact communicates to me a need to control the horse, rather than work with him as a partner. It is certainly needed at times, but horses can learn to go past scary things and handle traffic, downhill slopes, etc with slack in the reins.

I came across this quote in an article I read in preparation for trying to discuss balance and motion in horses:"I agree that the net effect of hyperflexion is more to do with getting better submission of a ‘hot’ horse rather than achieving gymnastic improvement, but this cannot be condemned, as submission of animals is an essential part of domestication in general and is at the heart of what we do with horses (and especially in dressage). In other words, we make them do exercises that they are physically capable of, but which they would never perform in nature if not forced to do so by circumstances. If you are of the opinion that humans should not impose their will on animals, then stop your equestrian activities."​I think that is a fairly honest description of riding with constant contact. And I do not object to someone who wants to train toward "Submission of animals". We ride rather briefly compared to the total life of a horse, and asking them to please us in exchange for shelter and care is not unreasonable.

However, that approach precludes the idea of the horse as a thinking, rational partner. Mia sometimes made me wonder about that goal. but Cowboy and Bandit are both confirming it is entirely possible.

"_I want it there if my horse wants to rush downhill, or there's something spooky ahead._"

When we are in a situation that overloads the horse, then we do need to "get in the mouth" as required to prevent the horse's fear or inexperience from endangering us both. But from a training perspective, I want to seek out experiences that stretch the envelope without breaking it - a hill where my horse can find out rushing downhill is harmful without exceeding his ability to stay upright, for example. Then he learns from experience, and gains judgment.

There are equine sports where one cannot get to the upper level by trusting the horse's judgment. Showjumping, dressage and barrel racing would all be tough to do at a high level with slack reins. But as a philosophy of riding, I think we are too quick to "take control" and too slow to accept the horse as a rational being.

All of which is off topic for a discussion on how the horse's back works. But maybe not entirely off-topic, since part of what we are discussing is our idea that we teach the horse to move better when we conform his movement to our ideas, rather than let him learn the balance that flows naturally from HIS body!

"_With the seat and legs you can teach them to respond to the bit, if their head gets high you don't brace, and lower the hands while half halting and driving forward, which helps them learn to lower when there is nothing to brace against. It's an uncomfortable position for them and something horses go to when they feel they must. For me it hasn't been a long process to untrain the habit, anymore than untraining the habit of curling behind the bit and running off or reaching the neck long and forward while rushing off. All are evasions horses learn to get away with and it just takes consistency to untrain them._"

This. In my inexperience, I first taught Mia to brace. Then I lost control. To get control back, I needed to give up "control" and learn trust - trust I had already done a lot to destroy. Mia and Bandit both, by nature of their breeding, carry their heads higher than many other horses. But Mia only braced when I made it possible for her to do so, and stopped when I gave her nothing to brace against. It was freedom that gave control. I think Bandit initially found "freedom" disconcerting, but he is becoming a more forward and confident horse with it!


----------



## gottatrot

bsms said:


> The upper picture leaves no room for the Slinky approach to collection. It doesn't pretend collection is more efficient or makes it easier for a horse to carry a rider. But it does allow for someone to seek collected movements for the pleasure of them.


This is why I believe this is an important topic. What I would wish for others is that they might avoid what I went through, which was trying to force some horses that were not built to move a certain way to move that way because I was taught it was better for them. That's not to say some horses aren't built that way. 



bsms said:


> Collection - as in a sustained, collected gait - take a lot of work - both for the horse to perform, and for the horse to learn. Brief collection is something horses DO understand. It isn't wrong to want to teach a sustained collected gait, but it is a bit elitist to think other riders have never experienced collection (at least to some degree).


I also want to be clear that I am not against collection, at all, and it feels beautiful to ride. I just don't want people to believe collection 
= a horse moving properly, or = the way a horse uses their back properly, or that it is the pinnacle of riding.

This mare was one I started, and she used her body well naturally. She was born knowing how to collect, and in the field would do canter pirouettes when she got to corners, and once I saw her gather herself by doing some piaffe steps and then leaping in the air and flipping around 180 degrees before landing. All for fun. She was built uphill.








Several horses I rode trained by this trainer definitely create that "round" feeling underneath you.








This mustang I used to ride was also built naturally uphill and could collect and extend very easily.








He was strong and could get on his hind end easily with a rider. He scared one of my friends used to western riding because he was uphill and she felt like he was close to rearing since he'd get his weight back so far.








This guy also collects easily, can shorten his stride tremendously and rock his weight back. He can canter and only move forward a tiny bit with each stride. 








Another horse, my friend's warmblood collects the easiest of any horse I've ever ridden. He was full time with a very good trainer for something like 12 years. If you touch the bit and put your legs and seat on slightly, his weight comes back and he shortens his stride. Loosen up on the bit and drive lightly with your seat and he extends. He has degrees of extension and collection based on the strength or lightness you give him.
















Then there's the horse my friend bought from the dressage trainer. She also can collect easily, since she was taught to move collected almost exclusively before my friend bought her. She is a queen of lateral movement. 








I've ridden many other horses that collected very well. I remember a half Arab, an Arab and a Friesian that all made you feel like you were traveling more up and down than forward at times. I've been lucky to have people let me ride their well trained horses. And the backs do feel "round." But I'm learning this is an illusion, and I've seen that horses can and do develop strong backs without ever being worked in collection and even with what some would call an inverted frame.


bsms said:


> Constant contact communicates to me a need to control the horse, rather than work with him as a partner...
> However, that approach precludes the idea of the horse as a thinking, rational partner. Mia sometimes made me wonder about that goal. but Cowboy and Bandit are both confirming it is entirely possible.
> 
> But from a training perspective, I want to seek out experiences that stretch the envelope without breaking it ..Then he learns from experience, and gains judgment.


This is something I still work with as a delicate balance with some horses. I've run into three so far (two were not my own), where finding the balance is such a trick that it may never be accomplished. How to not have to control the horse that IS a rational, thinking partner but still wants very strongly to go, to run, to take over the pace when it is dangerous to do so. My goal is also to work off a loose rein at all times. With almost every horse I've found it possible to do this 99% of the time. With several I've found that was only possible about 75% of the time.

But for me a "loose" rein is rarely a draping rein, because I've found it necessary at times to help a horse that trips, to direct a horse that spooks or bolts, and I much prefer to be able to shorten my reins in a split second to have contact rather than have to reel the rein in. Friends of mine who ride more mellow types of horses seem to prefer a draping rein. 
My friend riding in the left photo also prefers this type of non-contact.


----------



## bsms

" _I remember a half Arab, an Arab and a Friesian that all made you feel like you were traveling more up and down than forward at times._"

And that is a completely acceptable goal if someone enjoys it! As long as they understand the horse is working hard, and that it isn't a motion that defines "good balance", it is fine.

" *But I'm learning this is an illusion, and I've seen that horses can and do develop strong backs without ever being worked in collection and even with what some would call an inverted frame.*"

This. A horse can have a strong back and carry weight well without significant collection. Collection should be valued for what it is, and not for what it is not. It is not a way to make it easier for a horse to carry a rider. It is not more efficient. But it can be fun to ride, I assume. If collection is thought of as a continuum instead of binary - a sliding scale instead of an on/off switch - then modest collection is obviously fun for the horse at times AND it gives a better feeling ride. It tends to feel smoother and you are aware that your horse is ready to change directions or speed quickly.

" _I've run into three so far (two were not my own), where finding the balance is such a trick that it may never be accomplished. How to not have to control the horse that IS a rational, thinking partner but still wants very strongly to go, to run, to take over the pace when it is dangerous to do so._"

If I had the answer, I'd still have Mia! No getting around it: I never really cracked the code for how to make her a safe ride in the Sonoran desert. In the open country of the Navajo reservation, she'll do fine - safe enough, if sometimes quirky! Not much to get hurt by if she jumps sideways or tosses in an unexpected 360 here:








​ 
I miss her, but I may live longer without her. :-? It might be that she was a horse who WOULD benefit from a good rider using constant contact. I never had the skill to find out.

But in terms of how a horse moves, there is a lot to be said for allowing a horse to figure it out himself. For example:
Another explanation of the preferred speed was offered by Hoyt and Taylor (9). In their ponies, the relationships between Vÿ O2 and speed are described as curvilinear. The relevance of linear vs. curvilinear relationships between metabolism and speed is important when an animal’s CT or the mass-specific cost of moving a unit distance is calculated. If Vy O2 increases linearly with speed, then the slope of this relationship (which equals CT) is constant and independent of speed. In a curvilinear relationship, there is a speed where CT reaches a minimum value. 

In the pony study, this speed of minimum CT, i.e., highest metabolic economy, coincided with the animal’s preferred speed.

In the present study, we found that the relationships between metabolism and speed (Fig. 1) were better fit by a curvilinear equation resulting in a speed where CT was minimum (Fig. 2). This speed where movement was most economical was virtually identical to the preferred speed of the horses analyzed.

What happens when the horse carries an additional mass? Adding mass to an animal increases the force that must be generated by muscles (4) and increases metabolic rate proportionately in a number of animals (15), including the horse (16). In our study, addition of a 85-kg weight saddle [187 lbs], equal to an average of 19% of the animals’ body masses, increased the metabolic rate an average of 17.6%, close to the predictions by Taylor et al. (15)...Again, the speed that produced a minimum CT for the horses with a load occurred at a speed that correlated well with their measured preferred speed while they carried that additional mass.








​ 
Effect of load on preferred speed and cost of transport - S. J. WICKLER, D. F. HOYT, E. A. COGGER, AND K. M. HALL - J Appl Physiol 90: 1548–1551, 2001
​My most efficient jogging speed seems to be about 7.5 minutes/mile. If I don't have the aerobic conditioning to maintain it, then I need to take breaks. But that speed hasn't varied for me in 40 years. It is just where I can jog with the least effort for my body type and proportions. It can be more complex for the horse to figure out [same study, different article]:Not surprisingly, horses who are free to choose their own speed tend to slow down when weight is placed on their backs. Coupled with their investigation into metabolic changes, says Wickler, "we were also hoping to see a tie between metabolic economy and preferred speed."

In this phase of the study, seven Arabian geldings and mares were trained to walk and trot along a level fence line in response to voice commands. They were timed as they walked and trotted the distance unburdened as well as with a saddle weighted with lead shot. The saddle and lead together weighed 85 kilograms (about 187 pounds), which amounted to about 19 percent of the horses' body weights. Not surprisingly, the additional weight caused horses to move more slowly, reducing speed from about 7.4 mph to about 7 mph. "Not only does their metabolic rate go up, but their preferred speed goes down," Wickler says, adding that the most important finding was that *the horses' preferred speed was the most economical in terms of moving a given distance with that added weight*...

... Carrying a load caused the horses to leave their feet on the ground an average of 7.7 percent longer than they did while trotting unburdened. On the level, the addition of a load caused the swing phase of the stride to become 3 percent shorter, but going uphill this phase of stride lasted 6 percent longer.

In short, explains Wickler, carrying a load causes a horse to shorten his stride, leave his feet on the ground longer and increase the distance his body travels (the "step length") with each stride. All of these gait adjustments work together to reduce the forces placed on the legs with each step. "Forces are damaging," says Wickler, "so keeping the foot on the ground reduces peak forces and reduces that potential for injury."

- See more at: How Much Weight Can Your Horse Safely Carry? | EquiSearch​Only the horse knows how to adjust for a specific weight and speed. We don't even know what peak impacts and how long they leave each hoof on the ground are without extensive instrumentation - but the horse knows how it feels, and will try to adjust for efficiency. He'll do it like I have - without conscious thought, but trial and error. 

For a human to suggest we know more about how the horse needs to move than the horse does is arrogance, unless we are doing so based on what we enjoy riding. It is OK to say we know more about how we enjoy riding than the horse, and that the horse can work harder to please us in return for food, shelter, care, safety, etc. But when it comes to motion and efficiency, we need to accept that the horse knows more about being a horse than we do!

BTW - maximum drape for me:










And, truth in advertising, Bandit often gets less (none) - although the amount is increasing as I learn to trust him and he learns to trust me. Trust is earned, in both directions:​







​


----------



## Beling

Agree: contact on the bit, or "on the bit", or whatever you call it, is *all about submission.*

But it's not like roping their legs. It's a _learned submission_. The horse is in no way forced to listen.

In a perfect world, you'd never need this kind of thing, because nothing would ever spook your horse, he would never drag on your hands, or balk, or rush, or move in such a way that he ends up kinking his muscles and hurting his back.

So many of us have horses that came with behavior we'd like to change, or with whom we've made mistakes we'd like to fix. We usually start with submission to the halter, and move to a bit. You don't have to use the bit. But if you do, it's surprising how many things you can "say" to each other, even with the mildest pressure.


----------



## tinyliny

Beling said:


> Agree: contact on the bit, or "on the bit", or whatever you call it, is *all about submission.*
> 
> But it's not like roping their legs. It's a _learned submission_. The horse is in no way forced to listen.
> 
> In a perfect world, you'd never need this kind of thing, because nothing would ever spook your horse, he would never drag on your hands, or balk, or rush, or move in such a way that he ends up kinking his muscles and hurting his back.
> 
> So many of us have horses that came with behavior we'd like to change, or with whom we've made mistakes we'd like to fix. We usually start with submission to the halter, and move to a bit. You don't have to use the bit. But if you do, it's surprising how many things you can "say" to each other, even with the mildest pressure.


I wanted to "like" this more than once, so quoting it is my second "like".

when I became a good enough rider to be able to "speak" to my horse through the reins, and hear him/her back, I discovered the joy of dialoguing with the horse, via reins and a bit. sorry, yes, maybe at times it's uncomfortable to the hrose when he wants to lean on it, or go somewhere I'd rather he not go. but, it does make for some amazing discussions, and when the horse is listening to, accepting and respecting what the bit say, he is on the bit, and that is not a harsh /tight contact. it's a close contact, like how two dancers hands push lightly against each other so that the leader can tell the follower where to move.


----------



## bsms

We rode Trooper for about 3 years bitless. Mia too. We switched to bits because it is easier to communicate with a bit. With Mia, I ended up switching her to a curb so she could not give herself "relief" and bolt. Once she learned to hold her ground when scared, she started getting better. I am not anti-bit in any way. I'm not opposed to getting in my horse's mouth, not at all, IF there is a reason.

What I do not understand is staying in the horse's mouth continually. If I told someone "_I need to constantly squeeze with my legs to keep my horse moving_", I'd be told I was teaching him to ignore the leg. So with the exception of some horse sports where it apparently is helpful, why would I teach the horse to ignore contact?

This is what the horse experiences (when ridden by an experienced dressage rider):








​ 
Looks like the weight of the reins gives around 1 lb on contact. That is inescapable with a bit and reins. 8lbs for a half-halt. I can give the same cue by taking some slack out of the reins (not quite all) to communicate "Either ease off and re-balance, or more pressure will follow".

So, why would I want to have that "white noise" of 2-6 lbs of mouth pressure that I have to exceed before my horse can recognize I'm trying to communicate something?

"_I very strongly believe that every one of us should think twice before asking the horse to do something which is not imperitive for the game to which the horse is assigned_." - Littauer, Schooling Your Horse, pg 8​ 
For those sports where it is needed, I say nothing. How can I? If someone says it is needed to teach a horse to do XYZ, and I've never tried XYZ, then I have no way of knowing. But if someone says it gives better control, or better communication, or helps the horse in some way for general purpose riding of a young horse - then my question is, "How?" Because my experience with spooky horses indicates that most of the time, they will learn better on slack reins - either by taking more time, or by showing them on foot.

I'll get in Bandit's mouth quite regularly to tell him, if needed, "_We are NOT doing a 180!_" But if I want him to conquer his fear and learn trust, I get it better by THEN giving him slack. The exceptions are emergencies (cars very close, a drop-off, cholla cactus near his butt, etc). 

But I do not understand a preference for constant, continuous contact. In what sense is it different from constant, continuous squeezing with the leg? I'm asking. What do you communicate through continuous contact that cannot be communicated equally well outside the mouth? Bandit is quite capable of talking back via his posture, tension, ears, head elevation, etc. We HAVE continuous discussions while riding, just not continuous contact on the bit. Same was true of Mia. EVERY ride with Mia was a constant conversation! And she could talk very well with a curb bit and slack reins...


----------



## gottatrot

bsms said:


> But in terms of how a horse moves, there is a lot to be said for allowing a horse to figure it out himself...
> Only the horse knows how to adjust for a specific weight and speed. We don't even know what peak impacts and how long they leave each hoof on the ground are without extensive instrumentation - but the horse knows how it feels, and will try to adjust for efficiency. He'll do it like I have - without conscious thought, but trial and error.
> when it comes to motion and efficiency, we need to accept that the horse knows more about being a horse than we do!


This is true in endurance riding also. Many horses are more efficient over distance at the trot, but many are more efficient at the canter. One of my mares prefers the canter, and I've learned that many horses have slower heart rates at the canter versus a big trot. It makes a lot of sense if a horse does not have as much ability within their physiology to store energy and release it with tendon/muscle recoil and must use more muscle energy at the trot. Versus the canter which can be very efficient with the motion of the gut assisting with respiration and different use of the muscles. 



> _*Beling:*_ Agree: contact on the bit, or "on the bit", or whatever you call it, is *all about submission.*
> 
> But it's not like roping their legs. It's a _learned submission_. The horse is in no way forced to listen.


And some horses understand very well that they are not forced to listen, and may sometimes choose not to listen. I'd like to say it was the original trainer that didn't get the horse to believe strongly enough that the horse had to listen. It's important to give the horse the illusion that you can always get the obedience you are asking for. But I think many horses may pick this up on their own despite good training, based on their belief that the dominance in a herd is never a fixed thing and they can always try to take over control.

I agree that reins can be good for "talking" to a horse. That idea was something I picked up as a young person reading Walter Farley books where he talked about the rider or driver communicating through the lines and described it in detailed language. Most of his books were pure fiction, but when I began riding this was something that I found could apply to real life. 
When you talk about "touch," though, some people mean a touch that if you applied it to your dog sleeping on the couch wouldn't make him get up. Other people mean something more equivalent to a jerk or a shove. 
To me it is a mere "feel" that there is something on the other end of the reins. 

But keeping that feel or not should depend more on the horse than on the rider. Some horses would like you to talk to them frequently. With others, they'd like to be left completely alone until you're about to do something. One horse I know does not like you to use the reins at all, but if you're going to speed up he wants you to talk to him about it first. For him, you must give a firm, "Hello, hello, I'm here, let's go," before taking off. If you just leave the reins with no contact and then ask him to go, it seems to offend him and he will ignore you completely for awhile. 

One of my mares is similar, in that she prefers to have a talk about everything before you do it. My other mare prefers that you leave her head alone, but she wants you to tell her with your seat and weight every step you are traveling. Literally, if you just sat there loosely she'd veer off the path and find herself stuck in some bushes. You must tell her to avoid things like trees or she'll just run into them. When you're riding her, she puts her brain away and expects you to do the work. But she lives this way in the pasture as well, with other horses deciding the schedule and paths to travel for her. Another horse has to say, "Dinnertime!" for her to notice and come up to the shelter to eat.


----------



## jaydee

Firstly - You do NOT have to ride your horse in contact all the time just because it understands how to ride in contact
Secondly - Contact does not mean that you've got the horse in a vice like grip - the amount of pressure you have on your reins isn't a constant, it changes depending on what you're doing. Really its more about the horse knowing that you're there and in control - not just a passenger with the horse in the driving seat.
I have no clue where these ideas come from other than some sort of a mental block when it comes to discussing contact and collection
Just because some dressage riders (and showing riders) never venture out of an arena doesn't mean they all do that, the horses on the Carl Hester yard are hacked out regularly and you can't get much higher than they are in the dressage world
This is a photo of a friend (cropped for privacy reasons) who does dressage and endurance with this Hanoverian x Welsh gelding. Navigating trappy ground on a fairly light rein doesn't destroy his ability to 'collect'

You also don't have to ride in collection all the time to get a good topline on your horse - but what you *don't *do is ride in a bad outline all the time.
A horse with good strong back muscles that protect the spine is always going to do better than one that lacks them
A horse that moves properly, knows how to carry itself properly under saddle and is responsive to contact either to the bit or bitless is always going to be a safer and more comfortable ride
But that's something you can only understand if you've ridden both types of horse - you cannot get that experience from a book or a video
Two horses - one that's got a bad topline but not underweight and one that's got a good one.
I know which one I'd rather do a days riding on


----------



## Golden Horse

A 'LIKE' is now where near adequate for Jaydee's post,

This 


> A horse that moves properly, knows how to carry itself properly under saddle and is responsive to contact either to the bit or bitless is always going to be a safer and more comfortable ride
> But that's something you can only understand if you've ridden both types of horse - you cannot get that experience from a book or a video


Is so true, that feel, well it is something different.

I have ridden inverted TB's, I was young and dumb and don't know WHY we had so many of them, but they were darn uncomfortable, and somewhat dangerous, but what do you do when you are a riding school, you ride what they give you.

I've ridden a couple of nice showjumpers, they needed more contact than I ever realized, trying to negotiate my way to a fence the first time was embarrassing, I could jump, but I had been riding school horses, little contact, lots of leg, yeah, tried that approach, and get carted off around the arena, seemed I needed LOTS of contact and a steady leg.

Lets see, reiners, been lucky enough to ride a couple of good ones, still a ton of fun, but WOW, that is a lot of power, but my English ways really confused them, see they were beautifully balanced, with no contact. WP, also no contact. but very balanced.

Fergie, my latest ride, boy is she teaching me a lot, see she is naturally inclined to invert, so someone in the past 'fixed it' with draw reins, so now if you overdo the contact she will curl right up. For her I know that I am in fact shouting, at her, when I think I am talking, in other words she needs the lightest of 'twinkle' on the rein to communicate, I'm learning to whisper. She is learning that there is a comfortable place between, head up hollow back, and being over bent to a serious degree. I am NOT looking for collection, not yet, just connection, we have got her rhythm now, she is doing a lot better with relaxation so we are starting to ask for connection, and with those three in place we will be hitting the dressage ring, depending on her fitness, of both body and mind, I would love to take her up to collection this year, but I'm guessing we probably won't make it. True collection takes a long time to develop......


----------



## DanteDressageNerd

The purpose of contact for the short answer is to have full communication and connection with the horse's entire body. If you're out on a trail it doesn't make sense to ride this way, it would likely interfere more than it would assist. Especially going up up and down hills where the horses needs it's neck for balance. It doesnt make sense for an endurance type ride, it is NOT the most efficient or best way to go but if you're a dressage rider, riding in an arena or field or a jumper and you're asking for 10m circles and asking for correct leg yielding, asking for shoulder in, actual collected engagement, etc. it makes sense in order to organize and balance the entire horse. A 10m circle needs to be ridden entirely so that it serves a purpose vs just a tight turn putting extra pressure on the horse's legs. We ride a 10m circle to strengthen and increase balance from the horse and to increase engagement and throughness. 

In saying this I'm not saying dressage is the only way but I am saying give credit where credit is due. Many dressage horses never really develop collection. Collection is a process that takes time to develop the muscular strength and coordination to do so correctly. When we train horses to collect, we start gradually. We usually introduce the basic steps of collection at 1st level for example a basic reaction to a core half halt through transitions after the horse has already learned to work into a contact and maintain a regular rhythm to help them learn to shift weight as they gradually advance in exercises and gain condition. 

The other thing with the one example of bit pressure is how much does that horse weigh? How strong is that horse to ride? How hard is that horse to ride? Is the horse very up and hot? Or how do I know this information is standard? I've seen trainers who are poor riders and amateurs who are skillful. Also different horses feel different in the bridle and need various amount of pressure to ride effectively, effectively meaning to influence the entire horse. For example my under 16h half arab most likely isn't going to be nearly as strong in the bridle as a 17h warmblood. Contact and connection should be like holding hands, it should not be fixed or stagnant or pulling. It's there to connect the entire horse to the rider and allow us to perform the movements of dressage in an organized, balanced and rhythmical way. A connection should be breathing, still enough to be effective but breathing to allow the horse movement and elasticity. The connection should feel elastic and not fixed.


----------



## gottatrot

jaydee said:


> Contact does not mean that you've got the horse in a vice like grip - the amount of pressure you have on your reins isn't a constant, it changes depending on what you're doing. Really its more about the horse knowing that you're there and in control - not just a passenger with the horse in the driving seat.
> I have no clue where these ideas come from other than some sort of a mental block when it comes to discussing contact and collection.


The horse with the "bad topline" is not one that I'd want to ride either...yet. The horses I've come across with a similar body type didn't develop that way because of collection or lack of collection, or contact or lack of contact. He has muscle wasting behind the withers that is almost certainly due to a poorly fitting saddle and/or too heavy of a load for his body type. He also has a hunter's bump from straining the sacroiliac muscle, usually from being used too hard too soon. So he's been poorly used and my guess is he at one time had a good attitude and/or was forced to do what the rider asked despite pain. The horse needs rest, chiropractic, a saddle fitter, and rider evaluation. 

These ideas about contact are not ones that are hard or rare to find. George Morris also will force contact on a horse in an attempt to get the horse to accept pounds of rein pressure. I was taught to teach horses to move into contact in a similar way, which some horses will learn to move into pain and others will become resentful or shut down mentally.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UggOc7mVRzY


----------



## bsms

"_Secondly - Contact does not mean that you've got the horse in a vice like grip - the amount of pressure you have on your reins isn't a constant, it changes depending on what you're doing. Really its more about the horse knowing that you're there and in control - not just a passenger with the horse in the driving seat._"

Judging from measurements, contact does mean more pressure than non-contact. But what does that "contact without asking anything" do to help the horse?

"_Really its more about the horse knowing that you're there and in control_"

Maybe it is because of the horses I've ridden. Mia was fully aware that she had 4 feet on the ground and I had zero - and what that meant. I gather some horses are not like that. But in what sense does constant contact give ANY control? In what sense is a background noise of 4-6 lbs of pressure giving control? How does white noise communicate anything? What do you think constant contact gives that intermittent contact cannot - particularly given the millions of western horses who are NEVER ridden with constant contact?

How is it I was able to (with time) ride Mia down a road with traffic going by at 50+ mph like this:








​ 
If a spooky horse like Mia could learn to ride controlled next to high speed vehicles like that, then in what sense is continuous contact needed for control?

"_You also don't have to ride in collection all the time to get a good topline on your horse - but what you *don't *do is ride in a bad outline all the time._"

Define bad. Stargazing? No one is suggesting it, and a horse doesn't do it if ridden with any feeling.

Does it mean braced? Agreed, a braced back in normally bad and a sign more conditioning and trust is needed.

As far as backs go...this is Trooper (850 lbs of him) carrying a 6'3" rider at about the 90 minute mark:








​ 
He's gone 3 hours carrying that guy at a walk, trot and canter over terrain that is all up and down, and stayed relaxed doing so. So...in what sense is a vertical face and light front end - what the FEI defines as being collected and on the bit - helpful for the back? In what sense is it good balance?

"_A horse with good strong back muscles that protect the spine is always going to do better than one that lacks them
A horse that moves properly, knows how to carry itself properly under saddle and is responsive to contact either to the bit or bitless is always going to be a safer and more comfortable ride_"








​ 
No kidding. A responsive horse is more enjoyable to ride than an unresponsive one? What does that have to do with putting a horse on the bit or teaching it collected gaits?

What does that have to do with a "rounded back" - which does not exist?

"_But that's something you can only understand if you've ridden both types of horse - you cannot get that experience from a book or a video
Two horses - one that's got a bad topline but not underweight and one that's got a good one.
I know which one I'd rather do a days riding on_"

I'll admit to getting tired of the condescension of those who seem to assume I only read books. Bandit braces at a trot about 80% of the time. Been there done that, still working on it. He also canters nicely, now has a good walk (he did not before), and he is sometimes trotting with a relaxed back. One horse, both situations. Same with my other horses.

You do not need to take dressage lessons or ride dressage horses to experience a free-flowing, supple back. And the truth is that no dressage horse in history has rounded its back up. That is not possible. The spine won't allow it, even on a bucking horse!

Trooper came here bracing his back and extremely tense. Is it any wonder:










ANY horse, ridden harshly with a bad fitting saddle, or ridden far and fast with a very heavy rider (Bandit) will move braced and tense. That is understanable. But one can correct the problem without putting a horse on the bit, and without trying to get him to round his back.​ 
This is something that happens:








​ 
This is not:








​ 
It is not up for a vote. You might as well ask for a vote on if the earth is flat or round. When you ask a horse to "round up", you are asking it to increase peak impact on the front legs and lift its withers. That may make for a more enjoyable ride, and it is OK to do for fun - but it is NOT a better balance, nor is it in any way required for a horse to have a strong, healthy back.

Too many millions of western horses are ridden with slack reins and good, healthy backs for a rational person to believe "rounding" is needed or helpful for the health of a horse - outside of specialized horse sports.


----------



## jaydee

But a horse that's constantly ridden in an inverted outline will likely develop sacroiliac trouble because of the strain its putting on that area - its not always caused by a trauma injury or an accident
A horse with a poor topline from being badly worked will also have muscle deterioration because its doing nothing to gain good muscle and a horse with poor muscle definition will also have problems with saddle fitting
So yes - that horse has been poorly used because he wasn't worked to have a good topline and the rest is a knock on effect of that
Its a Catch 22 situation when you look at something like that - has the saddle caused the trouble or did bad riding cause the muscle wastage and the horse is now hard to fit a saddle too?
Its a bit like blaming the bit because the horse doesn't work nicely when usually its poor training that's the fault
In 2014 I bought a horse that didn't look much better than that one and from seeing video of her, watching her ridden and riding her myself it was obvious that although she'd been a horse that was initially worked correctly she'd spent a year at least being allowed to ride 'inverted' to the point that she was VERY hard to hold, had developed 'bad' muscle memory, the underside of her neck had become over developed and entire length of her spine was so sore that they'd spent a lot of money having X rays and ultra sounds to rule out actual damage from some injury
Fast forward to today and with correct work she no longer has the appearance of possible sacroiliac trouble, no sore back, no saddle fitting issues and has a great topline


----------



## jaydee

bsms - I have seen far too many bombproof horses seriously/fatally injured because some rider was slopping along a road 'on the buckle' and the normally solid horse suddenly woke up and sidestepped
If people want to treat a horse like a motorbike then they should probably stick to something mechanical


----------



## bsms

"_Bsms - I have seen far too many bombproof horses seriously/fatally injured because some rider was slopping along a road 'on the buckle' and the normally solid horse suddenly woke up and sidestepped_"

*First time anyone has suggested Mia was bomb-proof*. But around where I live, almost all horses are ridden along the road "on the buckle". For the record, Mia sidestepped once like that - to increase the room from a car who apparently decided to see how close they could come to us. She saved my leg that day, I suspect...car missed my leg by inches.

But good luck finding people riding by the road in Arizona "on the bit" to control their horse! And what HAS been done, CAN be done.

"_But a horse that's constantly ridden in an inverted outline will likely develop sacroiliac trouble because of the strain its putting on that area - its not always caused by a trauma injury or an accident_"

Define "inverted outline". Most use it to mean a horse whose head is raised, unless there is a dressage saddle on the horse at the time. Then it is rounded instead of inverted. In reality, the back is either tense or supple or relaxed. The head position has nothing to do with it. The head does not control the back. Tense bad. Supple excellent. Relaxed OK. If the back flows underneath you, the horse is not having a problem with your weight. However, as speed increases, the horse will stiffen the back in order to transmit the force of the hind legs into forward motion on the front end.


----------



## MajorSealstheDeal

tinyliny said:


> *this is one reason that gaited horses tend to be less laterally flexible or adept. they keep the back straighter and stiffer so that most of the movement comes only from the legs working off the spine, as if it were a board. that board, not flexing side to side, nor going up and down a lot, give the rider that smooth ride. a lot of leg work under a quiet , still board. but, ask a gaited horse to move in a small circle and you'll feel how inflexible they are. *


Funny, my mare was burning little donuts under saddle today! We use circles (big and small, especially doing canter work) and bending in our training to get a round frame. When our horses round their backs and tuck that nose in a bit, they reach under themselves and gait better. This results in more over stride and a bigger head nod, which is obviously a good thing with walkers.


----------



## gottatrot

Something I found interesting was several years ago when I went to a rodeo and saw some of the most ewe-necked horses I've ever seen. The calf roping horses especially are ridden with tie-downs, which they lean on and really develop the neck muscles on the underside of their necks. Yet when I looked at them in the pens without their saddles on, their hindquarters and backs looked strong and nicely muscled. They also tend to carry heavy male riders, but of course they're doing a sprint sport not endurance. 

I haven't seen evidence that the neck developing wrongly because of being ridden "inverted" or with a high neck set creates a horse with a poor attitude or one that cannot do athletic maneuvers. Many rodeo horses are well trained and responsive horses, capable of quick turns and smooth stops such as the one in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8QnA0h1-eM

Jaydee, I understand you feel the horse being ridden with head and neck high created the body and muscle issues. It's also possible the horse began to hold himself tensely and move poorly due to pain. Some of the worst muscling I've seen has been on horses with hoof issues. 

My question would also be what constitutes "poorly worked?" My definition of "poorly worked" is a horse that is asked to do too much too soon, or that he is not physically suited for. A horse being poorly worked is also a horse being forced into a certain position, or one being worked with his body in resistance. A horse that is in good shape, that is being allowed to use his body in a way that is comfortable for him and is not being asked to do maneuvers he is not ready for will not develop physical issues unless they are nutritional or disease related rather than work related. That is assuming the rider is able to allow the horse to move without restriction as well. 

I don't believe you can say a horse ridden on a loose rein with a rider that is not interfering is being "poorly worked," no matter where the horse decides to place his head or neck. If the horse is gradually conditioned for more work and faster work, and allowed to move out freely, his body will soon develop properly as long as his saddle fits well. As the horse gets stronger, his muscling will improve and his neck will become stronger. But if the rider interferes, this development may not take place.

We create physical issues in horses by using them with tack that is painful, by creating tension in their bodies, and by expecting their bodies to work like machines rather than physiological bodies that need to get in shape gradually like our own do. We also make horses do things that they don't naturally do, such as jump over obstacles repetitively or doing lots of fast turns, spins and stops repetitively. These can cause injuries that make a horse use his body poorly to compensate. I'm not saying we can't use horses for these things, but we need to keep in mind the potential for muscle strain and injury and be even more mindful of letting the horse use his body properly.


----------



## trailhorserider

I'm one of those Arizona riders that goes down the trail "on the buckle." A friend of mine says I "throw the reins away." But yeah, that's normal, and how I like to go down the trail. I want both me and the horse to be relaxed. Sometimes "stuff" happens and my young horse spooks. But by the time I can react to it, the spook is usually done with. So we usually go down the trail on a drooped rein about like this: :cowboy:

I kind of think there is a different mindset between western and english and what is considered normal riding. I have heard people on here talk about wearing gloves and how they always have to ride in gloves to protect their hands. And I'm like . If you have to wear gloves to protect yourself from the reins, just think about the pressure on the horse's mouth. 

So I don't know. My only explanation is that it's a cultural thing. Horses ride perfectly well on a draped rein. It's just that some horses and riders are never trained to ride that way for whatever reason.

Now sometimes with my mare, who can be barn sour, I will have to hold contact just to keep her from running home with me. But we don't ride with contact going out. If the horse let's me ride on a loose rein, I will give them a loose rein. Contact only when needed.


----------



## gottatrot

I found an interesting link:
Working from behind



> When the horse arches the back from the front, the lowered head and neck affects the alignment of the first few thoracic vertebrae, rounding the spine so that the front end points downwards. The muscles of the neck and nuchal ligament pull on the spinous process of the withers and bend the vertebral column downwards, lowering the withers and rotating the top end of the shoulder forwards. Neither the muscles or the nuchal ligament will affect the bow of the spine further back than the withers. Therefore in order to arch the back behind the saddle the movement needs to come from the hindquarters.
> 
> The hindquarters are much better equipped for arching and releasing the back. The iliopsoas muscles rotate the pelvis backwards, creating an arching effect in the lumbar spine. The abdominal muscles will also pull on the ribcage to tuck the hindquarters under and press the contents of the viscera upwards, again having the effect of arching the back. All of these muscles are much stronger and better suited to this kind of work than the muscles of the neck.
> 
> 
> In a horse trained to pull his withers forward to raise the back what you end up with is a constant traction and subsequent locking of the lumbar spine. This is because the head is constantly down and not pulling on the ligament with each step in a pulsating wave like way. Many of these horses will therefore show stocatto breathing and a tense drawn-up belly because this effect has to be strongly counteracted by the abdominals.
> If you work to do the same thing but use the unencumbered muscle force created form behind (from engagement of the hindlegs and collection), you will get a pulsating intermittent lift with every step of the hindlegs. The horse will not need to counteract anything except the weight of the viscera and the rider. The massive muscles of the pelvis and thigh are much more effective in this quite heavy task and do not cause a stiff topline-bottomline tug of war.
> It is clear from looking at the biomechanics that more emphasis should be placed on the tilting of the pelvis rather than the position of the head and neck when training the horse.


The back does not round or arch relating to the position of the neck because it is not possible for it to affect the back farther back than the withers. What the writer describes is that the lumbar spine is the part of the back that can physically lift or arch. There's far too much emphasis in riding and training on rounding the back, lifting the back, and containing the horse's energy from the front in my opinion.


----------



## trailhorserider

Here's something that has always troubled me. Everyone says horses should ride rounded up, even gaited horses. BUT, gaited horses do seem to prefer gaiting in a more hollow frame. But even though it goes against their natural tendencies, we are taught to try to at least give them the "look" of collection. 

How do we know that's really better for the horse? Will a horse really fall apart physically if we let them travel in the way they clearly prefer?

I see all these amazing racking horses on You-tube and they are all inverted. Surely if they fell apart this way, people wouldn't ride them this way. And if you loose the gait by "rounding" them, then doesn't that mean that it is the wrong frame for the horse? 

For instance, I have a Fox Trotter/QH cross gelding. I am pretty sure I could get him gaiting more consistently if I put my feet "on the dash" and raised his head and put him more in a typical gaited-horse frame. But everyone swears that is "bad" and your horse will fall apart physically if you do that. So I just ride him on a slack rein like a Quarter Horse and hope that one day our gaiting will come together. But I have a hard time believing people would be riding gaited horses like this for hundreds of years (or longer) if it meant it would ruin them. They actually DO seem to gait better in that position. 

So what's the deal on that? If a gaited horse (say a Walker, or even the previously mentioned Icelandic) naturally travels hollow and gaits well hollow, then how do we know asking them to ride more "collected" is actually better? Doesn't the horse know which way is actually more comfortable for them? How to we know that all is "collection" stuff isn't false and the horse knows it's best riding position anyway? 

I have a feeling a lot of these "poor top lines" we see that are contributed to riding hollow are more from lack of feed and poor fitting saddles than from the way the horse has actually been ridden. A lot of examples of poor top lines seem to be Thoroughbreds (hard keepers anyway) ridden in english saddles (less weight distribution) and everyone blames the lack of muscle mass on the horse traveling hollow.

In summary, I just can't imagine traveling inverted being so bad for gaited horses if they do it naturally and if you hinder the gait by "collecting" them.


----------



## trailhorserider

MajorSealstheDeal said:


> Funny, my mare was burning little donuts under saddle today! We use circles (big and small, especially doing canter work) and bending in our training to get a round frame. When our horses round their backs and tuck that nose in a bit, they reach under themselves and gait better. This results in more over stride and a bigger head nod, which is obviously a good thing with walkers.


I would truly like to understand how a Walker gaits better rounding it's back. I'm not saying you are wrong, just that practically EVERY gaited horse I see in videos on the internet are traveling (what I would consider to be) inverted. It's almost like everyone says they should be rounded, but reality is, I just don't see it. 

Maybe it's just my perception. It's 1:30 am and I have to go to bed!

I agree with you about the tucked nose. I like a tucked nose on just about everything. :wink:

Maybe it's true.......the back really can't flex, and so our perceptions of round and inverted are just plain wrong. I am starting to think that's true.


----------



## DanteDressageNerd

I'll say correct work definitely improves the topline and horses way of going. Correct work being good rhythm, correct balance, connection and most horses will naturally meet the contact. Whenever I start babies we don't necessarily "ride them on the bit" but we do have a contact and they naturally seek it out when they are in a correct rhythm, are balanced and actively meet the contact. We don't do anything "fancy" for a while.

Also in what I'm saying I am not crying horse abuse for not riding dressage or saying you have no business sitting on a horse if you don't ride dressage but what I am saying is give credit where credit is due. There is a functional reason we do dressage in an arena or for show jumping or sport or rehab. I used to be a working student and technically I was a professional. I was not a trainer but I was paid to ride 3-5 horses per day. Some were babies, most were rehab projects or horses that others were struggling with because for whatever reason I ride the neurotic, problem children well. 

From what I have seen, dressage training makes a BIG differences in the horses I have rehabbed from various injuries and conditions through dressage training. The EPM horses I've rehabbed I don't think would ever have recovered the way they did if they didn't do dressage because dressage is reinforcing the mind-body connections and helps rebuild the nerve connections which have "gotten lost in translation" because of the nerve damage from the EPM. Think of it as like physical therapy for people who have had spinal cord injuries, not quite as extreme but similar. Magellan (one of the horses) could have been trail ridden all day and I don't think he'd have recovered as well as he did because of the dressage work. I say this because dressage reinforced the mind-body connection and is asking for coordinated based maneuvers a horse wouldn't do on their own or out on a trail. For example riding correct shoulder in into a 10m half circle onto another 10m half circle back to shoulder in is very demanding and requires the horse to be very coordinated, in balance, and do things with his body he wouldn't ordinarily do. 

Dressage work reinforces nerve connections and develops muscle memory. I do not think natural is the best or "perfect" way for arena work. I've broke one too many babies to say natural is best lol where they can't bend one direction, a leg in each corner and have no idea about their body parts are. But I will say in regards to people because bio mechanics applies. Watch a person move, what they do naturally isn't necessarily the best way but it is what they're accustom to. I was an active duty marine, I've also been through a lot of rehab for various injuries. I have gone on a 10+ mile hikes carrying about 80lbs of gear. Im broken because I was pushed too quickly through rehab and have reinjured and exacerbated my iliopsoas tendon 3 times. That said I have had to do a lot of physical exercises and things like yoga or dance to help keep my body functional. Yoga to reinforce the mind-body connection and awareness as well as to develop muscle memory so I can carry myself better. Weight lifting I've also had to do in order to strengthen the body. For example with my degenerative disks I have a STRONG core and lower back because if I don't I'm in a lot of pain. My structure is compromised so I need more muscular support. For my hip flexor tendinitis I stretch and exercise to help strengthen the muscles surrounding the weaknesses so I can ride and be functional. I don't limp anymore. I do stability exercises for my knees and ankles so I can walk NORMALLY and not look messed up. 

I think dressage is similar in effect to the horse's body because it focuses on developing muscle memory so the horse is stronger, straighter, more balanced. Dressage asks the rider and horse to be more aware of their bodies and to allow a rider to influence the horse's body and be aware of little details that would be missed. I can also say with older horses I've worked, dressage work has definitely helped them move more comfortably around the pasture. I had a 17.2h hanoverian 27yrs old (I rode/cared for this horse for 3 years, didn't own) who it made a HUGE difference for, his back wasn't so badly swayed he could control his hind end because he was asked to be supple, to stretch to work over his topline. Just hacking him out on a trail, his back would never have gotten to almost normal because horses are not using their back as completely as when doing correct dressage work. For evidence just look as a standard trail horses topline and look at a horse who may have a similar conformation but is in dressage work. You'll see a horse with a much fuller, stronger topline. I rehabbed a few horses who had essentially a permanent gimp because they had so much scar tissue in a tendon or ligament in a certain leg. Dressage work helped these horses look almost completely sound (not every case, depends on extent of damage some have to be retired) and regular because we were asking him to use their bodies to stretch, be deeper in their outline, working over their back and ask them to do laterals because it helps to supple, strengthened the muscles as well as to train muscle memory and improve coordination. One horse (Andy)'s lameness was actually 10 times worse when he wasn't in work vs when he was. He was an interesting case, vet said keep him moving because that movement and stretching and the suppleness of the laterals and reinforcing throughness really helped him. Vet kept saying keep doing what you're doing, it's working. And he was a happier horse. That particular horse NEEDED a job, he was a highly intelligent, spirited horse who loved to work. He wasn't happy without a job. Comet was a young horse who had a soundness issue and needed to stay in work or his lameness would become worse. I don't remember what was wrong with him exactly but I know the vet said he needs to be in excellent muscular condition to support the weak or affected structure that was causing the problem. He had to stay in work or it got worse and just hacking him wouldn't do what a dressage program would of working over the top line in balance, straight, and asking him to perform coordination based maneuvers to enforce connection and throughness to strengthen him. Laterals really helped him.

Also pictures of my 6yr old quarab who is training 2nd level. The picture where he has corona on his scrape is from July and the following picture is from September. He is naturally not a particularly "built" horse, he is not a fancy well bred warmblood. He is out of a stockhorse quarter horse and by a saddleseat/country pleasure sport arabian. He's pretty refined but with training he has developed a very strong top line. When we train collection, we train it in degrees. We never start baby horses with any collected work, just ask them to seek the connection, balance themselves and travel in a regular rhythm. Where my horse is, we started introducing collection to him late September. He is a tricky horse, he is not a horse for most people. He's a jack ss to be totally honest but he and I have a good partnership. He trusts me, if this horse felt we were being aggressive or rude he's the kind that will go straight up on his hind legs (he has not done this in a long time) but he let's his opinions be known. If I tap him a touch too hard with the whip he kicks out or I use too much leg he swishes his tail pretty aggressively. He's tricky. Now he can ride actual collected steps and actually really enjoys his job. Collection happens in degrees and we develop it slowly over time. We do not get on a horse and start them collected trot, piaffe and passage all over the arena.


----------



## bsms

"_I'll say correct work definitely improves the topline and horses way of going. Correct work being good rhythm, correct balance, connection and most horses will naturally meet the contact._"

Riding improves the topline, provided that riding includes turns, hill work and not plopping a way-too-heavy rider on and expecting the horse to max perform. Little 13 hand Cowboy is, at the most, 700 lbs. Yet he has no trouble carrying my 160 lbs plus 30 lbs of saddle for 2-2.5 hours in an area where there is no level ground, walking and trotting, and he'll offer (and I accept) to trot up the hill back to home at the end. And he does it while being rarely ridden, often as little as twice a month. I've yet to see any sign of soreness in his back. Rub him down hard along the back and he'll enjoy it.








​ 
Horses may or may not seek contact, but they do not NEED contact. A horse may want guidance and the reins are an easy way to get it...but they can ALSO be told to listen to other things. They can be taught to work as a member of the team, rather than as a subordinate. I gather some horses LIKE being subordinate. Trooper is happiest being totally subordinate, although he was also taught that bits are to be used rarely. Mia, Bandit, Lilly & Cowboy all prefer to be voting members of a team. They all have/do like having opinions, expressing them, and working together. They don't seek out contact for the sake of contact, possibly because their riders don't rely on contact for communication.

"_Dressage work reinforces nerve connections and develops muscle memory....I think dressage is similar in effect to the horse's body because it focuses on developing muscle memory so the horse is stronger, straighter, more balanced._"

ALL movement creates "muscle memory". And just what does "reinforces nerve endings" mean? ALL work results in a stronger horse. A horse that has to deal with challenges to its balance learns balance. A horse scrambling up and down rocky and uneven trails uses muscles not needed (and thus not used) in an arena, although the hills WILL result in a shift in balance toward the rear (a 10% incline, when trotted up, results in a 50:50 weight distribution by the horse - on slack reins).

Meanwhile, the work of collection, as done in dressage, does not result in a significant shift in balance toward the rear while ridden. It does teach the horse a different stride - shorter in the front, with an emphasis on raising the withers. The result is a higher peak impact on the front legs and more work for the shoulders.

That is not "wrong", but neither is it "right". Frankly, if it had to be either, it would be "wrong" because of the greater impact on the front legs and unnatural use of the shoulders. But while I see nothing wrong about teaching a horse that if you want it, I also see no reason to describe that as "good rhythm, correct balance, connection" or "better balanced"!

*I would love to know why a horse working harder to move the same load is thought of as "better balanced" than a horse moving in the most efficient manner!*

"_Just hacking him out on a trail, his back would never have gotten to almost normal because horses are not using their back as completely as when doing correct dressage work. For evidence just look as a standard trail horses topline and look at a horse who may have a similar conformation but is in dressage work. You'll see a horse with a much fuller, stronger topline._"

Not sure what you call trail work, but there is no level ground where I live. Level means it is transitioning from uphill to downhill or vice-versa. But for the sake of argument, why is this back "a fuller, stronger topline" than the one below:








​ 







​ 

or this:








​ 
In what sense is the back of the top horse superior to the back of the bottom two - two horses with ZERO dressage training, and Bandit after some years of hard use and bad shoeing?

The back of a dressage trained horse should have a little more muscle tissue along the spine. The way a horse can lift its back, in addition to raising it with the shoulders and using a different stride pattern, is to tighten the muscles along either side of the spine. This will not lift it up to the unridden position, but the twisting motion of opposing muscles next to the spine will stiffen and raise it slightly. Extra muscle along the spine is like extra muscle under the neck - a sign of unnatural strain resulting in unnatural muscle buildup - like a bodybuilder with huge arms but skinny legs.

"_I say this because dressage reinforced the mind-body connection and is asking for coordinated based maneuvers a horse wouldn't do on their own or out on a trail._"

I will agree that dressage asks for unnatural movement. How that is supposed to reinforce a mind-body connection is beyond me. Mia's legacy to me is an abnormal interest in getting a horse to feel confident and forward on a trail. A confident horse who views itself as a voting member of the team has a GREAT mind-body connection. A horse looking around and THINKING has a mind-body connection. I cannot imagine a better mind-body connection than BLM mustang Cowboy has when we crest a rise and he pauses to assess the situation ahead before moving into a new ravine.

If one wants a mind-body connection, then the first thing one needs is to engage the mind, not to shut it down. Whatever else dressage training emphasizes, it is NOT independent thought!

And none of this means someone should not practice, train for, or enjoy dressage. It is perfectly acceptable. But to claim it is BETTER than any other approach to riding, that it builds a mind-body connection, muscle memory, and balance superior to any other riding strikes me as extreme and unfounded. It is based on an idea of back use that does not exist in reality...so in what sense is it superior to riding based on how a horse actually functions?


----------



## jaydee

Riding on a loose rein is not the same as riding in such a way that you encourage a horse to become braced and inverted - there's nothing wrong with allowing a horse to relax and ride on a loose rein - even dressage tests ask for the 'free walk' on a loose rein. Provided the horse understands contact and doesn't fight it or evade it when asked to make contact then why would anyone think it was a problem?
The thread isn't about that
If bsms and the people he knows in Arizona want to risk their lives, their horse's lives and the lives of anyone driving a vehicle that some poor horse suddenly leaps into because the rider couldn't get it back in hand fast enough then that is not my concern really.


----------



## Smilie

jaydee said:


> I've ridden quite a few show arabs in the US and most of them were trained to have a fixed headset - that is not remotely the same as training a horse to come into a collected frame when asked and neither is using something like rolkurr.
> The other Arabian is just looking up and ahead on a trail - something I'd expect of any horse - including one that's trained to work in a collected frame
> I'm struggling with this idea that some of you have where you seem to believe that a horse that's schooled to work in collection is always ridden in collection - riding in 'contact' is NOT collection
> A horse that's over developed on the underside of its neck is a horse I would never buy because its a sign that they have a tendency to get above the bit to avoid it and then brace themselves - the pressure of the bit goes up into the corner of the mouth instead of on the bars and they can be impossible to stop if they decide to take off with you


Agree that so many people confuse a head set with collection, and that Show Arabian pictured, is not collected-he just has a forced head set

You also don't always ask a horse to go collected.
Moving un collected, on the forehand, is the most efficient way to cover a lot of ground fast This is not hollowed out, because hollowed out is not the direct opposite of moving collected, but rather occurs through a horse being resistant, and often caused by someone using just hands to force a head set
In fact, I used to show Against an Arabian at open shows, and was always surprised as to how that horse was ridden, with the rider's legs very obviously completely off the horse
Race horses run on their forehand.
True collection, allows a horse to be ridden in a manner that allows athletic movement, where precise maneuvers at asked for, at exact spots
Tell you want BSMS, set up a tight trail course, that requires lope transitions in very short distances, riding a tight lope through, instantly coming down to a walk, ect, un collected, and let me know horse that goerss for you. I guarantee that you will destroy the trail course
There is a time for a well trained horse to move collected, and a time for him just to move out in a free form
Head up in itself, on a horse that is relaxed, and where it is natural for him, does not cause a hollowed out back.On the other hand, a horse bracy against the bit, raising head to evade the bit, or forced behind the vertical, will be in a hollowed out frame
I actually see quites few of those horses, ridden English incorrectly, where strong rein contact has that horse behind the vertical, very pronounce bow in middle of neck, and that hollowed out back appearance.
Not saying it is also not seen western, but just more likely/common, where horses are ridden in a manner to force ahead set


----------



## Smilie

jaydee said:


> I've ridden quite a few show arabs in the US and most of them were trained to have a fixed headset - that is not remotely the same as training a horse to come into a collected frame when asked and neither is using something like rolkurr.
> The other Arabian is just looking up and ahead on a trail - something I'd expect of any horse - including one that's trained to work in a collected frame
> I'm struggling with this idea that some of you have where you seem to believe that a horse that's schooled to work in collection is always ridden in collection - riding in 'contact' is NOT collection
> A horse that's over developed on the underside of its neck is a horse I would never buy because its a sign that they have a tendency to get above the bit to avoid it and then brace themselves - the pressure of the bit goes up into the corner of the mouth instead of on the bars and they can be impossible to stop if they decide to take off with you


Agree that so many people confuse a head set with collection, and that Show Arabian pictured, is not collected-he just has a forced head set

You also don't always ask a horse to go collected.
Moving un collected, on the forehand, is the most efficient way to cover a lot of ground fast This is not hollowed out, because hollowed out is not the direct opposite of moving collected, but rather occurs through a horse being resistant, and often caused by someone using just hands to force a head set
In fact, I used to show Against an Arabian at open shows, and was always surprised as to how that horse was ridden, with the rider's legs very obviously completely off the horse
Race horses run on their forehand.
True collection, allows a horse to be ridden in a manner that allows athletic movement, where precise maneuvers at asked for, at exact spots
Tell you want BSMS, set up a tight trail course, that requires lope transitions in very short distances, riding a tight lope through, instantly coming down to a walk, ect, uncollected, and let me know horse that goes for you. I guarantee that you will destroy the trail course
There is a time for a well trained horse to move collected, and a time for him just to move out in a free form
Head up in itself, on a horse that is relaxed, and where it is natural for him, does not cause a hollowed out back.On the other hand, a horse bracy against the bit, raising head to evade the bit, or forced behind the vertical, will be in a hollowed out frame
I actually see quites few of those horses, ridden English incorrectly, where strong rein contact has that horse behind the vertical, very pronounce bow in middle of neck, and that hollowed out back appearance.
Not saying it is also not seen western, but just more likely/common, where horses are ridden in a manner to force a head set

BSMS, you continue to confuse riding with a loose rein, with hollowed out, or needing collection for a sound back. I ride my horses both with collection, and just allowing to travel and cover ground in a free way that is comfortable to them, and since I ride western, do both on a loose rein
However, when I want to be able to ask that horse to move collected, to thus give me any part of his body I ask for, including his face, I want to be able to do so.
Any horse that does not have this softness, I don't consider really safe to ride out

The horse has input, when we ride out, only when I myself am not sure on a certain part of a trail. I will allow my horse input. However, if I know a trial is okay, that a certain mud hole has a bottom, that the narrow bridge, with black tarp like paper at the entrance, is safe, I sure darn well don't take a vote with my horse, but expect him to listen to my cues and trust my judgement


----------



## tinyliny

quoted from bsms's above post:
_"Not sure what you call trail work, but there is no level ground where I live. Level means it is transitioning from uphill to downhill or vice-versa. But for the sake of argument, why is this back "a fuller, stronger topline" than the one below:_








​ 







​ 

Or this:








​ 
_In what sense is the back of the top horse superior to the back of the bottom two - two horses with ZERO dressage training, and Bandit after some years of hard use and bad shoeing?"_

@bsms. I am glad you asked this question. it's a very good, honest question.
your horses all look to be in reasonable health and fitness, as is Dante. they are of different breeding backgrounds, although Dante is part Arab, right? so, to a certain extent, a direct comparison is a bit like an apples to oranges thing. 
but, anyway, here'what I see when I compare your hroses' topline to Dante's . . .

most notable is that in all of your hroses, there is a dip in front of the withers, while there is not one on Dante. that area in front of the withers is an indicator of how the horse carries his neck becuase if it is filled in with muscle, it indicates that the horse is using those muscles to lift the BASE of the neck, rather than to allow the base of the neck to sag, or worse, to actually have the base of the neck forced downward by the action of bracing against the bit, and in particular, lifting the head upward and backward (like a camel or llama).

now, your horses don't evidence this to a large degree, but when compared to how nicely muscled Dante's neck is, I see a difference, for sure.

you may ask, "but what is such a muscled neck inherently superior?". another good question. perhaps it is only a matter of aesthetics, which is subjective.

or, perhaps it is that in the more extreme cases, the neck becomes 'jammed' back into itself, and probably reduces it's flexibily, as any joint or muscle does when it's jammed back into itself. try having poor posture and allowing your own neck to sag forward and down for years, and then see how well you can still move it.

when the horse lifts the base of the neck, the withers rise too, because they can rise up or down a small amount relative to the shoulders because of how the shoulders are not fixed to the spine by bone, but rather 'float' on it with much muscles and ligaments. a raised wither is that "uphill' feel, I assume would also have the desired minute transfer of weight backward, and thus a minute bending of the hock, which gives a slight preparedness to move in any direction desired, with good impulsion.


----------



## gottatrot

DanteDressageNerd said:


> Correct work being good rhythm, correct balance, connection and most horses will naturally meet the contact.
> From what I have seen, dressage training makes a BIG differences in the horses I have rehabbed from various injuries and conditions through dressage training. The EPM horses I've rehabbed I don't think would ever have recovered the way they did if they didn't do dressage because dressage is reinforcing the mind-body connections and helps rebuild the nerve connections which have "gotten lost in translation" because of the nerve damage from the EPM. Think of it as like physical therapy for people who have had spinal cord injuries, not quite as extreme but similar. Magellan (one of the horses) could have been trail ridden all day and I don't think he'd have recovered as well as he did because of the dressage work. I say this because dressage reinforced the mind-body connection and is asking for coordinated based maneuvers a horse wouldn't do on their own or out on a trail.
> Dressage work reinforces nerve connections and develops muscle memory. I do not think natural is the best or "perfect" way for arena work. I've broke one too many babies to say natural is best lol where they can't bend one direction, a leg in each corner and have no idea about their body parts are.


When you say "dressage" here, you're making a black and white distinction between a big umbrella of horse work including lateral movement, working with precision, rhythm and tempo versus a completely natural approach where the horse is not asked to do anything in particular.

While I'm questioning the concept of a horse needing to work with the head and neck in a certain position, and also riding with constant bit contact, I'm not questioning the benefits of other aspects of "dressage" or good riding. I've never been an advocate for natural is best. 

The horses I've started also have had crooked bodies and no concept of bending or straightness. Horses should be taught to use their bodies and how to have rhythm, tempo, bend, straightness, impulsion, and control. None of these require the placement of the head or neck in a certain position. Although I do trail ride frequently, I'm about educating the horses I ride and not about being just casual. I want the horses to be able to use their bodies properly. 
Quite a few trainers advocate the use of teaching the horse coordination on the trail. My horses improved their flying changes by cantering on winding trails where they had to switch quickly to make the turns. We always practice making perfect circles in both directions of various sizes, and the sand on the beach is great for seeing your hoof prints. We do figure eights around bushes, and practice shoulder in and haunches in down fence lines and down the yellow and white lines on roads. My friends and I used to use the lines on asphalt also to do leg yields back and forth within the lanes on the road. 

Yes, I believe lateral work is great for horses to learn. I believe horses need to learn to move forward with impulsion and to keep their tempo consistent within the gait they are being asked to do. I believe in teaching horses to learn different versions of gaits that are more gathered and more extended, from walk to gallop. It's very important to teach horses to bend so they can learn to use both sides of their bodies equally and therefore learn to move straight. 

All of these things can be taught in an arena or on the trail. But none of these things require a constant or strong bit contact or a head and neck held in a certain position. They also don't require that the horse move with the hindquarters appreciably lowered. If a horse gets shorter and higher when asked to go slower because he has impulsion, that's probably a sign he is athletic and is fine with wasting the energy, but it's not something I necessarily try for. I'd rather he'd relax. 

Smilie, reining horses do their patterns on a loose rein and do most of it including the transitions without any collection. They only collect for the rein backs, sliding stops and spins. The rest of the pattern is run mainly on the forehand but they complete the pattern including fast transitions wherever they are asked to do them. Collection and contact are not actually necessary for timing or transitions. You don't even need a bridle to do a trail course, for some horses:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haPpB545AbI


----------



## jaydee

The picture of Dante isn't a fair comparison anyway as he's standing with one leg underneath him and raised on his toes which skews his body angle

To go back to the Icelandic pony pic that gave a false example of a pony that is braced/inverted - if you look at how these ponies perform at all gaits you can clearly see that they don't have that overdeveloped underside appearance to the neck in most of them - its just how they carry themselves in that one


----------



## gottatrot

I took this picture at the WEG in 2010 from a demonstration of Icelandic Dressage. The horses tend to travel with the nose well in front of vertical and high held necks, and I have to believe it is due to their anatomy. I don't believe they are bracing, and I feel "inverted" is a false term anyway. I went to Iceland also and rode horses there and saw many throughout the country. They are a great breed and the tolt is fun to ride. 

Probably about five years ago I came on this forum and posted. I was fresh out of a world where I'd ridden mainly in the arena, and was just beginning to question this idea of collection and a strong back versus inverted and a weak back. That was because I wasn't sure how to let my horses move on the trails, and whether I was going to harm them by letting them move freely. At that time, I remember a few people including BSMS were differentiating between collection and extension. They told me when horses are running or jumping they needed to extend and didn't have to remain "on contact" as I'd been taught was best for horses. This confused me a bit since dressage horses perform extension while "on contact," so why didn't other horses extend "on contact" while doing horse sports? 

It took me a lot longer to abandon the idea of the "circle of muscles." I found that horses did not need me to participate in their front end in order to "connect" with their hind end. In fact, they did the best athletically when I learned how to not interfere and get out of their way. It was my riding that would unbalance them, and once they were taught to balance themselves they did better than when I tried to be part of the balancing equation. Weak horses need balancing, and strong horses need the rider to stay away from unbalancing them.


----------



## Beling

What I like about this whole thread is that it forces one to find the _reasons_ for riding as one does.

*Efficiency*, for example: if I jog in the most efficient way for myself, it will no doubt be very good for my heart and lungs. But will it _strengthen_ my heart? Will it improve my suppleness? Core strength? If I want to be a better rider, I might have to do something which, for me, would be extremely inefficient; but that's how one improves.

It's been said before, that the laborer in the fields wears himself out; that the guy at the gym, who is working as hard, builds himself up. Of course this is an exaggeration, but it does show up differences of _riding_ horses, _conditioning_ horses, and _schooling_ them.

Anyway, that "efficiency" reference made me stop and think. . .


----------



## jaydee

Gottotrot - You seem to have some very confused ideas about collection and its use in most horse sports - some of it possible understandable
The Icelandic ponies/horses are a breed apart, its hard to really compare them with any of the other European native breeds because they've got such massive thick necks but not the equivalent in their quarters so much as you see in the Highland, welsh cobs etc 
If you looked at those videos though you'll see that they do have a 'collected' outline in their other paces especially the canter - but the speed paces are their appeal and no doubt some selective breeding for that and more emphasis on training for that
Dressage tests are 'training tests' and the ability to work in collection is vital to that because its the route towards achieving the energy required to produce the elevation needed to perform at higher levels
That doesn't mean that out of the ring they don't stretch out and work in a more relaxed outline - self carriage is the basis for collection - you can remove the hand and the horse will still have that. 
If you really believe that a horse like this one got this much agility, precision and athleticism without a lot of correct collection work to tone those muscles then I think perhaps try to ask a horse that's been 'left to sort itself out to try the same test and see how they get on


----------



## sarahfromsc

What a great video the working equation was. Their 'Cowboy Dressage' is wonderful to watch as well.

As for the back comparisons, I do believe one can see a difference due to how each horse is ridden.

In the little bay, I see something in the lower back, a slight hump? I need to go back and blow up that picture. Just looks different than then backs pictured.


----------



## bsms

"_That area in front of the withers is an indicator of how the horse carries his neck becuase if it is filled in with muscle, it indicates that the horse is using those muscles to lift the BASE of the neck, rather than to allow the base of the neck to sag, or worse, to actually have the base of the neck forced downward by the action of bracing against the bit, and in particular, lifting the head upward and backward (like a camel or llama)._"

Thank you for the thoughtful reply, tinyliny. You are correct...and it could or could not be a cause for concern.

When saddling Bandit yesterday (for what turned out to be a less than happy ride), I had the chance to feel the area behind and at his withers in 3 head positions - very elevated (watching people working on a roof), normal, and dropping to eat. He alternated between them a dozen or more times, and since it involved the discussion on this thread, I put my hand on his back behind the withers, and also next to the withers, while watching how his shoulders moved. The very elevated position seemed to fill in a little at the withers, with tension going away by the base of the withers. The normal (poll slightly higher than the withers) had no tension I could feel. To eat, he separated his shoulders so he could shift down and forward in between his shoulders, as Mr Racinet points out.

If someone values a collected gait, then the shoulders and area right at the withers should fill in - IF Mr Racinet is right and the horse is raising his withers in part via the shoulders. It confirms this picture of motion:








​ 

If that area is lacking in muscle, then the next step is to ask why. If it is because the horse is not asked to "collect" and raise the withers...no worries. If it is because the horse has an ill-fitting saddle or a very heavy rider, then it may be time to worry.

I have the legs of a distance runner, not the thighs of a sprinter. If I wanted to sprint, that would be a problem. If I'm ill, it could be a problem. Or it could just mean I'm a life-long jogger. :wink:

" _A raised wither is that "uphill' feel, I assume would also have the desired minute transfer of weight backward, and thus a minute bending of the hock, which gives a slight preparedness to move in any direction desired, with good impulsion_."

Based on the study that measured it, under a rider it shifts weight to the rear in a statistically significant but small amount. I think without a rider it shifts weight further to the rear. But it also comes at a price - increased peak impacts on the front legs. That is not wrong when done for short times in training or competition, but it isn't exactly a sign of "better balance" either. Just different.

"_Riding on a loose rein is not the same as riding in such a way that you encourage a horse to become braced and inverted.._."

Inverted does not exist to any measurable, significant amount. All of us agree a back should be SUPPLE, not braced. Bandit, raced long distances with a very heavy rider, braces at a trot. It feels awful to ride and probably is no fun for him, but it is a legacy of use we are trying to overcome. His canter is supple, his walk...so-so. I obviously want supple all the time.

"_If bsms and the people he knows in Arizona want to risk their lives, their horse's lives and the lives of anyone driving a vehicle that some poor horse suddenly leaps into because the rider couldn't get it back in hand fast enough then that is not my concern really._"

Guess our horses, on average, are better trained than that. We do ride with a tight rein until we have trained the horse. Then the horse knows how to behave around traffic.

"_Tell you want BSMS, set up a tight trail course, that requires lope transitions in very short distances, riding a tight lope through, instantly coming down to a walk, ect, un collected, and let me know horse that goerss for you._"

If I wanted to do that, I would train to it. My horses are doing fine for trotting and cantering in the desert, including tight turns. 

"_BSMS, you continue to confuse riding with a loose rein, with hollowed out, or needing collection for a sound back._"

No, I'm not. You are confused about how a horse moves and what happens in the back. They do not "hollow out". The back isn't built that way. As long as you cling to an incorrect theory of motion, you will be confused in your results.

"_However, when I want to be able to ask that horse to move collected, to thus give me any part of his body I ask for, including his face, I want to be able to do so.
Any horse that does not have this softness, I don't consider really safe to ride out_"

We've argued about "body control" before. I wish you could have met Mia. She would have taught you about who REALLY controls a horse's body!

In the 1800s, an Englishman visited a ranch in Texas. When he arrived, he asked a cowboy, "_Where is your master?_" The Texan stared at the Englishman, spat on the ground, and replied, "_The sumbich ain't been born!_" I kind of feel that way about riding. Maybe that explains my fondness for Arabians and mustangs, both of whom are pretty good about replying, "_The sumbich ain't been born!_"

"_The horse has input, when we ride out, only when I myself am not sure on a certain part of a trail._"

We differ in riding philosophy. My horses know if they are tired, how the rocks feel under their feet, what they smell ahead, etc. They are more in tune to their surroundings than I am. Cowboy is awesome. He looks around when we reach the top of a rise and is constantly evaluating everything. When we were shot at a few months ago, he knew he was out of his league and expected me to decide.

Bandit does not have that level of experience or judgment. Part of Mia's legacy to me is an interest in teaching my horses JUDGMENT more so than MOVEMENT. To do that, I have to let them fail. Bandit had his first spook in a long time yesterday, but I cannot have a horse with judgment if I never allow him to exercise it. In return, he seems to really LIKE getting out. Like Mia, he is very forward on a trail. If I need to handle a few spooks to ride like that, I'll be glad to do so. My wife would not.

The fascination of riding, for me, is not physical. I'd rather go jogging than riding in a physical sense - and I guess not many here feel that way! What gets me up and on a horse is the feeling that another thinking, sentient being is there. When we can ride together, both enjoying each others' company...Nirvana! Of course, yesterday was...well:



bsms said:


> ...But no, it wasn't pretty today.
> 
> More this: :angrily_smileys: than this:  At least it wasn't this: :falloff:
> 
> The old joke in the military was that bonding occurred with "shared misery". If so, maybe Bandit and I did some bonding...


*I don't trail ride so I can see things. I trail ride so WE can see things.* I understand this is not what others want in riding, but I fail to see why I am wrong to enjoy that above every other aspect of riding!
_
" But none of these things require a constant or strong bit contact or a head and neck held in a certain position. They also don't require that the horse move with the hindquarters appreciably lowered. If a horse gets shorter and higher when asked to go slower because he has impulsion, that's probably a sign he is athletic and is fine with wasting the energy, but it's not something I necessarily try for. I'd rather he'd relax._"

This. For a partner out enjoying the outdoors with me, relaxed and interested is good. If he has energy to burn, we can trot or canter. He can even jig if he wants - I don't give a rat's rear! But I love the feeling that we are both having fun together.

BTW - Mia once did a 180 turn on a 6' wide trail so fast and so hard that the poley of my Australian saddle put a 4" bruise in my thigh. Without the saddle's help, she would have dumped me. She was not, in any sense, collected during the seconds prior to the spin. On the contrary. She was bracing her back, which I eventually figured out was often a precursor to a 180 spin. But anyone who wants to do a 180 faster than that is welcome to any horse that can!

"_you really believe that a horse like this one got this much agility, precision and athleticism without a lot of correct collection work to tone those muscles then I think perhaps try to ask a horse that's been 'left to sort itself out to try the same test and see how they get on_"

It was fun to watch because of the collection, but yes - a horse could easily go thru that ground path, quickly and efficiently, without using collected gaits. I've watched my horses charge over rocky fields, darting between low mesquite trees, turning and hauling butt - without collecting. It would be harder on them with a rider, but the way they were moving was harder than the horse in the video. Do not mistake "collection" for "athletic ability" or "agility"!


----------



## bsms

"_But will it strengthen my heart? Will it improve my suppleness? Core strength? If I want to be a better rider, I might have to do something which, for me, would be extremely inefficient; but that's how one improves._"

A runner will not improve without stretching his limits. A runner can improve beyond his limits, which is why some of the runners I've known stopped running by their 40s - too much damage from trying too hard.

As a rule, the best way to condition for distance running IS distance running. Weight lifting will not help, and can be harmful. A distance runner doesn't want huge thighs any more than a sprinter wants slender ones! Careful cross training can improve overall condition without impacting sports ability. "Conditioning Sports Horses" by Hilary Clayton gives specific conditioning programs for dressage, endurance, polo, cutting, reining, sprints, etc. She doesn't repeat the same advice in each chapter.

Dressage is probably a good cross-training event for some horses. Racinet, oddly enough, praises Quarter Horses. He says they are not built well for collection, but they have so much power in the rear end that they move well regardless!

Bandit is built like an endurance runner. He is the equine equivalent of a marathon runner - moderately tall, slender, not a ton of power in the rear but capable of building up speed and keeping it. Since we have almost no level ground where I live, he is welcome to work out by doing hills. Without the hills, I might consider dressage as a way to cross train him - but why bother, when the hills around here WILL force him to shift weight to the rear?


----------



## tinyliny

you know, you are not the only one who rides a partnership with their horses, on the trail, and allows the horse to "see" what's out there. 

i ride that way, too, WHEN IT IS FEASIBLE. 
I will give a nice loose rein when the hrose's attitude is relaxed, and when there is nothing that is overly dangerous within one plunge of fear from where we are walking.

I also practice asking the hrose to "come to the bit" when I ask it. I practice shortening my reins and asking the horse ti give up his freedom and make his feet available to MY placement. I want to be the pilot, not the passenger. that does not mean I am expecting the horse to be all pulled together at all times. but, the horse had better know what rein contact means, and be able and willing to react to it.

if all he can tolerate is a loose rein, on HIS terms, then I really am nothing but a passenger who 'hopes' he goes along when and where I say.

I think this discussion was predicated on semantics regarding the meaning of the oft used term "inverted or rounded " back. ok, so it's physically not possible to actually change the shape of the spine from pretty flat to rounded. that does not mean that with a meaningful contact, at times, the rider does not influence how the horse moves, and it does not mean there is no value to the changes the rider can affect, even if the spine itself does not change shape. the FEEL is of rounding.


----------



## gottatrot

tinyliny said:


> I think this discussion was predicated on semantics regarding the meaning of the oft used term "inverted or rounded " back. ok, so it's physically not possible to actually change the shape of the spine from pretty flat to rounded. that does not mean that with a meaningful contact, at times, the rider does not influence how the horse moves, and it does not mean there is no value to the changes the rider can affect, even if the spine itself does not change shape. the FEEL is of rounding.


To me, that is an important distinction. If it is a feeling, and one that some riders prefer, then that is something a person can value, yes. But if something has value to a rider, that is different from believing not doing it is detrimental. There are many things riders do that have value to their riding but not necessarily to others' riding. Do you want your horse to know that "Hup," means to jump a patch of land that appears flat to the horse? I've trained my horses to do this because we have shallow ditches that apparently don't show up in horses' vision and they can trip if they hit them at a gallop. To me, this has value. To you, it may not. 

If a rider wants the feel of a round back, that is great, wonderful. Something to strive for. That is different from thinking that anyone who wants to train their horse to use his body properly must teach the horse to give the feeling of a round back. As Beling says, it's about the reasons of riding. 

For me, why I want to understand this is because of the ethics of riding. When I believed that horses were using their bodies wrong if they were allowed to go along with their necks held high and their noses stuck out, you better believe that I tried to get every horse I rode to push from behind into the bit, to accept my bit contact and to round the neck over. I was trained in western riding first, but most of my training has been english, and most of my lessons were in dressage. 

Jaydee thinks I'm confused, obviously I didn't do this when we were galloping or jumping, but going down the trail or riding in the arena I felt it was important to get the horse working from behind and accepting contact. This is how I was taught to ride, *because it was how horses could best carry a rider and use their bodies. 

*This idea is so pervasive that nearly every casual or show rider I've met and gone out riding with tries to get their horse to round over by pushing the horse forward into the bit and so the horse is "rounding the back" and moving properly. 

But if the horse does not round the back and if it is only a feeling of roundness, then riding a horse with the neck raised and head out if the horse is comfortable that way no longer becomes a poor way to ride or an unethical way to ride that may be harming the horse. That is exactly why I've wanted to understand this concept and why I've spent time reading and studying it. What I've found in my research is that horses seem to be more harmed by contact (evidence of arthritis in the atlas/axis area of the neck, damage to the nuchal ligament, bony deposits on the bars of the mouth) and less harmed by being ridden with minimal contact. 
When I say this I say it as something I want to strive for, as an ideal. That doesn't mean I have or can achieve control with my own horses without strong contact at times. 

But don't you see? This changes the ethical dilemma around 180 degrees for me personally, from am I harming my horse if I allow him to go around "inverted," to am I harming my horse by riding with too much contact. It changes a lot of goals, and I feel it is important to believe that how you are riding is good for the horse and not harming them. 
Anything that is worth believing in should stand up to criticism and I think it's good to question everything.


----------



## gottatrot

jaydee said:


> The Icelandic ponies/horses are a breed apart, its hard to really compare them with any of the other European native breeds because they've got such massive thick necks but not the equivalent in their quarters so much as you see in the Highland, welsh cobs etc.
> If you looked at those videos though you'll see that they do have a 'collected' outline in their other paces especially the canter - but the speed paces are their appeal and no doubt some selective breeding for that and more emphasis on training for thathttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5895K-Xjupk


It's true, the Icelandic horses do have unique anatomy. That's why I feel it isn't good for the riders to try to force the noses in to create the headset as shown in those examples. As mentioned on the Iceryder site, most Icelandics have a thick throatlatch which is why most naturally carry their noses forward. Although you did find some examples showing otherwise, what I observed seeing horses ridden around Iceland was that most were not ridden with their noses pulled in. Even the logos and such on tack room stores and horse signs showed the horses moving as they most commonly do:








As well, while Baroque horses have a unique look doing Working Equitation speed tests, other breeds and styles of horses don't develop that way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWWgKUVkuEk


----------



## tinyliny

to me, it's more about the state of mind of your horse. if your horse is going around inverted (and we have already assertained this to be a mainly false statement considering the lack of actual flexibility of the equine spine) out of fear or pain or resistance, then allowing this to continue is NOT ok, IMO. if your horse can find a way to move that is more relaxed, less braced, less COUNTER to anything you ask of him, then you will have a more responsive, and ultimately, more comfortable horse (in body and mind) if you can influence him to move with less brace.

It's really not about where the head is positioned, it's about HOW the head is positioned. is it stiff? is the poll so locked that that is ALL the horse can do? or, can he answer your call to flex there, at any time, if you so asked?

I think it's more important to consider if the horse is strung out becuase he knows only this way of going (which is more natural to the unmounted horse), or , is he in some way positioning himself out of self defense?

If the answer is self defense, then, IMO, you will be helping your horse to teach him that there is another, softer way of going. he may know no other way. 

when a horse is locked up in the poll, neck and back, and something scary comes along, the horse will be MORE likely to spook big simply becuase they are not capable of taking small, steps, flexing under their body. they are , due to a stiff back and neck, only able to swing like a gate on a hinge, and THAT is harder than heck to ride out.

an old person, stiff person who loses his balance will fall hard, while a person with greater flexibility can get their body tuckes such that they can get their legs under them better, and be less likely to fall. a horse that has a mental block that is expressed in stiffness in the neck and poll area will also likely be stiff in the hips, and will often be the horse that, when pressure gets big enough, will explode since they are not able to flex in small degrees.


----------



## tinyliny

going back to skim some of the early posts (and I readily confess that I do NOT read every word, especially all the quotes of this or that study. )

this chart caught my fancy.








I see that position 1, 2 and 6 are the ones I find most attractive.

not only is the head on or in front of the vertical, the POLL is farther away from the rider than the other images.
for example, 3 is not so good due to the head being BTV. and 5 is not so good because, while in front of the vertical, the poll is pulled back toward the rider . this puts the horse in that "camel" position I was talking about, dropping the base of the neck, compacting the neck. yes, head is elevated, but it's shortened back into the body, while image 6 shows the poll stretching out forward.

if image 5 had the poll a bit higher, a bit more forward, it would look 'right' to me.


----------



## gottatrot

Tinyliny, I agree very much with your post. It's bracing, stiffness, resistance, etc that we should be looking for and working to remove from our horses regardless of head and neck position.

At the free walk, one of my mares looks mostly like #1, but she carries her nose farther out. 








In a still shot you might think she looks stiff, but notice how far she tracks up with the hind end. 
She's doing her own version of a walk here with a kid sitting on her with loose rein, meanwhile I'm futzing around with my lunge line trying to get it straight. To me this looks like good movement and I wouldn't change it.
Sorry it's really backlit, but you can see there's no restriction of movement and the little girl's waist is moving a lot with each step.
http://vid779.photobucket.com/albums/yy80/gottatrot1/IMG_7410_zps6q5nyyqn.mp4


----------



## Smilie

GOttaTrot

Reining is not the end all of western riding, and a horse doing an equitation pattern, western riding, and yes, 'gasp' western pl, is collected.
Far as that video, what is it suppose to show? What is the difference of a horse ridden on a loose rein, and one using a neck rope?
Besides, hardly a tough trail course!


----------



## Smilie

Not that is has anything to do with this topic that much, but this is the type of trail pattern you need your horse to work collected, or you will certainly not get those lope overs.
The video you have posted , Gottatrot, is a pretty elemental trail apttern, and the horse is riding off of reins against his neck, same as horse in this video, that just happens to pack a bit
Behind the vertical , is a serious fault, western

Now, i prefer a head set like this, versus that tight rein contact, seen Dressage, with face often behind the vertical




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJY6SZJQwnM


----------



## Smilie

BSMS, I would be pretty sure that I trail ride with a rein at least as loose as yours, if not more so
For some reason, you have the idea that anyone who ever puts collection or body control on their horse, then rides that horse in that manner everywhere, and that the horse cannot go in any other manner. That is completely un true
I sure don't trail ride with a head set, but should the situation arise, I sure can ask my horse to lower his head, give me his face, and counter flex him by something scary, in a place you can't either loose foreward, or do an indirect approach

Appaloosa sport horse, thus moves with a higher head set then a HUS horse



This is Skys Blue boy-I like his frame



Just trail riding



Smilie, on a loose rein, crossing river


----------



## gottatrot

Smilie,
I think I understand what you're saying, but actually we're talking about different things. There's a different definition for what the western disciplines such as trail, equitation and western pleasure call "collection." I think what we're discussing here is the FEI definition which is shortening the strides and frame, the neck arched forward and upward, and impulsion with upward balance. 

In the western definition the horse has forward movement but downhill balance, lowered head and neck, and keeps the cadance of the stride involved without speed, without lowering the hind end, and without elevation of stride. 

When I responded initially, I was thinking we were discussing the same movement, which is why I stated reining only involved collection in some maneuvers, and also why I showed the trail video with the horse bridless since the horse needed no collection to complete the (arguably simple) course. 

So since you're from the western world and I haven't read these teachings applied to that area of riding, is the perception of western riders that by having the head and neck rounded and down that the back actually rounds and becomes more able to hold a rider? In other words, is it more about the desired look or do they actually feel this is beneficial to the horse physiologically?


----------



## tinyliny

still, that is a sweet video of a really nice pair~!


----------



## tinyliny

I see this image and I want to have the rider to perhaps shorten the stirrups one nothch, bring her leg back a few inches, bring her elbows back to her core, stop looking downward, and gather her horse's energy to a more uphill approach. I can't help it! it's just trained into me.


----------



## jaydee

Gottotrot - I would actually describe the headset on the horse on the beach as looking tense and rather stiff in the poll - its a common reaction to a lunge line - the horse is moving away from the pressure/weight on its head rather than dropping down into it and relaxing
bsms - If you really believe that you and your fellow riders are so much better than the people who ride sensibly on busy roads and your horses are so much better trained (Mia certainly wasn't) then as I said - that's your/their problem not mine.


----------



## bsms

tinyliny said:


> you know, you are not the only one who rides a partnership with their horses, on the trail, and allows the horse to "see" what's out there...
> 
> I also practice asking the hrose to "come to the bit"...I want to be the pilot, not the passenger...the horse had better know what rein contact means, and be able and willing to react to it.
> 
> if all he can tolerate is a loose rein, on HIS terms, then I really am nothing but a passenger who 'hopes' he goes along when and where I say.
> 
> ...that does not mean that with a meaningful contact, at times, the rider does not influence how the horse moves, and it does not mean there is no value to the changes the rider can affect, even if the spine itself does not change shape. the FEEL is of rounding.


1 - Never said I was the only one. But I am also not representative of the entire riding world, so I accept others who choose to ride a different style. Unhappily, there are many from the more traditional approaches who tell me their style defines good riding.

2 - I go get in the mouth for emergencies or gross rebellion. I don't want to dominate the horse, but neither will I be dominated. The horse knows things, senses thing and feels thing I do not. But I also know things the horse doesn't, and my goal is teamwork between two beings. That means the horse sometimes needs to submit to me as being smarter than he is. However, I want that submission to become willing submission based on the horse believing humans are smart, not because he is more afraid of what I can do than he is about the other thing going on.

3 - Loose reins does not equal the rider becoming a passenger in steerage. But if I can communicate without getting into the sensitive mouth, why not? If the horse can learn to turn from the weight of the rein against his neck, or learn to slow when you softly say "Easy", then why would I jump in his mouth to communicate the same thing?

Would you suggest anyone riding bitless is riding a horse out of control? You could ride Trooper thru the desert here tomorrow bitless and be safe. Bandit isn't there yet, but he's making progress. I prefer bits to bitless because they allow for more precise communication, but that doesn't mean people riding bitless are just passengers. Some are, but a great many are not. I did 3 years riding in sidepulls, including riding Mia.

As a training device, bits start off giving some control. The goal should be to train until the bit is only communicating, not controlling. I like western curbs because it allows communication thru the bit without putting pressure in the horse's mouth. 

4. "and it does not mean there is no value to the changes the rider can affect, even if the spine itself does not change shape. the FEEL is of rounding". But the FEEL is wrong, and leads to the idea - practiced more often than admitted - of urging the horse forward from the rear, while holding him back on the front, to round up in between.It leads to people thinking the "rounded" horse is in a stronger "frame", better able to carry weight. It makes them believe they are reducing stress on the front legs when they are increasing it.

A few months ago, I was told (as was the OP) that a person could not become a good rider by riding trails. Instruction in dressage - taking lessons - was not just "good" but an absolute requirement for anyone wanting to become a good rider.

I've been told horses with their head up and faces in front of the vertical are "inverted" and unbalanced. I've been told, many times, that my horses would be incapable of turning quickly because they are not "collected" - but my horses can and have turned much faster than any rider wants a horse to turn, and done it without "rounding"! A horse who can turn faster than Mia or Bandit is a horse I do not ever want to ride!

Why is a quest for understanding and truth - verifiable, objective measurements showing what the HORSE is feeling - bad? Why is a deliberate misunderstanding - the idea that collection makes things easier for the horse - good? Why is a dressage rider with braced back and clenched fists riding well, and a western rider going down the road "on the buckle" dangerous? Why is keeping a horses eyes focused on the ground immediately in front of him "good riding" and letting the horse use his head for balance and vision "bad riding"?

The problem, TL, is that many riders BELIEVE the illusion! They believe what their butt tells them, and do not consider what the horse does to create the illusion. Good riding, in the end, cannot have falsehood at its core. Good riding cannot be just what a human wants, not as long as the humans are riding horses.

"_I see that position 1, 2 and 6 are the ones I find most attractive._"

I agree. I have no problem with a horse ridden like 1,2 or 6. I also don't have a problem with a horse being ridden, for a time, in 5. It actually works for some goals, although the horse is working hard. It is OK for a horse to work hard sometimes. Positions 3 & 4 bother me.

"inyliny, I agree very much with your post. *It's bracing, stiffness, resistance, etc that we should be looking for and working to remove from our horses regardless of head and neck position.*"


----------



## Smilie

gottatrot said:


> Smilie,
> I think I understand what you're saying, but actually we're talking about different things. There's a different definition for what the western disciplines such as trail, equitation and western pleasure call "collection." I think what we're discussing here is the FEI definition which is shortening the strides and frame, the neck arched forward and upward, and impulsion with upward balance.
> 
> In the western definition the horse has forward movement but downhill balance, lowered head and neck, and keeps the cadance of the stride involved without speed, without lowering the hind end, and without elevation of stride.
> 
> When I responded initially, I was thinking we were discussing the same movement, which is why I stated reining only involved collection in some maneuvers, and also why I showed the trail video with the horse bridless since the horse needed no collection to complete the (arguably simple) course.
> 
> So since you're from the western world and I haven't read these teachings applied to that area of riding, is the perception of western riders that by having the head and neck rounded and down that the back actually rounds and becomes more able to hold a rider? In other words, is it more about the desired look or do they actually feel this is beneficial to the horse physiologically?


First of all, collection itself is not dependent on how high a horse carries his head, and that head carriage depends on how the neck ties into the withers.
Thus, when a horse has a level topline, made easy by the way he is built, collection depends on shoulders being up, not head, with the horse engaged behind.
No, we certainly don't want that higher knee action. 
There is also more of a concentration on self carriage, versus worrying about classical dressage collection, which has little application to any western performance events. The horse is also expected to keep that self carriage, without being micro managed, or with constant rein support.
When a reining horse is in that run down , to a stop, he is running uphill, building speed, then engages his rear in the stop, while staying light in front, continuing to 'walk' with those front feet, until energy from that run down is dissipated. Upper dressage form would be unable to achieve such a stop, nor can a dressage horse engage that rear, stop, and do a rollback, instantly loping off again, and to suggest a horse working like that, does not have hind end engagement is ludicrous
Reining has in common with dressage, the basis of complete body control, but each has it's own level of collection, used for purpose at hand.
We also don't want a reiner hopping around, like in a pirouette, but crossing over in the spin, with that spin being a forward motion. If the horse was up like a dressage horse, that would be impossible


----------



## bsms

"BSMS, I would be pretty sure that I trail ride with a rein at least as loose as yours, if not more so
For some reason, you have the idea that anyone who ever puts collection or body control on their horse, then rides that horse in that manner everywhere, and that the horse cannot go in any other manner. That is completely un true.."

Well, you are partially correct. It is completely untrue that I think that!

However, look at the phrase you used: "puts collection or body control on their horse". It is a revealing phrase.

As for body control - the horse controls its body. We influence the mind. Until you can plug your mind into the horse's body, you cannot control the horse's body. You can only influence the mind. It is a theory found more often with "hot bloods", but it applies to all horses. If the horse wants to bad enough, he will.

When a horse extends his head, with the poll at or below the withers, he is shifting weight forward compared to a raised head. That is basic physics. If you pick up a 20 lb weight and hold it at arms length ahead of you, you are shifting your center of gravity forward, not backwards. A horse in this frame has shifted the center of gravity forward:








​ 
"_In the western definition the horse has forward movement but downhill balance, lowered head and neck, and keeps the cadance of the stride involved without speed, without lowering the hind end, and without elevation of stride._" 

To the extent it is a true statement, it means western collection is not collection at all. Too many western riders have borrowed the phrase without understanding it, and then applied it to what it is not. Jean-Claude Racinet's definition of collection makes sense. It is reasonable based off of what we see in the world around us:_When the horse tries to move at high speed without allowing for the possibility of sudden stopping, the backward resistance is limited to the amount of energy needed to prevent the horse from falling forward and down, i.e., from tripping. But, if the horse, because of the possibility of some unforeseen event, moves fearfully or cautiously (i.e., when he takes into account the need for suddenly stopping or for preventing a fall), then his mind will literally be torn between the two contradictory necessities. Nowhere other than in the High School movement called the "passage" is the phenomenon of "inhibited thrust" more obvious: while the thrust of the hind legs remains powerful, it is counteracted by an equally powerful hesitancy. And it is this combination which makes all the charm of this movement..._

_ ...horses in the wilderness will assume a collected posture, characterized by a constant "coiling under" of the pelvis and a high head carriage..._

_ ...Collection is, therefor, a posture which, without hampering his forward movement, allows the horse, if necessary, to check it immediately. For this body attitude, the horse has to permanently brace muscles which otherwise would only be braced occasionally, namely only in those movements when a deceleration occurs."_ - "Racinet Explains Baucher"​


----------



## Smilie

I think most here agree, that in order for a horse to be 'inverted', the horse has to be bracy, and that bracy also results from strong bit contact, without that rider using legs effectively, or with the horse not really taught how to give to a bit, and thus resisting with head up, neck stiff, jaw stiff
Yes, I ride out on a totally loose rein, BUT, my horse knows the elements of collection, body control and giving to a bit, so that should I need to take hold of him,l I can. That makes a big difference then riding a horse out, with no idea as to how to give to that bit, giving in the poll and face.
For instance, a horse sees something up ahead, which is concerning him, so he sticks that head up, ears pointed towards his concern, body getting ready for flight.
On even a green horse, if you can ask for that face, and giving at the poll, keep forward with your legs, you can ride him past that object, bucking heifers in a field, bunch of sheep, what have you, and never need to find out as to how fast your horse can reverse directions!
At the same time, I have ridden back to camp, lots of times, trying to outride a coming storm or dark, on ground that allows trotting at best, giving my horse completely loose rein, alternating by posting that long trot and standing in the stirrups.
It is good to have both on your horse.
It is also good to understand how a horse was trained, if buying one from another discipline, and not to just arrogantly assume that since you ride dressage, you can ride any performance horse
We sold a well broke gelding, as a youth horse. We had also used him as a stallion before gelding him. I and my oldest son , (he was showing youth), showed this horse in games, western riding, reining, trail and cattle events.
The buyer , unknown to us, had her child in English lessons. A few weeks later, we get a call, that both their child and the instructor, could not keep CLassy on the rail, and that he was hoping up slightly in front, then turning in the opposite direction
So, we went to see what was going on. My son gets on, and Classy is perfect, riding along the rail, with the mother saying it was the best that she had seen the horse going, since they bought him. My son, of course, was riding with a loose rein
We then ask the instructor to get on, and to see what was going on.
Well, first she rides him with strong rein contact, with Classy giving as he had been taught, but confused that no reward of rein release was given, so he tucked his head back more. She then applied that inside leg as one would in asking for a rollback, and because of that strong rein contact, Classy had no option in trying to comply, other then going up slightly in front , to try and perform the rollback he thought he was being asked to do
He was also up tight, because of that constant strong rein contact.
My niece from Ontario came out once, and she was taking dressage lessons in Ontario. She wanted to go on a trail ride, but wanted to use my English saddle, as she felt more comfortable with it. No problem. I gave her Charlie, and my English bridle and saddle. She then asked me if I had a pair of gloves she could use. HUH, this was JUly, and even Alberta is often hot then!
I asked her why she needed gloves. Her answer was that if she didn't have them, the reins would cut her fingers. I told her that if she held any on my horses with that kind of contact, she would not be riding!
I am certainly not suggesting all English riders ride with that kind of contact, but it does show the extreme on either end, far as rein contact
I know HUS horses are criticized by open English, as not having enough contact, and there was some truth to this at one time, when HUS horses were shown with an obvious drape in the reins
I think there now is a very happy medium , far as HUS horses, with light bit contact, that free length of stride, and that head carriage without any forced headset, with nose slightly in front of vertical okay, but the horse 'killed' for any degree of behind that vertical
It is also a fact, that when training a western horse, until they reach the point of being totally relaxed, having learned self carriage, they will have that arch in the middle of the neck, esp at the lope, and only achieve that level topline when they fully relax in that neck carriage, breaking at both the poll and the withers


----------



## Smilie

BSMS, that HUS horse, has his shoulders up, and yes, not his head, but his weight is not shifted to his front end.
What do you want-for western people not to use the term collection, but rather working off the backend, off of the forehand? 
Collection, far as I want to use it, is a horse engaged behind, shoulders up, not head light in your hands, versus leaning on the bit. If you ask a horse to stop, it is very easy to tell if he is on his forehand or not. If he stops, staying light in your hands, you know he has stopped, by getting his hocks under him, keeping shoulders up. If instead, he leans on that bit, sticks nose out, thus heavy in your hands, you know darn well that he was moving on his forehand.
Try stopping from speed, without that horse having his weight shifted back. You might just continue going, when he slams those front legs into the ground!


----------



## Smilie

bSMS, look at some conformation pictures, and see the natural topline, including head carriage, of various breeds, esp how a warmblood is built and how that neck ties in, compared to a stock horse built with a level topline
Collection does not mean ahead has to be up, and we can argue that point until the cows come home, nor do I bother to read all those old classical horsemanship references you post, as those horses are built to have a high head carriage, and were ridden held between rein contact and legs-constantly
They were not asked to cut a cow, do a reining run, or even move in self carriage without bit support. That is fine, as it was handy for purposes they were used for, but are not the golden standards in my books. How do you think that high head carriage would work for a reining stop?


----------



## Golden Horse

I would give it up Smilie, you see everything you KNOW by doing, by experiencing by seeing and by understanding, can easily be trumped by a person with an unexplainable bee in their bonnet and a pile of text books. 

From this discussion I am seeing that many people do not understand collection, do not understand that although those of us who do ride dressage are aiming to ride in collection it is a LONG journey to get there.

Softness, acceptance of the bit, the ability to rode with suppleness and connection, I think those are kind of universal and desirable across most disciplines, and when we talk about them we are talking about the subtle differences in what it looks like and how we ask for them.


----------



## DanteDressageNerd

My question is why is it wrong if a rider is tactful and skilled to ride a horse in a dressage outline? In a correct collected frame the horse is not held there, it is ridden there. We ask them to collect off our seat and leg, through timing and feel. Our hands are there to reinforce direction but we give in the rein as often as we take. You may not see it but the horse feels it and I can see it in the horse's outline. Every horse uses it's neck and body differently, every horse has a different personality. For example I honestly think in a different situation my horse would probably be sent to auction because he's a VERY opinionated, smart and willful horse and because of those traits he would be dangerous in inexperienced hands. He's perfect for me because I like his spirit, sometimes it is frustrating but I think he's a better dressage horse because he thinks, he's aware and has an opinion. I also think this is why when he gets it he comes alive. You can feel him as he sits back opens up in his shoulders and comes up through his body, he feels so pleased with himself. I think when you know horses you can tell when they're happy, it's the same feeling I felt on my old eventer when cross country. The horse just feels in its element and says I got this!

I also think there is a gross misunderstand of how training a horse to ride on the bit in dressage happens, as well as how we introduce collection and ask a horse to be on a "tight rein" without restriction and actually create greater freedom and elasticity than they'd have naturally. I also think simply because the rein is short to assume that means it's tight and restrictive is a misunderstanding. If you take more rein, you have to give as much or there will be resistance and an incorrect outline with a braced, unhappy horse. It is a double edged sword, if the rider does not have the skill and timing in the bridle, as they shorten the rein it becomes more obvious because there is less forgiveness in a shorter rein than a longer one. And if the horse is not conditioned or ready for it or is asked/introduced to collection incorrectly, it will create tension, rather than collection. If the timing isn't right, then it becomes more harmful because the skill/timing in the rider's hands isn't there to prevent restriction or locking the horse's body up. But if done well it creates great freedom, suspension and elasticity. A good dressage rider can ride a trained horse on the buckle and still have that horse reaching for the contact, that is how most dressage horses are started (not quite on the buckle but in more of an HUS type frame) and over time as the horse becomes more balance, rhythmical we gradually introduce collection and begin to shorten the rein. If the rider is riding/training correctly the horse can go from a long-low outline to a collected outline without an issue and there will be the same elasticity but with greater engagement and freedom in the shoulders. Long and low is a required movement in dressage tests. Collection is something that is developed over many months and years of training, it happens in degree. We don't start training a baby and the next day they can piaffe. This happens over the course of years to develop the education, communication and muscular development.

Carl Hester and Uthopia. This horse is clearly not held together, clearly fluid and moving into the connection. Not at all "fixed" or held into a frame. This is what we aim for. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qd5ued_7Oa4

When a horse is being taught, we have a connection but we aren't locking up the front or pulling back against the horse. We are asking the horse to move in a forward motion but maintain a consistent rhythm and meet the bit. There isn't "holding in the front" and kicking the back end under. I've seen people who train that method but that is not how all dressage riders ride or train. Our fists are closed, not clenched. You create a deadness in the rein which should be alive and breathing. If the fists are clenched it blocks off the communication, like putting a kink inside a hose. Our fingers are there to supple and soften, our hands to say where to be. Our backs have stillness to them but they aren't rigid, if we were rigid we would hollow out our horses backs and restrict their movement and they would not move over their back or lift through the shoulders. There is NO way we could keep our butts in the saddle if we did not have elastic and supple hips. My youngster for example is very bouncy, honestly the 17h warmbloods with elastic/suspended movement are easier to sit but there is no way I could sit his trot if I didn't have a supple back and seat with a relaxed leg. Our seats are not still, we move with the horse. Rigidness or forced stillness only creates tension which we don't want. I've watched riders say but look how much the rider is bouncing and I think they're moving with the horse and not holding themselves still. These horses have too much movement to force yourself still. I've seen dressage riders do it but there horse's movement looks restricted and rigid. 

I also entirely disagree it is putting more stress on the horse's front legs, most dressage horses I've seen if they have an injury is in the hind end. I think I've seen one with a front end injury but that was a clubbed foot issue, not a riding/training issue. In all horse sports there are injuries, things happen even in the best of circumstances.

A strong topline also represents muscular strength. Dressage work in fact builds up muscular strength over the horses, neck, back, butt, abdomen, shoulders and legs. It's not the only way to build up that kind of muscular strength but it is a way and when done well you can see the changes in the horse's way of moving, even naturally. Riding in collection asks for a greater degree of muscular strength over the entire topline than asking the horse to simply move out, this is similar to stability or weight training exercise. I think it's also forgotten that when a horse works over it's back and correctly goes into the bridle (not held in) the abdomen also tucks which offer more muscular support to the horse's spine then if the horse is hollow. I think of it as similar to doing a plank. A horse is quadrupedal animal, the most pressure on the horse's body is gravity pulling down at the horse's spine (weight of belly, center point) riding in balance and straight and over the back puts less stress on the horse's body in general. Developing muscular strength and conditioning helps to preserve the skeleton, ligaments and tendons. Do you have to be a dressage rider and ride dressage to do this? No but this is why we ride over the back and ask the horse to engage the hind end, work over it's back and lift out of it's withers.

I don't agree with everything on this site but this makes sense and explains why we ride over the back. As well as has some interesting perspectives to offer. Does the horse have to be in a dressage outline to do this? No but this is part of the function of the training we do as dressage riders. Gravity

I won't pretend to be an expert on reining or trail or western riding, not my area. I recognize quality riding, I recognize there are very skilled riders/horsemanship and I've ridden trained wp horses, reining, barrel and cutting horses and actually put some dressage training (not collection, just basics) on my friends horses to help her but I am not a western rider. But it's not my area of expertise. But by our definition of collection I do not consider a reining horse or wp horse collected at all, I'd say they can be working off the hind end or engaged from behind but have a different purpose and are not collected. My definition of collection with the croup lowered and the wither elevated with the horse lifting up and out of it's neck it does require connection to the bridle. This is not assumption, this is experience. As a dressage rider, I can put my horses nose in the dirt and ride him with his nose that out and low, the rein length tells him how high or low to carry himself but him being on the bit comes from me riding his body, not his head/neck. But I will say as the rein gets shorter and you ask for a higher degree of collection the rider has to be that much more aware of the horses body, have that much better timing or it will become a pulling match of tension. The collection comes off the seat and leg and outside rein half halt. It comes from training doing many transitions and half transitions to teach a horse to sit and carry behind and eventually you can ask off your seat and leg and outside rein. It's organization, not tension that does this. If a horse is trained off tension, it's wrong. You should give as much as you take which in dressage makes sense because you're constantly riding. And most horses when ridden are not constantly in front, on the vertical or behind if they are ridden from back to front. The "head position" most people are fixated on is not fixed and to me I look more at the whole outline, I'd rather see a horse a touch behind and working over it's back than in front or at the vertical but not over it's back or lifting out of the withers.


----------



## tinyliny

I like this description of collection that bsms posted:

_When the horse tries to move at high speed without allowing for the possibility of sudden stopping, the backward resistance is limited to the amount of energy needed to prevent the horse from falling forward and down, I.e., from tripping. But, if the horse, because of the possibility of some unforeseen event, moves fearfully or cautiously (i.e., when he takes into account the need for suddenly stopping or for preventing a fall), then his mind will literally be torn between the two contradictory necessities. Nowhere other than in the High School movement called the "passage" is the phenomenon of "inhibited thrust" more obvious: while the thrust of the hind legs remains powerful, it is counteracted by an equally powerful hesitancy. And it is this combination which makes all the charm of this movement..._

_ ...horses in the wilderness will assume a collected posture, characterized by a constant "coiling under" of the pelvis and a high head carriage..._

_ ...Collection is, therefor, a posture which, without hampering his forward movement, allows the horse, if necessary, to check it immediately. For this body attitude, the horse has to permanently brace muscles which otherwise would only be braced occasionally, namely only in those movements when a deceleration occurs."_ - "Racinet Explains Baucher"​ It really is a sort of 'hesitation', or 'listening' that takes place when you ask the horse to respond to a request to collect a bit, even if it's not more than the tiniest of half halts. whether they are "permanently bracing a set of muscles" or not, I couldn't say. It doesn't feel that way. 


However, by that definition, the western horse in that trail video was modestly collected. he was able to hesitate, and make sudden changes. of course, he was not going very fast, so it might look different if he went faster.


----------



## tinyliny

I think the original point of this thread was whether or not there was truth to the often held belief that allowing a hrose to move as he wished, place his head where he wished, all the time, was detrimental to his body, and that collection (rounding the back, so called) was necessary to build a horse correctly.


----------



## jaydee

The amount of collection (or no collection) and contact (or no contact) is always relative to what you're doing with the horse or asking of the horse at any given time.
It's NEVER a constant.
When you look at a rider like Carl Hester in that video what you don't see is that his contact will be constantly changing as he 'asks' the horse and even corrects it
An inverted neck and back muscles isn't the same as a horse occasionally picking its head up to have a look at something or riding on 'no contact', its something that happens gradually over a period of time, poor riding, poor training, quite often a horse that's evading the bit or the hands and the more that underside of the neck over develops the harder it is for a horse to ever soften up there and be able to drop its head and round up
These are some snips from a random video of someone working an OTTB - this horse was going like this the entire length of the video, at all paces but the faster it got the worse it got. Ridden in this outline for too long will put a huge strain on the entire back especially on the sacroiliac region so on top of having a horse that dislikes the bit you also have a horse with sore withers and a sore back. She was actually jumping this horse when she really should be taking it right back to basics.
Compare that outline to the one in the horse that Ben Hobday (Eventer) is using to give a demo on of how to bring on a young horse for jumping - horse has been correctly trained, responds to contact and knows how to collect so has a 100% better chance of staying sound and happy in its work




 Also an illustration to show where the abdominal muscles lie - clearly shows why they make a difference to the horses ability to carry a rider


----------



## Smilie

Good illustration, Jaydee, showing that 'inverted form, product of high head that is due resistance, and not the natural way the horse carries his head, due to conformation!
Also shows clearly how a horse moving hollowed out like that, is not in a form that makes carrying a rider easy, and how a horse being ridden like that, is set up for physical repercussions, not to mention, that they are 'pigs' to ride!


----------



## gottatrot

Smilie said:


> I think most here agree, that in order for a horse to be 'inverted', the horse has to be bracy, and that bracy also results from strong bit contact, without that rider using legs effectively, or with the horse not really taught how to give to a bit, and thus resisting with head up, neck stiff, jaw stiff...
> On even a green horse, if you can ask for that face, and giving at the poll, keep forward with your legs, you can ride him past that object, bucking heifers in a field, bunch of sheep, what have you, and never need to find out as to how fast your horse can reverse directions!
> 
> It is also a fact, that when training a western horse, until they reach the point of being totally relaxed, having learned self carriage, they will have that arch in the middle of the neck, esp at the lope, and only achieve that level topline when they fully relax in that neck carriage, breaking at both the poll and the withers


I think we can all agree the horse Jaydee posted is braced and it's not going to be good for him to be ridden that way very long. I don't think the horse would ever go to that position on his own. The only time I've seen horses in that position personally is when a horse got the bit under the tongue, and once when a bee stung the horse's nose. 

I disagree that a horse even working in complete collection is a guarantee of good behavior or of prevention of spooking or doing a 180 degree turn. Collection, suppleness, bending etc don't have a lot to do with a horse's reactions. There are plenty of videos of horses trained to grand prix level at big competitions spooking, bolting, rearing in the ring. Even if a horse knows how to give complete control of his body to the rider, there is no guarantee he will always do it. 

As far as the horse Carl Hester is riding in the video, just like with all show horses being ridden looking nice in the ring, you have to wonder about the training that got them there. From this post last summer:
*Bubs, Dressage, And More!* â€” equine-world: Rollkur claims another victimâ€¦ Just...


> Just received the news that Carl Hester’s Grand Prix horse Dolendo was put down nearly 2 weeks ago, aged 21, because of severe arthritis in his neck, which he had been suffering from for the past few months.
> But Dolendo wasn’t just a horse for dressage contests, Hester also used him as prime example whenever he explained the advantages of rollkur/hyperflexion/LDR (low-deep-roll) training.
> But there are a couple of things I don’t understand. First question: in his book Hester described Dolendo to have a beautiful, well-proportioned neck for the dressage sport, so why did he consider it a necessity to “improve” it with rollkur?
> Furthermore, he writes that when he first began training him the horse was naughty and didn’t want to be ridden, but that the horse was completely calm and sweet when handled in the stables. This is actually a phenomenon you will commonly see in rollkur-ridden horses; at first the horses will fight it, they fight the source of their pain. Some horses can’t take it and vanish from the scene, become “problem horses”. Others eventually give up, due to the psychological effect “learned helplessness” (which exists in both humans and animals) - when the state of helplessness or powerlessness becomes too great or lasts too long, they give up without resistance, total resignation.


I personally have seen that "learned helplessness" in many horses. Some horses will keep fighting and get labeled with a bad attitude, especially hot and reactive types. But others will become compliant to training even if it is painful and difficult for them. 

I wasn't going to say what BSMS and Dante said: that western horses don't actually use collection for most disciplines. The dressage world and western world are two different cultures. I'm not sure why the meaning of the word "collection" should belong solely to dressage if western has developed a new meaning of the word that they use and it is broadly understood in that world. Obviously Smilie has a definition that is far different from how it is used in dressage, and I wouldn't be surprised if that was a common definition in western riding. But it's obvious we're describing two very different things. 

Dante believes a horse can't collect without rider involvement in the front end. Smilie believes a horse can't collect unless they're trained past the point of requiring being held by the rider. Interesting.

Videos like this have made me throw out the idea that the horse needs contact for collection. The "ring of muscles" idea. The horse can provide all the impulsion and braking on his own. I don't say it's better to ride bitless, that's not the point. But does the horse need the rider or is it all just training and his willingness to comply?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9D1vEP98rc


----------



## tinyliny

It is all training and willingness to comply .


----------



## Smilie

Gotta trot
"Dante believes a horse can't collect without rider involvement in the front end. Smilie believes a horse can't collect unless they're trained past the point of requiring being held by the rider. Interesting.`

Nope, not really what i said.What I stated , was, a western horse is asked to collect, once he advances to being a `bridle horse, off of seat and legs alone, with that bit barrier becoming physiological-ie the horse is able to achieve self carriage without the help of actual bit support itself, but a condtioned response to a bit. The only way you get that in the end, is by giving the horse, when he is correct, a chance to stay correct on his own, and fixing again when needed
You could keep a western horse in the needing contact stage, and if ridden correctly from behind, will be collected, BUT nOt have total self carriage.
I never said collection can`t be achieved with rein contact,as afterall, that head set is the final part of that total picture, with collection itself based on rear end engagement, correct movement from behind, and in the case of an English horse, the energy generated from behind, is always contained by an actual bit barrier, preventing that energy from behind just escaping out the front, while a finished western horse is expected to contain that energy by a conditioned training, to where the actual bit barrier itself is removed, yet the horse has learned to keep that head carriage on his own
Since true collection has nothing to do with head carriage, but is rather just the ìcing`of that collection, it would be stupid to suggest in can only be achieved using bit contact, or no bit contact at all.
Self carriage to me, western, on the othe rhand, is a horse that can keep frame, collection, rate speed, totally off of seat and legs, needing no bit support, with that bit used instead for `signal``
In order for a bit to have signal time, it has to have leverage and be used with a loose rein. The horse can then respond tot hat uptake and tightening of the curb strap,, before bit contact is made
Afterall, I do like to think, that when I ride my all around horses, HUS, suing light constant contact, they are still moving collected!!!
Sorry I was not clearer before, thus the longer explanation


----------



## trailhorserider

Let me start by saying I'm a western rider, not a show rider, but a trail rider. I've never had any type of english lessons. 

I'm not so sure every horse has to learn collection. It's nice, yes, but I think there are lots of horses that go through their life being useful without ever being collected. 

But I also think some horses do it naturally. I had an Arabian gelding for while, my second horse, who would get very "hot" and move in a collected manner. He worked a lot off his back end and always wore out his back shoes before his front ones. It was an awesome feeling, because when he was in one of his moods, it was like you had all this power under you, at your beck and call. It was just powerful and wonderful and you felt like king of the world. 

There are some practical applications for collection, not just for the show ring. This is one of my favorite videos on the internet, not because I condone bull fighting, I think it's cruel, but the horses, I can't quit watching the horses! 

To me, this is what collection is. I don't know if it meets the definition by all the experts, but when I think of collection, I think of something like this. The horse is just a ball of collected energy, ready to be directed in an instant in any direction. So to me, as a layman, this is what I consider collection to be.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fz8BiTtoLp8

I do agree that some of the western disciplines are not ridden collected. I don't consider WP to be collected. Reining, I don't know. They are more collected than the WP pleasure classes but not as much as a bullfighting horse. :wink:

So does everyone agree this video is showing collection? Because this is what collection is in my mind.


----------



## bsms

"_My question is why is it wrong if a rider is tactful and skilled to ride a horse in a dressage outline?_"

It isn't. *I think it is fine. I think many fine riders do so, and I hope they and their horses enjoy themselves and are successful.*

_"I would give it up Smilie, you see everything you KNOW by doing, by experiencing by seeing and by understanding, can easily be trumped by a person with an unexplainable bee in their bonnet and a pile of text books._" 

"_nor do I bother to read all those old classical horsemanship references you post_"

That explains a lot. Why bother with great riders from the past? And why bother learning from science in the present? If we learn from neither the past nor the present, we can at least stay comfortable...:icon_rolleyes:

At some point, shouldn't we at least CONSIDER what the horse is doing? When people go around saying it makes it easier to carry weight, when no horse on earth responds to a very heavy rider by collecting, is it wrong to point out the contradiction? When people try to "round" their horses, who have spines that do not round, is it wrong to point out the contradiction? 

_"BSMS, that HUS horse, has his shoulders up, and yes, not his head, but his weight is not shifted to his front end._"

Physics. When you stick weight further to the front, the center of gravity moves further to the front. Go talk to a loadmaster of a cargo plane sometime. Moving weight forward does not shift the center of gravity to the rear.

"_Also an illustration to show where the abdominal muscles lie - clearly shows why they make a difference to the horses ability to carry a rider_"

Except they don't. Based on when they actually contract - as measured - they are used to control the weight of the gut, not to help support the rider. They contract 180 out from when they would need to contract if they were acting as the string of a bow. 



tinyliny said:


> I think the original point of this thread was whether or not there was truth to the often held belief that allowing a horse to move as he wished, place his head where he wished, all the time, was detrimental to his body, and that collection (rounding the back, so called) was necessary to build a horse correctly.


Succinct and accurate. Visually, it would be, "Is this true?":










Based on all the information available, the answer is no.


----------



## gottatrot

I don't think it's important that we agree on what collection is or isn't. Or how it's trained, or if it's OK for you to ride with collection. Only you as the rider can know if you are using force, or if your horse is bracing, but hopefully the discussion is enlightening to us about how the horse's body works and will give us things to consider when we are riding.

For myself, the discussion has been very helpful. I've learned some new things about horse movement and have some new ideas to try in my own riding. I never want to get to the point where I feel everything I'm doing is great because I feel good about how I ride. I always want to keep my mind open to new ideas and possibilities, including the idea that some of my own dearly held beliefs are wrong. That is what has brought me to this point of questioning. 

Some info on the sacroiliac joint from the science of motion site:



> The first problem with the sacroiliac joint is that it is out of reach of both manipulation as well as imaging. “The SIJ is particularly inaccessible due to its depth within the pelvis and the surrounding musculature, making it impossible to palpate the joint externally.” (L. M. Goff, 2008). The second problem is that the sacroiliac joint is subject to very minuscule range of motion. For instance, measurements effectuated on the sagittal plane have found that the range of motion of the SIJ was less than 1°. In fact all the SI damages observed on horses affected with sacroiliac dysfunction are all due to excessive movement and therefore instability of the joint. Stability is the main issue and consequently, all therapies attempting to release muscles, tendons and fascia involved in the stability of the sacroiliac joint are likely to create sacroiliac dysfunction instead of treating the problem. The third problem is that palpations are extremely problematic. The SI joint itself is out of reach and the only palpation that can be made is on the dorsal sacroiliac ligament (DSIL), which is greatly involved in the stability of the SIJ. However, if it might be possible to access the DSIL on a skinny horse, the mass of the gluteal muscles renders any manipulation quite difficult on a horse properly muscled up.
> There is a battery of tests and manipulations that have been proposed for horses based on manipulations applied to humans. However, while a human is likely to participate in the manipulation knowing that some pain during manipulation might lead to better reeducation in the future, the horse, which lives in the moment, is more likely to protect himself from any stimulation of pain, resisting the movement that the therapy is suggesting. Therefore, even if some movement might have some therapeutic effect, their application through manual manipulation is unlikely to occur. Instead, therapeutic movements can be created riding the horse or working the horse in hand through the technique proper to the science of motion.
> The most important concept relative to SI injury is that the main problem is about lack of stability. Instability is either caused by incorrect work of the muscles and tendons and ligaments associated with the joint or due to pathologic changes within the joint. In fact, pathologic changes are the more advanced level of a problem that started with poor or inappropriate muscular work. The therapy is therefore about recreating stability of the whole system. This is the topic of our Sacroiliac Day which is Friday February 17th, 2012 starting at 10am.
> SI Day, Cleaning up the misconceptions.
> There are numerous misconceptions and even misinformation about Sacroiliac Dysfunction. A very common misconception is the belief that one tuber sacrale higher than the other is an indication of SIJ subluxation. The tuber sacrales are the two small protuberances which are visible on the top of the croup. Each tuber sacrale is the head of the wing of ilium, which are the wings of the pelvis. It is true that acute sacroiliac strain can lead to pelvis deformation lifting one tuber sacral higher, but such acute case also causes severe lameness. Instead, it is not uncommon that one tuber sacrale is higher than the other simply because the wings of the ilium do not grow in perfect symmetry. Another case leading to the same visual impression is transversal rotation of the thoracolumbar spine which places the sacrum and the pelvis in a slight transversal inclination. If not corrected by appropriated gymnastic the transversal rotation can became chronic as back muscles and also ligaments adapt to the torsion. The pelvis cannot be replaced manually. Instead, a gymnastic program focusing on recreating muscle imbalance between right and left side of the thoracolumbar column is the therapy. In fact, transversal rotations of the horse’s thoracolumbar spine are mostly located between the 9th and 14th thoracic vertebrae, which are basically between the rider’s thighs, therefore, corrective gymnastic needs to focus on this area of the horse’s vertebral column.
> One needs to realize that it is not the sacrum which support the pelvis but instead the pelvis that support the sacrum. The pelvis is supported by two columns which are the hind legs. The sacrum is suspended under the pelvis and is very tightly attached by a system of ligaments. This is why the sacroiliac joint is not built as a joint supporting compressive force but instead as a joint designed for sliding motion. However, very little motion occurs between the sacrum and the pelvis. The SI day will start with a clear description of the sacroiliac joint, offering to the participants the unique opportunity to manipulate a pelvis and a sacrum and fully comprehend how they are attached and function.


----------



## Smilie

BSMS, I read all kinds of horse literature,attend equine seminars where professionals at the cutting edge of horse information, be it hooves, nutrition, lifestyle, advanced diagnostic and treatment methods, genetic research, including genetic defects, and some very good trainers from every walk of the horse industry, from racing to recreational riding and everything in between, so to suggest I don't learn from the present, use from the past, what has merit to me, is rather insulting
I have raised horses for more then thirty years, and know what turns out good horses. Many of the buyers became friends, stayed in touch, with those horses having lifetime homes
I have ridden more trails then you can hope to ride, knowing what keeps not just saddle horses sound, but pack horses-and not on an hour ride or so, but full days, riding in the mountains, several days at a time
Nothing is static, and horsemanship has also evolved, become better, not worse.
It is okay to read some of the old masters, but to dwell on them being the ultimate, with no modern horsemen able to approach their level of horsemanship, that their writing is gospel, something to refer back to in every discussion, is narrow minded, and no amount of reading, looking at pictures, is ever going to replace experience-not with one horse, with two horses, or even three.


----------



## Smilie

trailhorserider said:


> Let me start by saying I'm a western rider, not a show rider, but a trail rider. I've never had any type of english lessons.
> 
> I'm not so sure every horse has to learn collection. It's nice, yes, but I think there are lots of horses that go through their life being useful without ever being collected.
> 
> But I also think some horses do it naturally. I had an Arabian gelding for while, my second horse, who would get very "hot" and move in a collected manner. He worked a lot off his back end and always wore out his back shoes before his front ones. It was an awesome feeling, because when he was in one of his moods, it was like you had all this power under you, at your beck and call. It was just powerful and wonderful and you felt like king of the world.
> 
> There are some practical applications for collection, not just for the show ring. This is one of my favorite videos on the internet, not because I condone bull fighting, I think it's cruel, but the horses, I can't quit watching the horses!
> 
> To me, this is what collection is. I don't know if it meets the definition by all the experts, but when I think of collection, I think of something like this. The horse is just a ball of collected energy, ready to be directed in an instant in any direction. So to me, as a layman, this is what I consider collection to be.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fz8BiTtoLp8
> 
> I do agree that some of the western disciplines are not ridden collected. I don't consider WP to be collected. Reining, I don't know. They are more collected than the WP pleasure classes but not as much as a bullfighting horse. :wink:
> 
> So does everyone agree this video is showing collection? Because this is what collection is in my mind.


You might not consider a western pl horse collected, nor a reiner, but until you get your judges's card, actually attend some clinics, please excuse if I dismiss your opinion
Opinions only count, if they come from some actual knowledge, experience, learning
No, it is not the same collection as in dressage, nor do we want that frame.
A collected horse is together off his forehand
You can have a head set , but no collection, with that horse heavy on his front end.
In fact, I have posted a picture before of an upper dressage horse, taken from a book on English riding, performing an upper maneuver, having the head set required for that level, but declared heavy on the forehand.
I am not saying this is any more true, in general, then trying to say all western pleasure horses are on their forehand, uncollected or four beaters
You just can't let that one go, can you? At least take some judging clinics-please!!!!!!!


----------



## Smilie

trailrider:
'But I also think some horses do it naturally. I had an Arabian gelding for while, my second horse, who would get very "hot" and move in a collected manner. He worked a lot off his back end and always wore out his back shoes before his front ones. It was an awesome feeling, because when he was in one of his moods, it was like you had all this power under you, at your beck and call. It was just powerful and wonderful and you felt like king of the world. 

There are some practical applications for collection, not just for the show ring. This is one of my favorite videos on the internet, not because I condone bull fighting, I think it's cruel, but the horses, I can't quit watching the horses! '

First, glad you found a horse that got on the muscle, a ;fun trail riding horse.Rearing would have added to your feel of collection power!

Far as bill fighting-ever look up some of the equipment used on those horses , for that control?. It was common to use a metal type of cavesson (sorry, late at night, and can't look up the info, but enough to say that the horse is controlled through pain, to continue to face that bull. Many horses are also gored, and suffer, besides the bull. 
Glad you 'admire. that movement, of a horse trying to preserve his own hide.
Be surprised how well you might move also, with a little pain incentive, and self preservation at work!
Please, go back to your la la land!


----------



## gottatrot

Smilie,

Trailhorserider mentioned she disagreed with bullfighting but said correctly the horse in the video shows collection. The horse does know how to collect and move his body very well, whether we agree with how he learned the maneuvers or not. 

You mention head set a lot, but I feel a head set is purely aesthetic and has nothing to do with proper horse movement at all. It's fine if you want a horse to learn to hold their head in a certain way. My bias is that for a horse to hold their head in one position is unnatural, not cruel as long as they can see and breathe adequately, but for some horses it can cause stress. It is my belief that it causes at least a small amount of muscle tension, and for some horses a great deal of mental tension. 

I imagine if someone told me I was going to run a 5k race but I needed to hold my head in a certain position for the entire run (about a half hour) that it would cause me stress. I'd have to think about it a lot, especially if I knew someone would give me a signal to put my head back where it was if I forgot and moved it. I'd feel restricted, especially if I heard other runners coming up behind me or if I was coming to a curb and wanted to move my head around to get a better visual. If I was a very type B person, I'd just go along with this and put up with it. But if I were a type A person, it might make me quite anxious. That's my perspective on asking a horse to hold a head set. Not cruel for some horses, but for some horses, perhaps it is. 

This is the type of thing a good discussion brings up, and is something I just made horses do when training for the show ring a few years ago and never thought much about it. Except for being frustrated that some horses wouldn't just relax and accept the headset I wanted them to have.
And no, I don't think that people who ride with a headset while showing always ride the horse with a headset out on the trails. But I do think they maintain a headset for an hour long training session, yes. I have done that myself. And again, not necessarily cruel, but obviously not the kindest thing to do to a horse either. Something to evaluate horse by horse to see how an individual handles it, if you feel a headset is necessary for your goals.



> Glad you 'admire. that movement, of a horse trying to preserve his own hide.
> Be surprised how well you might move also, with a little pain incentive, and self preservation at work!


This is also what creates a head set in many horses. Not a lot of pain, often, but a lot of persuasion, and horses will usually try to find the path of least resistance whether fleeing from a bull or learning to hold themselves a certain way. It's still about self preservation.

The good thing about reading articles (and going to seminars and lectures, as Smilie says) of all kinds is that it opens up our minds to new possibilities and perspectives. Sometimes it takes a lot of evidence to change a person's mind about things. For myself, I'm stubborn, and it often does. It's taken me years to get around the idea of wanting a horse to look pretty, and as long as I believed rounding the back was best for the horse, it supported my belief and I could in good conscience try for that rounded frame look on the horses I rode. This helped me justify some of the techniques it took to get horses to do it. 

Although I enjoy endurance riding now, I originally did not want to try it because I hated how the horses looked in some of the photos...in my mind so many of them were inverted and hollow backed and just plain ugly. My perspective has changed and now I believe I can see the beauty of a horse moving naturally without a rider interfering. A horse moving the same way they would without a rider was once something I would not condone, but now that I understand how a horse must change to accomodate the weight of a rider, it seems pretty great if the horse can keep their natural stride and posture with the weight of a rider added. It might mean the rider is not interfering with the horse, that the tack fits, and etc.


----------



## bsms

"It is okay to read some of the old masters, but to dwell on them being the ultimate, with no modern horsemen able to approach their level of horsemanship, that their writing is gospel, something to refer back to in every discussion, is narrow minded, and no amount of reading, looking at pictures, is ever going to replace experience-not with one horse, with two horses, or even three."

I hardly dwell on old horsemanship. Not when I've also quoted recent studies showing SOME of what they thought was wrong.

The Slinky Theory of collection - urge forward from behind, hold back in the front, and the horse will bow up in the middle like a slinky - was told to me, in those words, by a person with nearly 50 years of riding. But it isn't true.

People with decades around horses have told me not to let my horses drink water after a hot ride. Not true.

A very experienced person on this thread told me riding a horse "on the buckle" by a road endangers the horse, rider and cars - but folks do it all the time where I live, and do it successfully.

Experienced riders have told me one MUST teach the horse to ride with constant contact because it can't learn to "move right" without it - but they cannot describe what "move right" is, or why so many western horses show at least some collection without ever having been put "on the bit".

I've had very experienced riders tell me the solution to a horse who won't go forward is to whip the hell out of the horse. Didn't work with Mia, and I haven't tried it since.

Very experienced riders have told me not to let a horse look around. That doesn't match my experience either.

Very experienced riders have told me a horse cannot turn quickly unless collected, which Mia proved to me long ago is utter nonsense.

You have told me that a bucking horse is "collected"...but this is NOT collection, and anyone who says otherwise knows nothing about the subject:








​ You have praised this horse as well-bred, well trained and well ridden, moving the way it ought to (http://www.horseforum.com/horse-training/moderate-review-judge-662273/):








​ 
Experienced riders do this:








​ 
They do so to the point it has been the subject of study...and I'm supposed to believe experienced riders BECAUSE they have a lot of time in the saddle? Let's face it - it takes a person with a LOT of experience to admire what western pleasure horses are being bred to do, or to practice rollkur in the name of lightness!

Heck, people go to clinics to LEARN how to ride like that!

And I'm supposed to believe that a horse who moves weight forward is moving its center of gravity BACK, because you tell me it is so? I'm supposed to believe horses round their backs up, because experienced riders have said so, when ANYONE can look at a picture of a bucking bronco and realize the back is almost the same as the back of a horse standing around?

*Highly experienced riders frequently say things which are obviously wrong, so obviously wrong that a non-rider can look and see it is wrong!*

And when confronted with measurements, pictures, locations where muscles ACTUALLY attach or when the ACTUALLY contract, experienced riders far too frequently say their butts know better! I don't care if someone took lessons from Xenophon - when what they say conflicts with what can be measured and seen, either explain the apparent contradiction or admit one does, in fact, exist.

I could go on, but why? I'm just a guy who reads, then goes to see if it is true. I believe there is a SCIENCE of motion, not a FEELING of motion. I believe people can study, measure, photograph, think - and LEARN by finding out what theories match reality, and what ones do not. I've even said a person can learn to ride by taking lessons from the horse...and given how much utter nonsense is pushed by experienced riders and instructors, that may be the BEST way to learn to ride! "Horse sense" comes from horses, not people...

The Emperor's New Clothes by Hans Christian Andersen​


----------



## sarahfromsc

I believe there is a science to motion, but also a feel to motion. The two go together like white on rice.

Science can be read, feel needs to be experienced. And be experienced riding great horses, bad horses, horses with conformation flaws, horses with perfect conformation, on the flat, hills, mountains, desert, through fallen timber, crossing rivers, running after a calf through mesquite and scrub brush groves, on the bit, loose rein, collected, not collected,horses using their bodies correctly, and horses all strung out.

And all that takes years to accomplish.

I haven't gotten there yet. Time is running out if you look at my age alone. But my mind thinks it is still 30. So bring on all different types of horses and riding while I can still swing a leg over.

Then there is the science of OUR motion and the feel.


----------



## Golden Horse

sarahfromsc said:


> Science can be read, feel needs to be experienced.


:loveshower: oh yes......it's kind of like that scene in Good Will Hunting about painting and the Sistine Chapel :wink:


----------



## Smilie

The topic was, 'inverted form', not collection, whether certain disciplines have what is considered 'Classic Collection', certainly not a bash on western pl again, with the training used and equipment for the horse, in bull fighting, completely ignored, making the end result, 'more pleasing', regardless on the cost to the bull, or those horses that are gored
The inverted form is caused by a horse, being resistant to the bit, raising head beyond what is natural for his conformation, with neck and poll stiff.
In order to have this reaction, the horse has to be ridden with contact that he has not learned how to respond to correctly,or way too much contact, and often by arider ignoring the principle of riding with feel, more legs then hands
This is harmful to a horse, and also that head then has nothing to do with a horse just carrying his head at a level natural for him, riding out on a loose rein, not being asked to 'collect'
Collection, or engagement, or whatever you wish to call it, does not require rein contact,a certain level of head carriage, but rather a soft horse, responsive, and when you DO take contact, while applying legs, gives softly, is light in your hands, versus sticking head up, opening mouth, stiffening jaw and neck against you.
A horse does not learn this response, if always ridden thrown away, and I for one, won't ride a horse out, until he has some 'face' and body control.
Does not mean you ride him out , using those tools, but sure good to have them, just like brakes, should you need them!
A well trained horse should ride on a loose rein, but also accept having you take hold of him, if needed, or desired, giving softly, versus being resistant.
I've ridden those stiff resistant horses, the 10 years when I was in between owning horses, renting them at various riding stables, and never want to ride horses like that again!


----------



## Smilie

Here is that headgear, so ask yourself, if that perceived animation/collection of that horse is something to be admired,

Headgear, used on bull fighting horses- the Serreta'

To this day, the conventional bridles used in Spain and Portugal are characterized by their considerable severity. This of course is due to the tradition of bull fighting in these countries, where the rider has to be in complete control of his horse
Along with severe bridles
, other instruments of force are used
The Serreta is a detachable jagged iron strap under the noseband of the cavasson, with a severity that demands immediate and absolute obedience from the horse"

So, ask yourself, how much bravery, versus abuse?


----------



## jaydee

To the best of my knowledge Carl Hester has NEVER been an advocate of using Rolkurr and is one of the many dressage trainer/riders who spoke out against it - leading to the eventual ban of its use. Spencer Wilton who originally had the ride on Dolendo was based on Hester's yard at the time and is also someone who isn't known to use Rolkurr. To say that they caused the arthritis in that horse is extremely unfair, the Hester horses are turned out like normal horses, Nip Tuck actually lives out 24/7 and they're regularly hacked out. I've had ponies that led very gentle lives suffer with arthritis.
Putting up photos of horses being ridden in Rolkurr (which is NOT correct training in any shape or form) as some sort of argument against using correct training to improve a horses muscles is rather pointless

The video of the young woman riding with a neck strap is lovely but the horse didn't get that way by being ridden like that from the 'get go' - it was trained in the traditional way - starting out by training a horse to have self carriage and then to understand collection
Here's the same horse competing in a double bridle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pD9YHpHzQSs

QUOTE from the Science of Motion quote posted above
_The most important concept relative to SI injury is that the main problem is about lack of stability. *Instability is either caused by incorrect work of the muscles and tendons and ligaments associated with the joint or due to pathologic changes within the joint. In fact, pathologic changes are the more advanced level of a problem that started with poor or inappropriate muscular work. *_

The person behind that site believes that correct work is the best and most effective way to repair SI damage

The sort of collection you see in a horse that's at liberty or unrestrained by some form of bridle is 'self carriage' developed partly from natural ability - some horses are built in a way that makes them more athletic and since a major part of natural muscle development used for collection comes from a horses primitive defense mechanism a horse that's faster to react to potential dangers will have higher developed muscles than one that is placid and non reactive
The trained part of self carriage happens in the early stages of a horses schooling from learned muscle memory and the ability to balance itself while working in a confined space.
Collection in the riding sense is about harnessing that self carriage and natural ability to one that can be controlled by the rider - you're essentially shortening the horse by asking it to put its weight on to its rear end and then containing all that energy like a coiled spring that can be released as needed


----------



## Skyseternalangel

gottatrot said:


> Dante believes a horse can't collect without rider involvement in the front end.


Actually no, that is NOT what she said at all.

Have you heard of self carriage? Where the horse has the muscle to lift his abdominals, engage his hind, and use his forward energy to carry himself?

The horse can do that on its own, but typically as it is a flight animal, it tends to worry more about staying alive. The horse will change how it moves on its own will out in pasture, but if it doesn't have the muscles it won't be able to carry themselves relaxed and using their topline.

Now when you are riding a horse, the goal in dressage is self carriage. I'm sure that is the same way for every other discipline out there, including trail riding because the LAST thing you want is for the horse to face plant or shoot its head up like a giraffe and run. But since I ride dressage, let's focus on that for this next part.

Dante believes that in dressage, your job as the rider is to help the horse learn self carriage. They build the right muscles up, the others are relaxed and loose, and they aren't loading their front end but can use their hind to stop instead. 

That is what she meant by riding in a frame. Basically you are pushing the horse forward into the bridle and asking them to sit back as they move along in their training (YOU DO NOT PULL THEM BACK but you ask them to hesitate if they want to plow through or if they just want to speed up and forget they have 4 feet).

My horse did it on his own (earlier post with Sky where there was a comment about him being braced which was false) without my involvement because he had spent YEARS travelling incorrectly and it felt good to him and he enjoyed it (and likely saved his back from my awful riding at that time)

It's hard work for a horse to work correctly, because it's a work out. Kind of like for us, to be healthy we have to work at it. To avoid muscle atrophy, you have to work those muscles correctly which means helping the horse move correctly (the dips by the wither) and it takes time.

Please do not judge all riders on other riders who take shortcuts. I've taken shortcuts back when I was ignorant and it did nothing good for my horse. Now we're working hard and he's coming along nicely, and he's HAPPIER! He is SO happy cantering without being 'hollow' (and trust me it FEELS hollow due to the muscles not engaging.. I shrink 5 inches in the saddle) but more through (where I feel 10 inches taller) but he isn't in great shape so he cannot be through for extended periods of time. JUST like when YOU are working out, you can't lift 100lbs on the first day. You start with 1lb, then gradually over time it increases. Or you work out for 10 minutes, and soon you can do an hour. Or you build to 200 situps and 100 pushups over time from doing 1 pushup or situp one day and so on.

But some people don't understand that.


----------



## trailhorserider

Smilie said:


> Here is that headgear, so ask yourself, if that perceived animation/collection of that horse is something to be admired,
> 
> Headgear, used on bull fighting horses- the Serreta'
> 
> To this day, the conventional bridles used in Spain and Portugal are characterized by their considerable severity. This of course is due to the tradition of bull fighting in these countries, where the rider has to be in complete control of his horse
> Along with severe bridles
> , other instruments of force are used
> The Serreta is a detachable jagged iron strap under the noseband of the cavasson, with a severity that demands immediate and absolute obedience from the horse"
> 
> So, ask yourself, how much bravery, versus abuse?


Never said they were "brave," just collected. :wink: Not condoning the practice, just is that this is what I consider a good example of "collection." Yeah, I admire their responsiveness. I think most riders would. I don't even know if the horse "knows" he's in danger. I think he's used to being ridden that way, his emotions are up, his rider is spurring him on, and this is the result. 

_First, glad you found a horse that got on the muscle, a ;fun trail riding horse.Rearing would have added to your feel of collection power!

_Yes, he was fun believe it or not. As long as a horse is safe, I think a forward horse is a blast.  I have a Fox Trotter that is also very forward, I just wouldn't call her "collected."


----------



## updownrider

bsms said:


> I could go on, but why? I'm just a guy who reads, then goes to see if it is true. I believe there is a SCIENCE of motion, not a FEELING of motion.


You read George Morris, and often recommend his book and quote him on this board. 

George discusses feeling in this video. It is a jumping video, but his books are about jumping, too.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGk7aAJdCRY


----------



## tinyliny

bsms said:


> The Slinky Theory of collection - urge forward from behind, hold back in the front, and the horse will bow up in the middle like a slinky - was told to me, in those words, by a person with nearly 50 years of riding. But it isn't true.
> ok, the back does not arch up. but, there is a feeling of 'rounding up', and I think it has more to do with the abdominal muscles engaging (that 'slowing of the front' action causes the hind to step under deeper, and to lift the hind leg and place it more forward, the abdominal muscles are engaged. when the happens, the rib cage opens a bit and it feel as if the area under you sort of 'fills out'. I think this is the "rounding" that people speak of. the spine is not mobile, but the ribs and muscles are.
> 
> People with decades around horses have told me not to let my horses drink water after a hot ride. Not true.
> I know. crazy.
> A very experienced person on this thread told me riding a horse "on the buckle" by a road endangers the horse, rider and cars - but folks do it all the time where I live, and do it successfully.
> I guess it depends on the horse's training, and how responsive they are to the bit . if they've been trained well, and are responsive immediately, you could be fine. I ride with direct reining , not neck reining, and often ride on a loose rein, but I know how to shorten my reins very , very quickly. even so, if I am near a place where that split second delay is going to make things dicier, I'll 'pre-shorten' just a bit. or , at least have my hands in the placement that allows a quick shortening. you want to be prepared, but not telescoping anxiety, either.
> Experienced riders have told me one MUST teach the horse to ride with constant contact because it can't learn to "move right" without it - but they cannot describe what "move right" is, or why so many western horses show at least some collection without ever having been put "on the bit".
> I havne't read anyone hear ever say you have to teach the hrose to ride with 'constant contact' not one person posted here has said that.
> I've had very experienced riders tell me the solution to a horse who won't go forward is to whip the hell out of the horse. Didn't work with Mia, and I haven't tried it since.
> many other experienced poeple here have offered other ideas, no?
> Very experienced riders have told me not to let a horse look around. That doesn't match my experience either.
> mine , either. but, that's not to say they aren't right. it may not have worked for me because you have to have a LOT of self confidence to make it work. I don't , so I can't convince the horse, either.
> 
> Very experienced riders have told me a horse cannot turn quickly unless collected, which Mia proved to me long ago is utter nonsense.
> 
> It sure wasn't me that said that. I said that a hrose that is stiff, resistant, strong out is MORE likely to be explosive in its' spooks, and swing in a stiff manner, like a board or a gate swinging, and that is much harder to stay on. it can be plenty fast!
> 
> You have told me that a bucking horse is "collected"...but this is NOT collection, and anyone who says otherwise knows nothing about the subject:
> who said a bucking horse is collected?
> in a way, it is. I mean that Racinet definition was that the horse restrains the forward movement in preparation for the need to stop suddenly or turn suddenly. that kind of describes bucking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​ You have praised this horse as well-bred, well trained and well ridden, moving the way it ought to (http://www.horseforum.com/horse-training/moderate-review-judge-662273/):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> Experienced riders do this:
> a few do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> They do so to the point it has been the subject of study...and I'm supposed to believe experienced riders BECAUSE they have a lot of time in the saddle? Let's face it - it takes a person with a LOT of experience to admire what western pleasure horses are being bred to do, or to practice rollkur in the name of lightness!
> 
> Heck, people go to clinics to LEARN how to ride like that!
> 
> And I'm supposed to believe that a horse who moves weight forward is moving its center of gravity BACK, because you tell me it is so? I'm supposed to believe horses round their backs up, because experienced riders have said so, when ANYONE can look at a picture of a bucking bronco and realize the back is almost the same as the back of a horse standing around?
> I think yoiu've shown us that the back does not actually arch upward. I didnt' know that, so I appreciate that you've disproved that by quite a bit of evidence. but, I think the universality of the perception that the back "rounds up" by riders of all disciplines when asking the horse to slow the front, lift the shoulders and step under the hind can only mean that SOMETHING happens, something that riders feel . I've felt it. it's there. it might not be a spine movmennt, but there is a change in the way the horse moves and feels under you. perhaps a new name might make it feel better to you to accept that there IS a change in the way the hrose moves, and it's pleasureable to the rider, and sometimes, it seems to engage the spirit of the hrose, too.
> *Highly experienced riders frequently say things which are obviously wrong, so obviously wrong that a non-rider can look and see it is wrong!*
> 
> And when confronted with measurements, pictures, locations where muscles ACTUALLY attach or when the ACTUALLY contract, experienced riders far too frequently say their butts know better! I don't care if someone took lessons from Xenophon - when what they say conflicts with what can be measured and seen, either explain the apparent contradiction or admit one does, in fact, exist.
> 
> I could go on, but why? I'm just a guy who reads, then goes to see if it is true. I believe there is a SCIENCE of motion, not a FEELING of motion. I believe people can study, measure, photograph, think - and LEARN by finding out what theories match reality, and what ones do not. I've even said a person can learn to ride by taking lessons from the horse...and given how much utter nonsense is pushed by experienced riders and instructors, that may be the BEST way to learn to ride! "Horse sense" comes from horses, not people...
> 
> The Emperor's New Clothes by Hans Christian Andersen​



Because I am not adept at multi quote, I put my thoughts in red, inside your comments, bsms.


----------



## Smilie

trailhorserider said:


> Never said they were "brave," just collected. :wink: Not condoning the practice, just is that this is what I consider a good example of "collection." Yeah, I admire their responsiveness. I think most riders would. I don't even know if the horse "knows" he's in danger. I think he's used to being ridden that way, his emotions are up, his rider is spurring him on, and this is the result.
> 
> _First, glad you found a horse that got on the muscle, a ;fun trail riding horse.Rearing would have added to your feel of collection power!
> 
> _Yes, he was fun believe it or not. As long as a horse is safe, I think a forward horse is a blast.  I have a Fox Trotter that is also very forward, I just wouldn't call her "collected."


Forward is fine, as all my horses I ride out that way are, never needing to be peddled 
This is different though from a horse leaning on a bit``, being strong, the kind of horse that `has to be in front`, or he becomes an idiot.
There are collected movements you don`t want. I had a gelding ,we used a a stallion for several years, and one I also gamed, plus did western riding and reining on. He was an exceptional lead changer, and in fact, in western riding pattern, had to concentrate on him not throwing in an extra change
He was great on trial rides, when he was leading, when he was mainly with our own group, but should he get excited, a strange horse galloping by, and was held back, he could pretty much lope in place, doing un asked every other stride flying changes.
Bucking is also a high degree of collection. Charlie, my current alla round horse, will do Airs above ground, free in the pasture, esp on a cold morning-does not mean I want to ride that expression of collection

I mentioned how, and gave reference to the training of those bull fighting horses. They are NOT trained in kind manners, or even ridden in humane tack, so you can`t ignore that fact any more then an upper dressage horse having been trained using Rollkur, regardless of how that horse looks , doing his job-and that was my point
I trail ride, as much, or way more then you, having gone on hunting trips with my husband into wilderness for years. I certainly don`t ask my horse to move collected trail riding, nor do I think allowing him to move out on a loose rein, in a natural frame is harmful, as that frame is not an inverted frame
I have also become quite particular as to who I ride with. I no longer ride with either idiot horses, or riders that just want to ride wide valley type trails, usually no more then 10 miles from camp
I have ridden off the track horses out west,ones that have been gamed, ones wherè `no brain home, so that I really, really appreciate a sensible trail horse-one that goes at the gait you ask for, on a loose rein, one you can trust to pick their way down a very steep trail, again, given their head, or climb one with lots of switchbacks and drop offs
I also like to ride a horse, that has the engagement, collection, softness, suited for a particular job-whether that be a pleasure horse, or one taking a cow down a fence. You give that working cowhorse a loose rein, but he sure as hell is engaged, stopping at speed, turning that cow, ect A horse doing airs above ground, would be useless in that job
So lets get away from that fixation of any particular head set, degree of collection, collected movements all athletic horses do at liberty (yes, including pleasure horses) and get to the gist of this post.

A true inverted form is harmful, and caused by rider and training error.
Riding a horse without collection, is certainly not harmful, and the way trail horses have been ridden for eons, and still are

You can have a head set and no collection, and collection, or engagement, without a head set

There is also a difference, in riding a horse out, that only knows how to move strung out or natural, with no real idea as to how to give softly to a bit and legs ,when asked to, and one that can go either way, depending on what you ask of him.
To me it is no brainer, that the latter horse is more highly trained, and the type I would rather ride, anywhere!


----------



## gottatrot

Smilie said:


> *So lets get away from that fixation of any particular head set, degree of collection, collected movements all athletic horses do at liberty (yes, including pleasure horses) and get to the gist of this post.
> 
> A true inverted form is harmful, and caused by rider and training error.
> Riding a horse without collection, is certainly not harmful, and the way trail horses have been ridden for eons, and still are
> 
> You can have a head set and no collection, and collection, or engagement, without a head set*
> 
> There is also a difference, in riding a horse out, that only knows how to move strung out or natural, with no real idea as to how to give softly to a bit and legs ,when asked to, and one that can go either way, depending on what you ask of him.
> To me it is no brainer, that the latter horse is more highly trained, and the type I would rather ride, anywhere!


Bingo. The part I bolded, I agree with very much. I'd say often "tack error," too. I'd rather remove the idea of inverted as interpreted by many to mean "a horse traveling as their natural conformation dictates rather than in a rounded frame" and instead call it "braced and resistant." So a horse moving along braced and resistant is going to harm his body. But it's not because he isn't rounding his back up to better hold the weight of the rider. It's because he's straining and stressing his body unevenly rather than using it athletically.

What you describe in the last part I didn't bold is what I would call a yet untrained horse. It's safer to ride a trained horse, but riding horses that don't yet know how to respond to the aids with lightness is for me just part of the "training ladder" LOL and that's where training begins. I don't see it as a fixed state, although some horses have habits that are difficult to overcome.

One Arab I rode several times was always ridden with a curb bit around the perimeter of an arena. He only knew how to flex his neck and "round up," becoming "soft" front to rear. But when I took him out on the trail in a snaffle, he had no concept of bending through his body. I had to teach him to follow the amount of bend I was asking for. I've run across a few horses actually that had been ridden by riders that were insecure so they did not want the horse to turn quickly underneath their seat. Because of this the horses actually did not know how to bend through their bodies and had to be taught. 


> (Skyseternalangel)
> Please do not judge all riders on other riders who take shortcuts. I've taken shortcuts back when I was ignorant and it did nothing good for my horse...JUST like when YOU are working out, you can't lift 100lbs on the first day. You start with 1lb, then gradually over time it increases. Or you work out for 10 minutes, and soon you can do an hour. Or you build to 200 situps and 100 pushups over time from doing 1 pushup or situp one day and so on.
> 
> But some people don't understand that.


Agreed. And horses also can learn self carriage by being ridden properly without contact as well as being ridden in formal collection. The back does not hollow, even the sacroiliac joint does not bend appreciably, and the abdominal muscles don't lift the rider either. There are all types of gymnastic exercises that can be used by intelligent riders to develop great muscling and a horse that uses his body properly. It's like the difference between an athlete being developed in a gym with weights and a treadmill versus an athlete that only runs outdoors and lifts rocks and tires. Either one can be done without any thought to which muscle groups are being used, to proper training or plan. OR either one can be done intelligently and each method can develop a strong athlete. Some might even argue that the less predictable structure of the outdoor "gym" can create a better athlete.
But just like different types of athletes develop more muscular body types or leaner ones, horses also develop proper musculature that can look very different. 


> (BSMS) Highly experienced riders frequently say things which are obviously wrong, so obviously wrong that a non-rider can look and see it is wrong!


Yes. So we can't trust the miles and years we've put on our own butts or the ones other people say they've experienced. Instead I believe we need to examine, read, study, listen and keep an open mind to see what makes sense, what seems logical, scientific and what the evidence shows.



> (Jaydee)To the best of my knowledge Carl Hester has NEVER been an advocate of using Rolkurr and is one of the many dressage trainer/riders who spoke out against it - leading to the eventual ban of its use. Spencer Wilton who originally had the ride on Dolendo was based on Hester's yard at the time and is also someone who isn't known to use Rolkurr. To say that they caused the arthritis in that horse is extremely unfair, the Hester horses are turned out like normal horses, Nip Tuck actually lives out 24/7 and they're regularly hacked out. I've had ponies that led very gentle lives suffer with arthritis...


It is my opinion that Hester and others say they are against Rollkur because it is unpopular but they practice "Low, Deep and Round," which to the untrained eye appears identical. It's the same type of forcing the horse to hyperflex, which has been shown to cause bony changes and arthritis to the neck vertebrae. Yes, many older horses develop arthritis. I personally have never heard of any horses to have appreciable neck arthritis among all the horses I've known and been around. It would be a rare thing for a horse to be put down for neck arthritis, in fact I've never heard of it happening in my corner of the horse world. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbk7HWtQWbM



> (Jaydee)
> The video of the young woman riding with a neck strap is lovely but the horse didn't get that way by being ridden like that from the 'get go' - it was trained in the traditional way - starting out by training a horse to have self carriage and then to understand collection...
> 
> QUOTE from the Science of Motion quote posted above...
> Instability is either caused by incorrect work of the muscles and tendons and ligaments associated with the joint or due to pathologic changes within the joint. In fact, pathologic changes are the more advanced level of a problem that started with poor or inappropriate muscular work.
> 
> *The person behind that site believes that correct work is the best and most effective way to repair SI damage*
> Collection in the riding sense is about harnessing that self carriage and natural ability to one that can be controlled by the rider - you're essentially shortening the horse by asking it to put its weight on to its rear end and then containing all that energy like a coiled spring that can be released as needed


I agree the horse would have been trained to perform the dressage movements on a loose rein and then would have been taught to do it bridleless. I also believe correct work is the best way to repair SI damage. But "correct work" is not something that applies necessarily to dressage alone, and dressage has its share of incorrect work done at all levels. 
I disagree with this mental imagery of the horse putting the weight on the rear and creating a coiled spring of energy to release. The hind doesn't lower enough to create that effect, and the horse's body doesn't work that way physiologically. I believe even dressage riders are held back from progress by their false ideas of how horse physiology works.


----------



## DanteDressageNerd

Rolkur and low-round-deep is not even close to the same thing. Particularly if you are someone who has an experienced eye. I get why it would look the same to the untrained eye but it is not the same.

It is not even close to, in low-round-deep the horse is given a longer rein and outline and asked to be deeper in the back and neck using the rider's seat, leg and core half halts, they may hold the contact a hair longer than release it and encourage self carriage. Carl Hester is clearly not doing rolkur. It frustrates me when people assume because a horse is btv it's rolkur or the rider is riding aggressively, not so. If you look at Dolendo's actual outline you will see the difference. The difference is the horse is being ridden to the bit and where he wants to be based on where Carl places his balance, not being manipulated, crammed or held behind the bit. There is still a release in the contact though you may not see it, you can tell in the horse's outline. 

THIS is rolkur. Rolkur is where a horse isn't just ridden in the back, it is where the horse is crammed behind to the point where the back disengages, the horse comes more forward on the forehand. The horse is having it's face ridden. Clearly not through, not in self carriage, but having it's head and neck jammed into a position, not ridden to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hIXGiV4N4k




jaydee said:


> To the best of my knowledge Carl Hester has NEVER been an advocate of using Rolkurr and is one of the many dressage trainer/riders who spoke out against it - leading to the eventual ban of its use. Spencer Wilton who originally had the ride on Dolendo was based on Hester's yard at the time and is also someone who isn't known to use Rolkurr. To say that they caused the arthritis in that horse is extremely unfair, the Hester horses are turned out like normal horses, Nip Tuck actually lives out 24/7 and they're regularly hacked out. I've had ponies that led very gentle lives suffer with arthritis.
> Putting up photos of horses being ridden in Rolkurr (which is NOT correct training in any shape or form) as some sort of argument against using correct training to improve a horses muscles is rather pointless
> 
> The video of the young woman riding with a neck strap is lovely but the horse didn't get that way by being ridden like that from the 'get go' - it was trained in the traditional way - starting out by training a horse to have self carriage and then to understand collection
> Here's the same horse competing in a double bridle
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pD9YHpHzQSs
> 
> 
> The sort of collection you see in a horse that's at liberty or unrestrained by some form of bridle is 'self carriage' developed partly from natural ability - some horses are built in a way that makes them more athletic and since a major part of natural muscle development used for collection comes from a horses primitive defense mechanism a horse that's faster to react to potential dangers will have higher developed muscles than one that is placid and non reactive
> The trained part of self carriage happens in the early stages of a horses schooling from learned muscle memory and the ability to balance itself while working in a confined space.
> Collection in the riding sense is about harnessing that self carriage and natural ability to one that can be controlled by the rider - you're essentially shortening the horse by asking it to put its weight on to its rear end and then containing all that energy like a coiled spring that can be released as needed





Skyseternalangel said:


> Dante believes that in dressage, your job as the rider is to help the horse learn self carriage. They build the right muscles up, the others are relaxed and loose, and they aren't loading their front end but can use their hind to stop instead.
> 
> That is what she meant by riding in a frame. Basically you are pushing the horse forward into the bridle and asking them to sit back as they move along in their training (YOU DO NOT PULL THEM BACK but you ask them to hesitate if they want to plow through or if they just want to speed up and forget they have 4 feet).
> 
> Please do not judge all riders on other riders who take shortcuts. I've taken shortcuts back when I was ignorant and it did nothing good for my horse. Now we're working hard and he's coming along nicely, and he's HAPPIER! He is SO happy cantering without being 'hollow' (and trust me it FEELS hollow due to the muscles not engaging.. I shrink 5 inches in the saddle) but more through (where I feel 10 inches taller) but he isn't in great shape so he cannot be through for extended periods of time. JUST like when YOU are working out, you can't lift 100lbs on the first day. You start with 1lb, then gradually over time it increases. Or you work out for 10 minutes, and soon you can do an hour. Or you build to 200 situps and 100 pushups over time from doing 1 pushup or situp one day and so on.
> 
> But some people don't understand that.



This all I agree with quite a lot and are points I had been trying to make but someone else said it more eloquently and clearly. I also agree on Dolendo. I've seen video of Carl riding that horse, he might ask him to be rounder and deeper but NEVER in a rolkur position. I think it was a VERY big leap of whoever wrote that blog to make that assumption. I have NEVER heard or seen anything to show Carl doing rolkur and his horses do not move like rolkur trained horse. Rolkur disengages the hind end and stiffens the back. It warps how they extend and collect. Carl's horses always reach through over their backs. There is nothing I see that shows rolkur in the horses he's trained. And as mentioned any horse can develop arthritis, even a pasture ornament. Things happen even in the best of circumstance and best of care.

And exactly we do not pull them back or hold them together, the horses are ridden and taught self carriage from the beginning. We can ride them on the buckle and still regulate rhythm, tempo, balance, and have them on the bit and then gather them up and bring them up higher in the frame using our seat, legs and core because they're independent of the bridle but the bridle tells them where to be. In the purpose of the higher frame is to increase engagement and honestly as a horse collects more in his body, he comes up more in his neck and we just keep that connection without a draped rein to keep the whole connection. When we feel the horse "round" it is the tucking of the abdominal muscles we are feeling. We also ride without a draped rein because if you look at a dressage test we need the whole connection with the body to ride shoulder, haunches in, half pass, 10m circles, tempi changes, piroettes, etc and with how quickly they come up in a test. On a draped rein it would look like disorganized, dysfunction mess because the connection isn't there.

I was just going to say I like that questions are being asked. I think it is IMPORTANT for everyone to ask questions and say is this right? Does this make sense? I don't have to agree with you on everything but I can say I think it's good to ask questions and think about things and what's right and what is wrong. I think it's very hard for human advancement if we just accepted traditionally preached doctrine, don't ask questions and blindly accept what we are told. The freedom to disagree is essential to human advancement. How can we improve if we blindly accept our beliefs without question? So I think this thread has been good in that respect where everyone can provide their input and explain their reasoning.

That said I think it's apart of the horse world to decide who to learn from and who not to learn from. Not all experienced riders have the kind of experience you want to learn from and not all experience is good experienced. A rider can be experienced but ride incorrectly. But it doesn't mean you shut out everyone who has experience and assume they have nothing valuable to teach or you can't learn from others. I think this is where personal judgment comes into play and learning to recognize what is okay, not okay and what it is you really want for your and your horse.

For example there are MANY dressage trainers in my area you couldn't pay me to take a lesson from and many riders you couldn't pay me enough to put on my horse. Riders much more experienced and accomplished than myself. But I don't want to learn from them because they ride off of force and manipulation which is wrong. I see nothing of unity, harmony or partnership which is what my goal is-total unity. There are moments where I am firm but not rough like I've seen some riders be. I think taking a lesson from those trainers/riders, if I followed their advice would back track my horse and I many steps.

At the bottom is the training scale I prefer because it introduces throughness and supplness as an important peace of the puzzle and imo it's more important than collection and should be developed from the get go. It's more complete to me.


----------



## jaydee

I've known Carl Hester, not as a personal friend but as a trainer and rider for many years, he's based not far from where I used to live in the UK. I do know people who've trained with him and do regard him as a friend and I have never heard anyone say that they'd seen him or anyone on his yard use Rolkurr
By all means criticize people who do use abusive practices but for goodness sake don't start bashing people like him who've put so much work into encouraging owners to allow dressage horses to live more normal lives, to demystify dressage so it becomes something the average rider can understand and get involved in at the lower levels, not just the elite few and always pushes good training that takes time and patience above all the shortcuts


----------



## gottatrot

DanteDressageNerd said:


> Rolkur and low-round-deep is not even close to the same thing.
> 
> At the bottom is the training scale I prefer because it introduces throughness and supplness as an important peace of the puzzle and imo it's more important than collection and should be developed from the get go. It's more complete to me.


Most of you on here seem like thinking people and everyone has had a different road to where they're at in their horse-related beliefs. I like the training scale, I personally have an ideal of minimizing the contact but the rest are things to consider and address in training. 

My own personal belief is that both LDR and Rollkur are harmful to horses. At the very least, there is a lot less risk of injury both physical and mental by not using anything that requires a horse to go behind the vertical. I avoid it with all training. I avoid putting horses with their heads below the withers also. My own experiences with these things have brought imaginary positive effects and no lasting or real effects that I could qualify as positive (other than show results or happy instructors) for the horse. 

My remark about the "inexperienced eye" was meant to be sarcasm, which I should have stated. Poor humor in some peoples' minds. But my point was that if there is so little obvious difference between them, it could lead one to wonder if the differences are really that marked as people would want one to believe. 



> (Jaydee)
> By all means criticize people who do use abusive practices but for goodness sake don't start bashing people like him who've put so much work into encouraging owners to allow dressage horses to live more normal lives, to demystify dressage so it becomes something the average rider can understand and get involved in at the lower levels, not just the elite few and always pushes good training that takes time and patience above all the shortcuts


I strongly believe that I can like a person, can even like 95% of all their training methods and also disagree strongly with something they do. It's not bashing to say someone may have caused neck arthritis by the strong contact used by top dressage riders. That is like saying someone most likely caused hock arthritis in their gaming horse. We know scientifically that these things cause physical problems for many horses. That's not a personal attack. I personally am not a "people worshipper." I think all of us have flaws and all of us can be very wrong about things on many levels. There are many trainers that I like some of their teachings and find many of their teachings ludicrous. I posted a video on here of George Morris causing a lot of stress to a horse with strong contact and George Morris is someone I quote sometimes and at least one of his concepts changed my riding dramatically in a positive way.

There will be many of you I agree with on many points and disagree with strongly on others. To me that just means I'm using my brain and not drinking any Kool-Aid. I'm not sure why disagreements need to be personal, but I was raised by a dad who loved debate and taught it to me as a recreational activity. When I wanted a dog as a kid he'd argue why I shouldn't until I finally changed my mind, then he'd bring up all the positive points of having a dog until I thought I was nuts. 

On a more humorous note, I find this cartoon quite funny:
The Equestrian Vagabond: Rollkur in Endurance


----------



## Skyseternalangel

gottatrot said:


> Agreed. And horses also can learn self carriage by being ridden properly without contact as well as being ridden in formal collection. The back does not hollow, even the sacroiliac joint does not bend appreciably, *and the abdominal muscles don't lift the rider either.* There are all types of gymnastic exercises that can be used by intelligent riders to develop great muscling and a horse that uses his body properly. It's like the difference between an athlete being developed in a gym with weights and a treadmill versus an athlete that only runs outdoors and lifts rocks and tires. Either one can be done without any thought to which muscle groups are being used, to proper training or plan. OR either one can be done intelligently and each method can develop a strong athlete. Some might even argue that the less predictable structure of the outdoor "gym" can create a better athlete.
> But just like different types of athletes develop more muscular body types or leaner ones, horses also develop proper musculature that can look very different.
> 
> Yes. So we can't trust the miles and years we've put on our own butts or the ones other people say they've experienced. Instead I believe we need to examine, read, study, listen and keep an open mind to see what makes sense, what seems logical, scientific and what the evidence shows.
> 
> 
> It is my opinion that Hester and others say they are against Rollkur because it is unpopular but they practice "Low, Deep and Round," which to the untrained eye appears identical. It's the same type of forcing the horse to hyperflex, which has been shown to cause bony changes and arthritis to the neck vertebrae. Yes, many older horses develop arthritis. I personally have never heard of any horses to have appreciable neck arthritis among all the horses I've known and been around. It would be a rare thing for a horse to be put down for neck arthritis, in fact I've never heard of it happening in my corner of the horse world.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbk7HWtQWbM
> 
> 
> *I agree the horse would have been trained to perform the dressage movements on a loose rein and then would have been taught to do it bridleless.* I also believe correct work is the best way to repair SI damage. But "correct work" is not something that applies necessarily to dressage alone, and dressage has its share of incorrect work done at all levels.
> I disagree with this mental imagery of the horse putting the weight on the rear and creating a coiled spring of energy to release. The hind doesn't lower enough to create that effect, and the horse's body doesn't work that way physiologically. I believe even dressage riders are held back from progress by their false ideas of how horse physiology works.


I don't know if I agree with you there. When you ask a horse to belly lift (say on the ground), by stimulating their abdominal muscles, their toplines and backs lift. 

And that "loose rein" mentality is what I was referring to as self carriage.


----------



## Bondre

This is a great discussion! I have read it all attentively and find it very enlightening. 

I myself spent a significant percentage of my riding time in my youth trying to get my horse to move "nicely" according to my instructor. In the light of this discussion, it was mostly time wasted I think, as we weren't working towards true collection but rather just an acceptable head and neck position that the judge is looking for in working hunter classes.

I don't remember anyone talking about the horse being round our inverted, but the metaphor of the coiled spring was common, as Jaydee describes in her last post. You can feel this happening under you when your horse approaches a jumps, for example, and when you get it right it's a guarantee that your horse is ready to extend when you give the signal. It's a high-energy state that I doubt the horse can maintain for long - think of it as potential energy that the horse is temporarily storing until it releases this as kinetic energy. 



gottatrot said:


> I disagree with this mental imagery of the horse putting the weight on the rear and creating a coiled spring of energy to release. The hind doesn't lower enough to create that effect, and the horse's body doesn't work that way physiologically. I believe even dressage riders are held back from progress by their false ideas of how horse physiology works.


I don't understand why you disagree with this imagery, gottatrot? I don't myself know about the horse's physiological capabilities, but it FEELS just like a spring. Could you expand on this one?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Smilie

Agree that the pyramid applies to any training program, except, westen, there is some difference, in the fact , that the contact phase, includes intervals of self carriage, thus no contact, expecting horse to stay correct without that contact, and building on the number of strides, before you again need to take contact and drive.
That final collection, then, is off of seat and legs alone

Gotta trot, when I stated my preference in riding a horse out, that also can be asked to collect when needed, I was of course, referring to a 'finished' horse, nebulous as that concept is, versus one always stuck in the basic training phase
When I ride a green horse out, I don't worry about that horse knowing collection,, other then giving me his head, when asked to, which, of course is possible without any collection. I do want some body control on that horse though, so he can't collect, un asked, Lol, and engage to buck!
,


----------



## Smilie

Far as 'collection' itself, and hind end engagement, a working cowhorse, taking a cow down the fence, turning it at speed, certainly has hind end engagement, is light in the face, off his front end, responsive and has his head where it needs to be to get that job done
That is what counts to me, without any worrying about 'classical round form or back position
My thoughts on the entire collection argument, with a certain outline trying to be set, is more on what I consider goals, far as a WELL BROKE HORSE
You want that horse to work, being off his front end, engaging behind, when asked to, while remaining soft in the poll and face. Responsive to leg aids and that rein against his neck. These elements are required in any maneuver, like a good stop, roll back, rail class, ect
Yes, horses certainly can do collection movements on their own, as anyone knows, just watching horses play in the pasture, or experience, being launched form a bucking horse!
Horses also know lead departures, and how to perform flying lead changes,, also seen in running out at liberty
That is not the point though, far as performing these things under saddle.
Under saddle, we train a horse to perform them ,on cue, at exact location, as a flying change, without change of direction, thus obedience to leg, picking up asked for lead, even if a counter canter
Same goes for collection. We don't want a horse to perform collected movements, unasked for under saddle, like bucking, rearing, and if you ever rode a horse that reared and then leaped forward- I guarantee you don't want that, nor ahorse that becomes on the muscle, thus resorts to a prancing,' ready to explode,' collected way of going!


----------



## jaydee

I certainly don't go with the whole 'drink the koolaid' thing but you really cannot accuse someone of causing damage to a horse without knowing for a fact that they did. 
Its not uncommon for young horses that have done no real work at all to have arthritis in their hocks so what do you then blame that on? 
I don't approve of Rolkurr but even where it was used the horses would only be getting put in that position for a small part of their daily work session which (that session) would maybe amount to around an hour of their day and if it was used and is still used as widely as you seem to think it is then surely we'd be seeing hundreds of horses with arthritic neck conditions. 
Way before Anky Van Grunsven's husband pushed it into the limelight so to speak people who produced show ponies in the UK were standing them in stables for hours at a time with their 'chins' pulled on to their chests so they developed muscle memory and then working them all the time in draw reins so they didn't forget and would work in a pretty outline in the ring on a light rein for their little riders - but that didn't result in thousands of ponies with crippling arthritis in their necks either. 
There's abuse all over the horse world, most of it much worse than Rolkurr but I still don't approve of shortcuts like that - however I will not throw out all of the good beneficial training because some methods aren't so great
There's more horses ruined by bad training methods than there are ruined by good ones
The reason most horses bolt, spook badly, get barn/buddy sour, refuse to turn, step back, obey leg cues, won't stand still to be mounted, evade the bit etc etc is because at some point in their life they either figured out they could do it or no one ever trained them the right way and a horse that's going around with its nose in the air - INVERTED - is a horse that's going to be a problem to ride in one way or another


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs

"This is not about disciplines or believing only one school of horsemanship has all the answers. The answers are with the (individual) horse and how its body works. Work with it or against it, those are your choices. Only one of those choices helps your horse."

I did not write the above, someone, somewhere else did. The parenthesis are mine, but it encapsulated so well what I think many here are saying that it seemed appropriate to add. 

I had the opportunity last week to see my daughter's Caspian really run no holds barred for the first time (yes he is generally low energy). He was playing with a 9 mo colt we are boarding and the two of them were playing a spirited game of chase. 

They were varying gaits and each time he would go from lope to gallop, he would come under himself so far and load so deep that his back end was a mere foot or so from touching the ground as was his muzzle (as a counter balance) before exploding outward both front and back with an amazing amount of power and speed. 

His grandfather was Hollywood Dun It, the Hall of Fame reining horse and it was the first time I have ever seen him move more like a quarter horse than a Caspian (ancient predecessors to the Arabian breed). 

I think more than worrying so much about what defines "correct" movement in people terms and then trying to fit all horses into our created box, we should look to the horse to define it for us and then fit our approach to them into their natural box, whatever that may mean for that particular horse. 

Cowboy, who is a foundation bred QH will never move like a dressage horse. I had my SIL, who was training for Olympic Dressage before she had children, jump on him and what she said was that he wasn't built for it. She knew enough not to force him into artificial movement and that would be counter productive for him. 

When he found the frame she was seeking in the front, he strung out through the back, when she let him find his own head, he found collection from behind. He sought his own equilibrium based upon how he was built. He either experienced what she asked for and found it balanced or he didn't and started tripping over himself. No surprise that a horse bred for generations to drag cows to the branding fire, would not be well suited for English style collection! 

This does not mean that he cannot move in a collected manner or be ridden in such a way as to have a natural fluid movement, that in its own way is a thing of beauty, it simply doesn't fit in the dressage "box" of movement. 

Oliver on the other hand (literally my craigslist horse and a grade), could fit into the dressage box, but he flat out hates arena work and is not happy there. 

He collects in more traditional fashion naturally out on the trail where he is relaxed, I don't have to ask for it, force it or contort either him or me. 

Perhaps it conserves energy for him, perhaps it gives him rhythm for a long haul to occupy his mind or maybe it is where he finds his equilibrium.....whatever the reason is you feel that head lower and relax, the nose tuck a bit, the front end lighten, shoulders come up and the rear end come under. He finds a benefit to it or he would not do it. My job as a rider is to allow him to find that maximum benefit; To know when to get out of his way or to know when and how to show him the path towards it so that he can find it for himself.

The movement is smooth and balanced and it seems directly related to his frame of mind more so than anything I do or don't do with my hands (we ride on a loose rein, sometimes in a halter or bosal). It isn't "work" for either of us, it just is. 

For him finding "collection" seems as much mental as physical, an aspect that is often ignored.

Each horse brings something to the table, like a pot luck dinner. Nothing I can do will change a tuna casserole into crab cakes, though both are fish and both might be delicious in their own ways. They are what they are. I can however add some salt and some pepper to suit my taste but I will never change the basic capacity of the tuna casserole to taste like anything else without adding artificial flavors.


----------



## Smilie

Reining, I think you and I pretty much agree, and have said the same thing, as have others here.
Athletic ability, for job needed. All of that requires a horse to be off his front end, and engage behind, when asked to, while also being soft in the face.
A cutting horse certainly does not have a'classic picture of collection,' but there is no doubt that he is off his front end, hocks deeply engaged, working on a totally loose rein. If this was not so, no way could he sweep sideways like he does, cutting that cow.

No discipline wants an inverted form, which is man made by improper training and riding, but each discipline has it's own requirements, as to what collection means
A worth while comparison m, perhaps, is equitation. There is the 'classic equitation form, both western and English, just riding on the flat.
From there it varies, as to discipline, like jumping, reining, ect, where that equation is based on the ability to stay with the horse, in all maneuvers.
In my mind, that applies to collection also, and maybe anew term needs to be found, that is borader in scope, or, just let horsemen continue to know the difference, as they do, when they use terms like shanked snaffles!


----------



## gottatrot

Bondre said:


> You can feel this happening under you when your horse approaches a jumps, for example, and when you get it right it's a guarantee that your horse is ready to extend when you give the signal. It's a high-energy state that I doubt the horse can maintain for long - think of it as potential energy that the horse is temporarily storing until it releases this as kinetic energy.


The imagery (to me) has always made me feel it was either the lowering of the hind end or that a basic compression of the horse's body front to back was like a spring or rubber band with stored energy waiting to be released. Which means the requirement to "load" the spring is a coiling of the horse or literal lowering of the hind end. The actual mechanism relates to the horse's legs and leg placement, which allows them to use the literal storing of energy in the tendons to propel the muscles with force. I believe it would be more helpful to use imagery that made us think of the legs as the springs and the brakes rather than thinking of the back, abdominals and neck as springs and brakes. Those are helping more in relation to the balance of the horse's movement as the propelling forces come from the legs. 

Images like this make people feel energy in the horse is created everywhere except the legs.








Here's the springs of the horse:








For myself, I think it's more helpful instead of thinking I'm sitting on a large, horizontal spring (body, hindquarters and neck), that I'm sitting on four, smaller vertical ones (the legs). All energy the horse creates comes up from the legs first. 

From this site:
EquineMechanics â€¢ Tendon biomechanics, equine digital flexor...


> Long tendons are part of what make a horse so interesting to study, and one of the ways in which the horse is specialised for locomotion. Horses don’t walk on flat feet like humans, they walk on their toenails. The muscles that control their legs are placed right at the top of the limbs, leaving the lower or distal parts to be lightweight, fast, and full of shock-absorbing joints and long tendons to store and release elastic energy. The digital flexor tendons of a horse are familiar to most horse owners because they include the most common sites of injury, as they take the brunt of impact and are predominantly stretched by the movement of the joints rather than tension in the muscles. These tendons are not there to transmit muscle pull and cause movement, they’re there to absorb motion, stretch like a rubber band as the hoof hits the ground and then ping back to length as the heel comes off, pulling the leg along with them.


Reining, great post.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs

You might find this interesting. They painted the anatomy on the outside of the horse and then filmed it in slow motion being lunged.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MAw61kegd8


----------



## bsms

Way, way behind, and won't have time to respond to much tonight. But...

"_Collection in the riding sense is about harnessing that self carriage and natural ability to one that can be controlled by the rider - you're essentially shortening the horse by asking it to put its weight on to its rear end and then containing all that energy like a coiled spring that can be released as needed_"

The horse doesn't actually put much weight to the rear. It is statistically significant, but minimal. The horse does lift in the front, and that makes it ready to change directions or speed in a heartbeat. It is the same sort of motion a horse makes when nervous about what lies ahead - and in that sense, I've been on a collected horse many times. I was for a short time on Bandit on our last ride - while on a paved road in a neighborhood. He would not have the conditioning to SUSTAIN that motion, and there was a possibility that the motion would be followed by an explosion - but the motion was there and completely based in the nature of the horse! That is why dressage can be admired - it is rooted in the horse itself.

"_but I know how to shorten my reins very , very quickly. Even so, if I am near a place where that split second delay is going to make things dicier, I'll 'pre-shorten' just a bit_."

It is a trust and experience issue. As the horse gains experience, it can be trusted (and trust its rider). I scoot my hand forward sometimes, so the rein keeps some slack but I'll be ready to take it out if needed. But Mia reached a point where I was pretty confident with her around cars. Not semi trucks and not school buses, but cars. Bandit is making good progress, but he is a work in progress, as I am.

"_I havne't read anyone hear ever say you have to teach the hrose to ride with 'constant contact' not one person posted here has said that_."

Quite a few have. Heck, Littauer is my favorite author on riding, and he argues that putting a horse "on the bit" is the sign of an intermediate rider. Yet Mia was capable of a modestly collect canter on slack reins. Bandit canters nicely on slack reins, although his trot sucks eggs.

But many here are talking about the value of putting a horse "on the bit", which includes constant contact.

Saw this today:"The energy continues to travel over the horse’s neck, down to the (hopefully) relaxed mouth/jaw where it meet the next part of the circle of aids – the bit. The bit, through the reins connects back to the rider’s seat, completing the circle of aids. The reins determine the length of the frame, positioning and a degree of bend. Without that limiting action of the rein, the energy would just “fall out” the front of the horse, leaving him running on the forehand. With the rein connecting to the rider’s seat, the energy is recycled back to the hind end...

...but let me reiterate that holding the reins in the first joint or two of the fingers truncates the connection right there. Besides being very unsafe, as it takes very little to pull the reins out of the rider’s hands, it also leaves the rider feeling the connection, literally, in their fingertips. The horse’s energy has no hope of connecting back to the seat. Properly holding the reins in the closed hand with bent thumb on top allowed for the energy to flow uninhibited through the forearm aligned to maintain the straight line from the bit to the elbow, through the supple, but not floppy wrist. Now the rider should be able to feel horse’s mouth in her elbows, instead of her fingertips."

Role of the seat in the circle or aids and circle of energy​Apart from being biomechanically ridiculous, consider:

"_the energy would just “fall out” the front of the horse, leaving him running on the forehand_"

Ummm...no. What happens is the HORSE will lengthen the stride of the front feet so that his balance remains. Collection increases the stress to the front feet because the front legs are redirecting forward motion into upward motion, lifting the withers. And that is FINE for fun. But it has nothing to do with a strungout horse, or a horse heavy on the front. And yes, I've been there enough to know what it feels like when it happens and how it feels when it does not. But there is something sad about the idea that the RIDER needs to keep the horse together, with no reference to what the HORSE will do because it makes sense to the horse!

"..._let me reiterate that holding the reins in the first joint or two of the fingers truncates the connection right there. Besides being very unsafe, as it takes very little to pull the reins out of the rider’s hands, it also leaves the rider feeling the connection, literally, in their fingertips_..."

YeGads! And the author rides horses! Pity her horse!

I've spent 7 years learning to ride on spooky horses, and I've NEVER worried about the horse ripping the reins out of my hands. It also has never happened. And the FINGERS are where our feeling is the most sensitive, not out bloody elbows! If I could not ride Mia like this, I'd quit.:








​ 
I'd quit riding before I rode with my fists for fear my horse was going to rip the reins out of my hand! At my heart, I remain a fan of natural horsemanship. Not the marketing or carrot sticks, but the idea of asking "*Why would your horse WANT to rip the reins out of your hands?*" Because I don't think Mia ever wanted to, and I've seen no indication Bandit wants to, so...what is going on if that is a worry to someone?








​ 
Bandit was still having trouble when this picture was taken, and I still didn't realize how screwed up his front left leg had become from bad shoeing, and almost all of his experience was in a bosal and a bit was only used as his "emergency brakes"...but even then, new to each other, he could be ridden in fingertips.

"_I said that a hrose that is stiff, resistant, strong out is MORE likely to be explosive in its' spooks, and swing in a stiff manner, like a board or a gate swinging, and that is much harder to stay on. it can be plenty fast!_"

Agreed. Fully. A supple back feels better and is less likely to result in an explosion, but collection is NOT a prerequisite to swift changes in direction or speed.

"_who said a bucking horse is collected?_"

Smilie. And it is not. It is not rounded up because that is not possible, and it is not powering forward with the rear, and it is not lifting the front in in a pleasurable way.

"_You can have a head set and no collection, and collection, or engagement, without a head set_" - Smilie. And we agree on this. It is possible to both agree with someone and disagree at times - just as I like much of what Harry Chamberlin wrote while strongly rejecting his hatred of western riding.

Don't have the energy to read everyone else's posts tonight, but it looks like a good discussion. It has given me some ideas on how to use some of what dressage teaches to see if I can connect better with Bandit. I'll never look for a vertical headset, but I've got some ideas on how to convert some of his occasional nervous energy into something that may be more productive.


----------



## paintedpastures

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0x28ysdAEwQ&sns=fb

Video gives some visuals of some of what has been discussed :wink:


----------



## Smilie

bsms said:


> Way, way behind, and won't have time to respond to much tonight. But...
> 
> "_Collection in the riding sense is about harnessing that self carriage and natural ability to one that can be controlled by the rider - you're essentially shortening the horse by asking it to put its weight on to its rear end and then containing all that energy like a coiled spring that can be released as needed_"
> 
> The horse doesn't actually put much weight to the rear. It is statistically significant, but minimal. The horse does lift in the front, and that makes it ready to change directions or speed in a heartbeat. It is the same sort of motion a horse makes when nervous about what lies ahead - and in that sense, I've been on a collected horse many times. I was for a short time on Bandit on our last ride - while on a paved road in a neighborhood. He would not have the conditioning to SUSTAIN that motion, and there was a possibility that the motion would be followed by an explosion - but the motion was there and completely based in the nature of the horse! That is why dressage can be admired - it is rooted in the horse itself.
> 
> "_but I know how to shorten my reins very , very quickly. Even so, if I am near a place where that split second delay is going to make things dicier, I'll 'pre-shorten' just a bit_."
> 
> It is a trust and experience issue. As the horse gains experience, it can be trusted (and trust its rider). I scoot my hand forward sometimes, so the rein keeps some slack but I'll be ready to take it out if needed. But Mia reached a point where I was pretty confident with her around cars. Not semi trucks and not school buses, but cars. Bandit is making good progress, but he is a work in progress, as I am.
> 
> "_I havne't read anyone hear ever say you have to teach the hrose to ride with 'constant contact' not one person posted here has said that_."
> 
> Quite a few have. Heck, Littauer is my favorite author on riding, and he argues that putting a horse "on the bit" is the sign of an intermediate rider. Yet Mia was capable of a modestly collect canter on slack reins. Bandit canters nicely on slack reins, although his trot sucks eggs.
> 
> But many here are talking about the value of putting a horse "on the bit", which includes constant contact.
> 
> Saw this today:"The energy continues to travel over the horse’s neck, down to the (hopefully) relaxed mouth/jaw where it meet the next part of the circle of aids – the bit. The bit, through the reins connects back to the rider’s seat, completing the circle of aids. The reins determine the length of the frame, positioning and a degree of bend. Without that limiting action of the rein, the energy would just “fall out” the front of the horse, leaving him running on the forehand. With the rein connecting to the rider’s seat, the energy is recycled back to the hind end...
> 
> ...but let me reiterate that holding the reins in the first joint or two of the fingers truncates the connection right there. Besides being very unsafe, as it takes very little to pull the reins out of the rider’s hands, it also leaves the rider feeling the connection, literally, in their fingertips. The horse’s energy has no hope of connecting back to the seat. Properly holding the reins in the closed hand with bent thumb on top allowed for the energy to flow uninhibited through the forearm aligned to maintain the straight line from the bit to the elbow, through the supple, but not floppy wrist. Now the rider should be able to feel horse’s mouth in her elbows, instead of her fingertips."
> 
> Role of the seat in the circle or aids and circle of energy​Apart from being biomechanically ridiculous, consider:
> 
> "_the energy would just “fall out” the front of the horse, leaving him running on the forehand_"
> 
> Ummm...no. What happens is the HORSE will lengthen the stride of the front feet so that his balance remains. Collection increases the stress to the front feet because the front legs are redirecting forward motion into upward motion, lifting the withers. And that is FINE for fun. But it has nothing to do with a strungout horse, or a horse heavy on the front. And yes, I've been there enough to know what it feels like when it happens and how it feels when it does not. But there is something sad about the idea that the RIDER needs to keep the horse together, with no reference to what the HORSE will do because it makes sense to the horse!
> 
> "..._let me reiterate that holding the reins in the first joint or two of the fingers truncates the connection right there. Besides being very unsafe, as it takes very little to pull the reins out of the rider’s hands, it also leaves the rider feeling the connection, literally, in their fingertips_..."
> 
> YeGads! And the author rides horses! Pity her horse!
> 
> I've spent 7 years learning to ride on spooky horses, and I've NEVER worried about the horse ripping the reins out of my hands. It also has never happened. And the FINGERS are where our feeling is the most sensitive, not out bloody elbows! If I could not ride Mia like this, I'd quit.:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> I'd quit riding before I rode with my fists for fear my horse was going to rip the reins out of my hand! At my heart, I remain a fan of natural horsemanship. Not the marketing or carrot sticks, but the idea of asking "*Why would your horse WANT to rip the reins out of your hands?*" Because I don't think Mia ever wanted to, and I've seen no indication Bandit wants to, so...what is going on if that is a worry to someone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> Bandit was still having trouble when this picture was taken, and I still didn't realize how screwed up his front left leg had become from bad shoeing, and almost all of his experience was in a bosal and a bit was only used as his "emergency brakes"...but even then, new to each other, he could be ridden in fingertips.
> 
> "_I said that a hrose that is stiff, resistant, strong out is MORE likely to be explosive in its' spooks, and swing in a stiff manner, like a board or a gate swinging, and that is much harder to stay on. it can be plenty fast!_"
> 
> Agreed. Fully. A supple back feels better and is less likely to result in an explosion, but collection is NOT a prerequisite to swift changes in direction or speed.
> 
> "_who said a bucking horse is collected?_"
> 
> Smilie. And it is not. It is not rounded up because that is not possible, and it is not powering forward with the rear, and it is not lifting the front in in a pleasurable way.
> 
> "_You can have a head set and no collection, and collection, or engagement, without a head set_" - Smilie. And we agree on this. It is possible to both agree with someone and disagree at times - just as I like much of what Harry Chamberlin wrote while strongly rejecting his hatred of western riding.
> 
> Don't have the energy to read everyone else's posts tonight, but it looks like a good discussion. It has given me some ideas on how to use some of what dressage teaches to see if I can connect better with Bandit. I'll never look for a vertical headset, but I've got some ideas on how to convert some of his occasional nervous energy into something that may be more productive.


Well, once you do read all the posts, you will note that I did go into collection, as per classic, on the flat, comparing it to basic equitation on the flat, and said how it varied, as per discipline/event, in my books and many others
I also said that if you want to limit collection tot hat Classical ideal, then maybe find another word for horses working with hind end engaged, light in your hands,thus off of their front end, with head allowed to be wherever it needs to be for that job
I used working cowhorses, taking a cow down the fence, turning it at speed, and a cutting horse, sweeping those front legs sideways, hocks deep under them
A horse that pulls on your hands, is dumped onto his front end, plain and simple and I don't care where that head is!
If you ask a horse to stop, and he falls onto his front end, leaning on the bit, he was also travelling that way
Anyway, if you read all the posts, this old pony has been flogged to death, and I did address inverted form, which was the topic of this discussion, being man made, due to improper riding and training.
Why the hang up with different definitions, disciplines on collection, which has nothing actually to do with this thread, is mystery.
I don't think anyone here is suggesting that allowing a horse to move out in a natural frame, is not the way to go, trail riding, covering ground, or that you should ask a horse to move in frame, collected, with a head set, riding out


----------



## jaydee

I think you need to actually experience these differences first hand bsms and then you might be able to understand things better


----------



## bsms

An example of why this thread might help, and why "inverted or round" creates a difference is this:








​ 
Not sure where the picture came from, but this is text from the USDF:"...ideally, the horse’s energy should travel from his thrusting hindquarters through his back and to the bit. Then the energy should recycle, transferring some weight from the front end back to the hindquarters. This circle of energy is ongoing...

...As we’ve explained, the horse’s energy should travel from his thrusting hind leg, through his back, to the bit. However, if the energy went only from back to front and stopped there, then the horse would lean on the bit and be heavy...

..Most riders understand that the energy needs to get from the hindquarters to the bit, but some forget that there must also be a connection through the bit to the hindquarters. When the rider uses rebalancing half-halts as frequently as the driving aids, the horse’s energy recycles. The energy reaches the bit and the horse “pushes away from the bit,” causing the weight to transfer back to an engaged hind foot. Then the forehand lightens. The German word for this concept is Abstossen. When the horse pushes off from the bit, he continues to reach forward, but the energy “bounces off" the bit and transfers to an engaged hind leg that is flat on the ground and carrying weight. Then the horse thrusts again to perpetuate an ongoing cycle of energy.

The Heavy and the Light, by Lendon Gray, Lilo Fore, and Beth Baumert
November 2013 USDF Connection​That sort of drivel leads to heavy hands and focusing on the wrong areas in training. No energy is bounced off the bit to return to the rider's body OR to the horse's hind legs! That is breath-takingly STUPID!

Mia had obviously never cantered outside of a round pen or corral. That became obvious when we tried to canter in the open. She had no idea how to balance herself! It says a lot about what her life was like before we met, and it makes me hope she is enjoying running for MILES on the reservation now.

A horse needs to balance the thrust of the hind legs with the strides of the front legs. Mia knew how to do that at a trot, but not at a canter. The first few times we cantered, she would develop too much thrust from the rear for the stride length on the front. She went WAY over her front legs, nose almost touching the ground, and it felt like we were about to flip over her front! 

Scared the hell out of me, but we kept at it. After 3-4 rides, she started to even out, balancing the thrust with the front strides. Before long, she could canter with a level back, neck at about 45 degrees, controlling her motion (which is the horse's business) and giving a fun canter...until she decided she was in a race, which was another matter altogether.

But ANY horse will learn to balance the front and rear strides vs thrust. I'm told some will brace against the hands for balance, just as some do against those straps some folks use...forget the name.

In collection, the energy does NOT bounce off the bit and go back! The excess energy of the thrusting hind legs is diverted by the shorter strides and "pole-vaulting" of the front legs, plus the tension in the shoulders, to LIFT the front end. It does not spill out, and it does not go back to the hind legs. IT IS USED!

If someone knows their HORSE has to divert energy, they can use the bit to help communicate to the horse that the diversion is wanted. And they can do so lightly.

If they think the energy is bouncing off the bit, coming back, and rounding the horse up underneath them, then does anyone blame them if that rider uses heavy hands? My hands would be heavy if I thought the thrust of the hind legs was about to bounce off the bit, or "Abstossen"!

The concept of a rounded back inevitably leads to *The Slinky Theory of Collection* - push with one end, hold back with the other, and the horse rounds up in between. It simply makes sense...but it also can never happen that way, because the idea that underlies it is wrong. The energy is not recycled. It is used. It doesn't fall out the front. It is used in the front.

That leads to my wondering if I can teach Bandit to collect by putting his natural collection to use. He WILL sometimes collect when nervous abut something ahead, briefly. Maybe 50 yards or so. Maybe I can encourage him to keep going for another 50 yards like that, or even another 10-20 yards, and communicate that the form of motion he uses sometimes NATURALLY is one I'd like him to use sometimes at MY request.

To do so, I'd need to shift my own seat from a forward balance position to a more classical position, since he otherwise would have no incentive. That also means trusting him more, since a forward seat is what has kept me on thru many spooks. It is what *I* trust, but can I trust my horse enough to try something else?

Once a person realizes that "round" doesn't happen, and that the horse lifts from the front using energy from behind, that THIS is the motion of collection:








​ 
then the rider is freed to ride with light hands - not hands that are worried the horse is going to rip the reins out of them! Holy Moly! How shameful is it that some horses reach the point of WANTING to rip the reins out of their riders' hands! If you need gloves because the reins hurt your hands [note: not "you" as in Smilie, but "you" as in a generic hamfisted rider!], then what in the heck are you doing to the horse's mouth?

Once a spook develops, I'll get in my horse's mouth "up to the shoulder blades" if need be. If he bucks, I'll tear his darn head off, if need be. But Bandit has only bucked on two rides, and Mia never. Both have spooked, but Mia was spooking less and Bandit is spooking MUCH less (more progress in 9 months than in 7 years riding Mia). Before long, Bandit may become like Trooper, who doesn't care what bit you put in his mouth as long as you don't use it!

But I also think we approach teaching collection wrong. We think the back determines the stride, so we try to teach the horse from the back to the feet. I think the stride determines how the back behaves, and we should focus on teaching the stride so that the back will follow. And if we are teaching STRIDES instead of FRAME, the way we use the bit will be different. Or focus will be different. And if I am right, then the training will be more effective.

I may not be right, but it is certain "round" is wrong, and the "circle of energy" does not take place.

"_I think you need to actually experience these differences first hand bsms and then you might be able to understand things better_"

I think I've spent enough time on naturally collecting (nervous) horses to know. I think 7 years of listening to the horse is enough to figure it out, and the measurements taken support MY understanding, not yours. I think many experienced riders live in an echo-chamber of falsehood, and are content to stay in their comfort zone instead of continually thinking and trying new things. I think anyone who thinks the horse is rounding up beneath them, creating an arch in their back, needs to pay attention to reality. Or, at least, show me a picture of a single horse with an arched back...

I think a lot of naked emperors are riding horses. Some write articles for the USDF.


----------



## updownrider

In my 50+ years of riding I've never heard of modestly collect canter, let alone on slack reins.


----------



## Skyseternalangel

I don't think a lot of people on this thread understand self carriage or collection. Collected isn't having short reins. Collected isn't low and low. Collected is the horse using its hocks and not falling on its face. Self carriage is the same thing, without the rider having to make small adjustments (we are there to help THEM achieve self carriage, they need the right muscles. Shortening the reins does not get them collected. Having appropriately lengthened reins can assist in getting them connected.

Also one thing has bothered me since forever. A curb bit has a weight to it that enables the rider to ride without contact because essentially even if the reins are slack, there is still a connection to their mouth based on that weight and lever effect based on hand position (forward, back, left/right when neck reining)

So when riders say they ride with no contact, I disagree. It may not look the same as english riding, but MOST do. Those professionals with horses who have achieved self carriage ride with only the smallest of cues and mainly using their bodies to drive the horse to carry himself.

It's completely different from a rider having loose reins and the horse just motor boating around, or being heavy on the forehand because they aren't shifting their weight back to their hind end (where they would compress their hocks more, and I suppose their stifle area, which is where the SPRING feeling comes from). Yes you can ride that way, but it's not very good on the horse's FRONT end/joints, and doesn't help with their topline at all because they aren't using their abdominal muscles and therefore their topline.

Also, for those that are still hung up on the whole "raising their backs" thing... go try some belly lifts on your horse and see what happens. There is a reason they are called BELLY lifts.


----------



## Smilie

Skyseternalangel said:


> I don't think a lot of people on this thread understand self carriage or collection. Collected isn't having short reins. Collected isn't low and low. Collected is the horse using its hocks and not falling on its face. Self carriage is the same thing, without the rider having to make small adjustments (we are there to help THEM achieve self carriage, they need the right muscles. Shortening the reins does not get them collected. Having appropriately lengthened reins can assist in getting them connected.
> 
> Also one thing has bothered me since forever. A curb bit has a weight to it that enables the rider to ride without contact because essentially even if the reins are slack, there is still a connection to their mouth based on that weight and lever effect based on hand position (forward, back, left/right when neck reining)
> 
> So when riders say they ride with no contact, I disagree. It may not look the same as english riding, but MOST do. Those professionals with horses who have achieved self carriage ride with only the smallest of cues and mainly using their bodies to drive the horse to carry himself.
> 
> It's completely different from a rider having loose reins and the horse just motor boating around, or being heavy on the forehand because they aren't shifting their weight back to their hind end (where they would compress their hocks more, and I suppose their stifle area, which is where the SPRING feeling comes from). Yes you can ride that way, but it's not very good on the horse's FRONT end/joints, and doesn't help with their topline at all because they aren't using their abdominal muscles and therefore their topline.
> 
> Also, for those that are still hung up on the whole "raising their backs" thing... go try some belly lifts on your horse and see what happens. There is a reason they are called BELLY lifts.


I certainly agree with your grasp of the difference of just riding with a loose rein, and riding with a loose rein, on a horse, that has learned self carriage-after all, that is the goal of any good western training program, for that end result-having the horse keep that collection/self carriage, frame off of seat and legs alone, able to drop that bit support
I disagree that just because a curb has weight, used correctly, you are still riding with bit contact, although there still is 'communication and the weight and balance of that curb, encourage a certain head position
For instance, fixed shanks give very even signal across that bit, riidng one handed, and thus encourages that very quiet way of going,(mouth ) desired in western pleasure'
That finished horse just packs that bit, and a curb, is a signal bit' used correctly. Various design, affect signal time, such as shank length, angle, loose jawed or fixed.
It is this very concept, of a horse being trained to that level, western, that allows a rider to drop all head gear, and do a series of cadenced straight line flying changes
I ride both English and western, although way more western, but I know how much more difficult it is, to have a horse learn to pick up a lead, while keeping frame, on a loose rein, or to rate the speed, versus having the advantage of some bit contact also
I'll be the first to admit that curbs are very often mis used
One also does not ask a horse to move collected just riding out on a loose rein, and many western horses are never trained beyond just riding out on a loose rein, which is okay, if that is all the rider needs
My husband just trail rides, and thus , while his horse rides out on a loose rein, he knows absolutely nothing of moving collected, with self carriage on a loose rein, or otherwise, for that matter! He does know how to give to the bit, when asked, because I consider that a basic for all horses, even those just ridden recreationally
Just like Collection seems to have a slightly different connotation, between what is expected of a dressage horse, versus a cutter or reiner, so does total self carriage, between English and western. I don't need to use a curb, to ride a horse on a loose rein,collected, as I;ve shown jr horses in a snaffle that way.
Thus, if you truly believe the self carriage, achieved is totally the same, give your horse slack, and then do some lead departures, transitions and rate speed, without picking up any contact.
I am not saying one is superior over the other, but just different.
I know a trainer, who has students, coming off the English circuit, starting to show western, and their biggest stumbling block, is trying not to micro manage their horses, or not giving total release


----------



## jaydee

Riding on slack reins is OK on some horses in some situations and if that's how people have to ride because they either think their hands are too hard to ride in light contact or can't face riding in any sort of contact then they'd sure better stick to the sort of horses that will never take advantage of them.
The most horses that bolt with riders do it because at some point in their life they discovered that they could run through someone's hands.
All horses are not equal and to imagine that you can ride them all the same way and try to tell others that they can is naïve and dangerous.


----------



## Smilie

jaydee said:


> Riding on slack reins is OK on some horses in some situations and if that's how people have to ride because they either think their hands are too hard to ride in light contact or can't face riding in any sort of contact then they'd sure better stick to the sort of horses that will never take advantage of them.
> The most horses that bolt with riders do it because at some point in their life they discovered that they could run through someone's hands.
> All horses are not equal and to imagine that you can ride them all the same way and try to tell others that they can is naïve and dangerous.


No well broke horse won't accept light contact, when asked to do so, after all, that was the kindergarten stage of their training, and is still used after that, when needed
That was my entire point and also the one brought out on the thread of the main reasons as to why a horse won't accept a bit
Yes, a finished western horse is expected to work off of a loose rein, whether that be moving freely, covering ground, or asked to move collected,BUT at the same time, that horse accepts contact when the rider uses it, giving to that bit, not pulling , rooting nose against contact, swinging body around, but giving softly, waiting for that release, versus demanding it
If you hope to control a horse simply by hanging on the mouth, you will reach a point where that horse will run through any bit,soon as pain tolerance reaches the next level
Correct scenario, that response tot he bit is a conditioned response, same as that response to an ordinary lead shank and halter
That horse, trained correctly, thinks that palin lead shank, or that halter controls him, when neither is true. There is no way you could lead a full grown horse, with a plain lead shank and halter, were he not, through correct training, thinks he was physically controlled
Same goes for correct training with a bit.
HOWEVER, once a horse learns that this is in reality a 'bluff', then yes, you might need to use whatever it takes to convince him otherwise, whether that be a halter and stud shank, or a stronger bit with contact, but neither are ideal, and that one hopes to avoid in the first place,ideally.
I can ride my horses out on a loose rein,and that is the way I want to ride them out, versus hanging on their mouth. HOwever, if I need to, I can take contact, use my legs to enforce body control, and ride that horse through stuff, then release again when he is going good.
A horse can try to bolt with contact, same as with a loose rein, and it is the body control that counts then, the softness where you can take the head away, and get that horse; attention back to you, using simple body control exercises
If instead, you try to control a horse that is getting on the muscle, simply by taking up more contact, you just escalate his anxiety.


----------



## jaydee

My post wasn't a response to your last one Smilie but aimed at anyone who believes that horses don't need to learn to accept contact/give to pressure correctly because they don't need to ever be ridden in contact 
There are times when letting the horse know that you're there and in charge is the best way to not spoil it forever. 
You don't see people who hunt throw the reins at a horse and put all their trust in it not figuring out very quickly that it can run off if it feels like it


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs

I kind of like the saying "Contact is a private matter to be negotiated between the rider and the horse."

I just got back from a trail ride and one of the warm up exercises our trainer ran Oliver and myself through was riding a pole pattern in all three gaits without picking up the reins; missed a few, but I think we both had fun. (he wanted to see where we were in training)

One might say that is riding without contact. (we do not use a curb). Can I get him to side pass or half pass like that. No way, at least not yet.

While that is something that I can do with Old Ghost, it was a definite challenge with Oliver who has been under saddle now for a year. 

One of the points the trainer emphasized to me was that a horse is not truly neck rein trained until you can ride the basics without ever touching the reins; purely from seat and legs. 

Keep in mind, he does bridle horses, so sets a pretty high bar. Until I can rate speed, get collection/self carriage, change leads, stop and even back up without touching the reins, he won't let me call Oliver neck rein trained. We have some, but not all of those things. It is part of the challenge of riding western methinks. 

Now, jumping. We jumped today too. Just little 2' ones in a short grid, but I will tell you, I changed the way I used my hands to do it. More contact. 

That does not make him less trained than he was a few moments before running the poles without any contact! It is simply a different way of accomplishing a different goal. Eventually, I would like to be able to do it with a loose rein, but that will be a goal for the future, that I don't know we will ever reach.

The same can be said for the reverse. Because Ollie can be ridden without contact, does not mean he is incapable of riding with it! 

He understands the communications of both and is a good boy. :loveshower:

(sorry, we had a good ride so I am feeling a bit mushy)


----------



## bsms

updownrider said:


> In my 50+ years of riding I've never heard of modestly collect canter, let alone on slack reins.


Then you need to get out more.

"_Also one thing has bothered me since forever. A curb bit has a weight to it that enables the rider to ride without contact because essentially even if the reins are slack, there is still a connection to their mouth based on that weight and lever effect based on hand position (forward, back, left/right when neck reining)

So when riders say they ride with no contact, I disagree._"

The curb bit will not apply pressure to the mouth until the shanks have rotated enough to engage the curb strap. Until it tightens, the shanks will just rotate freely. No one has to believe me on it. Buy a bit, put it on your horse, stand next to the horse and rotate the shanks. That period of free rotation is what provides a signal to the horse - a bit cue without pressure. Ideally, one would ride with a curb and never take the slack out, although that isn't always possible. The horse still gets a vote. But that free rotation time is why a curb bit is arguably gentler than a sidepull.

And of course, many western horses are ridden with slack and snaffles, too. Bandit is snaffle only right now, since he likes to play with the shanks. He considers them chew toys.

"_then they'd sure better stick to the sort of horses that will never take advantage of them...All horses are not equal and to imagine that you can ride them all the same way and try to tell others that they can is naïve and dangerous._"

Mia learned not to with me riding her. Bandit knows. So if I can do it, then others can - and can do so without being a world-class rider! The truth is that it is NOT that hard. Of course, it helps if one doesn't ride in a fashion that makes the horse WANT to rip the reins out of your fingers!

If someone cannot ride their horse using their fingertips most of the time, then I do not want them to preach "lightness" to me. Lightness is not achieved with elbows and fists:

"..._let me reiterate that holding the reins in the first joint or two of the fingers truncates the connection right there. Besides being very unsafe, as it takes very little to pull the reins out of the rider’s hands, it also leaves the rider feeling the connection, literally, in their fingertips_..."

If someone needs their fists, elbows or shoulders to connect to their horse, they have a big problem. Unless, of course, total dominance is how one likes to ride.

"_If you hope to control a horse simply by hanging on the mouth, you will reach a point where that horse will run through any bit,soon as pain tolerance reaches the next level_"

Agreed. When I switched Mia to a curb, I was told I was trying to intimidate her and she would soon run through anything. Instead, we ended up doing most of our riding with one hand, or two hands with fingertips.

"_because they don't need to ever be ridden in contact_"

I don't know of ANYONE on this thread saying a horse should never be ridden with contact! I sure have not, having said I'd get in my horses mouth up to the shoulder if needed. But I shouldn't need to very often, and do not. 

However, the idea that energy flows from the hind leg thru the back, up thru the neck, down thru the face to the bit, then bounces off the bit and goes into the rider's hands and arms, flowing into the body and back to the horse's hind legs, where it is recycled:










"the horse’s energy should travel from his thrusting hindquarters through his back and to the bit. Then the energy should recycle, transferring some weight from the front end back to the hindquarters. This circle of energy is ongoing..." - USDF​
is a horrible picture. If someone believes the energy starts with the rider's legs, and doesn't involve the horses' legs, or that "_Without that limiting action of the rein, the energy would just “fall out” the front of the horse, leaving him running on the forehand. With the rein connecting to the rider’s seat, the energy is recycled back to the hind end..._", then they are likely to ride with hamfists on the reins. 

After all, they have to hold their horse together. 

Odd, isn't it. A horse can obviously collect on its own, without a bit. A horse can collect - at least when nervous - with a rider and slack reins. A horse can obviously be taught to move collected with slack reins, since many bridle horses do so. Yet I'm supposed to believe a rider is needed to hold the horse together, and that the energy of the hind legs is supposed to bounce off the bit (_Did you know the Germans have a word for it? "Abstossen". If the Germans have a word for it, it MUST be true!_) and return to the horse's hind legs.

Without a bit, "_the energy would just “fall out” the front of the horse [_like some sort of ectoplasmic spewing in a Ghostbusters movie_], leaving him running on the forehand_"...except horses can collect without a bit. How can that be? maybe there is someone else there when you ride...the horse! And maybe the horse does things. Maybe a horse can hold himself together, just like horses have for thousands of years.

Round backs and the "circle of energy" have nothing to do with real horses. They are illusions, and they apparently are comforting illusions to some. But in the end, they remain illusions. Unhappily, one can easily understand how a belief in those illusions leads to the idea that we hold a horse together, and you can't expect to hold a horse together without pulling pretty hard! :icon_rolleyes:


----------



## updownrider

bsms said:


> Then you need to get out more.


Please search "modestly collect canter" and show me know your legitimate results or even "collect canter" results. Better, post a video of yourself demonstrating a "modestly collect canter".


----------



## Golden Horse

updownrider said:


> Please search "modestly collect canter" and show me know your legitimate results or even "collect canter" results. Better, post a video of yourself demonstrating a "modestly collect canter".



:rofl::rofl:

Maybe it is one done with plenty of clothes on, thus protecting modesty...


While we are on odd gaits, can someone explain what a 'shortened walk" is?

If you are already doing a collected walk, what it is shortened?


Before G 
Working walk 
Turn left 
Shorten the walk 
15 G


----------



## updownrider

bsms said:


> Mia was capable of a modestly collect canter on slack reins.





updownrider said:


> In my 50+ years of riding I've never heard of modestly collect canter, let alone on slack reins.





bsms said:


> Then you need to get out more.





updownrider said:


> Please search "modestly collect canter" and show me know your legitimate results or even "collect canter" results. Better, post a video of yourself demonstrating a "modestly collect canter".





Golden Horse said:


> :rofl::rofl:
> Maybe it is one done with plenty of clothes on, thus protecting modesty...


Now I understand this quote earlier in the thread



bsms said:


> I think a lot of naked emperors are riding horses. Some write articles for the USDF.


----------



## gottatrot

Not sure where the confusion is here...obviously there are degrees of collection. A modestly collected canter is less collected than a very shortened, elevated collected canter. A less collected canter has less lowering of the hind end. It made sense to me the first time I read it. Does it really seem unclear? Or is it the terminology that is not based on usual dressage terms that is in question? Regardless, modest is a synonym for moderate or less extreme. It is a basic english use of the word.
Modestly collected








More collected


----------



## tinyliny

Golden Horse said:


> :rofl::rofl:
> 
> Maybe it is one done with plenty of clothes on, thus protecting modesty...
> 
> 
> While we are on odd gaits, can someone explain what a 'shortened walk" is?
> 
> If you are already doing a collected walk, what it is shortened?
> 
> 
> Before G
> Working walk
> Turn left
> Shorten the walk
> 15 G



please don't derail an interesting discussion with silliness. what is wrong with saying "modest (ly) collected canter"? I think anyone can imagine what is meant by that.


----------



## gottatrot

bsms said:


> That sort of drivel leads to heavy hands and focusing on the wrong areas in training. No energy is bounced off the bit to return to the rider's body OR to the horse's hind legs! That is breath-takingly STUPID!


Agree. This "containment" of energy is what a scientific non-horse person will say "excuse me?" to if you explain it to them. 


> (Skyseternalangel) Having appropriately lengthened reins can assist in getting them connected...
> It's completely different from a rider having loose reins and the horse just motor boating around, or being heavy on the forehand because they aren't shifting their weight back to their hind end (where they would compress their hocks more, and I suppose their stifle area, which is where the SPRING feeling comes from). Yes you can ride that way, but it's not very good on the horse's FRONT end/joints, and doesn't help with their topline at all because they aren't using their abdominal muscles and therefore their topline.


Horses use their abdominal muscles and back muscles (if that's what you mean by topline) every time they are ridden. As was explained, the weight of the intestines alone means a significant amount of muscle contraction and relaxation with movement. 

Connection - that's something to really think about. Technically, if the horse has a bit in their mouth and the reins travel in a continuous line to the rider's hand, that is a connection. But the term means many different things and I think many people visualize connection as a term for pressure on the reins from the rider's hand. Weight is pressure, but in most cases unless the bit and reins are weighted on purpose this is minimal. If I put a bit in a horse's mouth and the horse drops his head, I don't use that bit, it feels too heavy to the horse. Most bits don't seem to cause enough pressure to bother a horse.

I've heard other people use the term connection as a more nebulous term where in their imagination or mental imagery they feel their hand is connected to the horse's hind legs. 

I think a curb bit can be used as lightly as a sidepull, but a sidepull or snaffle can also be used with the rider taking up the slack gradually, which creates the same "pre-signal" that a curb has. At first the pressure can be so light it could be maintained with yarn, and then increased gradually. This is how I use a snaffle, sidepull, curb or any bit or bitless bridle. How much time you allow the horse to respond before increasing the pressure depends on the horse, the speed, etc. So for my horses, a signal with no pre-signal is seen as a reprimand. Or on occasion, it happens when a horse trips heavily by mistake. Maybe they think I punish them for that, I'm not sure, but they don't hold it against me. 



bsms said:


> Mia had obviously never cantered outside of a round pen or corral. That became obvious when we tried to canter in the open. She had no idea how to balance herself!...
> A horse needs to balance the thrust of the hind legs with the strides of the front legs. Mia knew how to do that at a trot, but not at a canter. The first few times we cantered, she would develop too much thrust from the rear for the stride length on the front. She went WAY over her front legs, nose almost touching the ground, and it felt like we were about to flip over her front!


My mare Halla was the opposite. When green she didn't know how to balance the braking and pole-vaulting of the front and felt like she was going to flip over backwards at the trot and canter at first (when I asked a friend to evaluate how her paces felt, that's how she described it and I agreed). 


bsms said:


> But I also think we approach teaching collection wrong. We think the back determines the stride, so we try to teach the horse from the back to the feet. I think the stride determines how the back behaves, and we should focus on teaching the stride so that the back will follow. And if we are teaching STRIDES instead of FRAME, the way we use the bit will be different. Or focus will be different. And if I am right, then the training will be more effective.
> 
> I may not be right, but it is certain "round" is wrong, and the "circle of energy" does not take place.
> 
> "_I think you need to actually experience these differences first hand bsms and then you might be able to understand things better_"
> 
> I think many experienced riders live in an echo-chamber of falsehood, and are content to stay in their comfort zone instead of continually thinking and trying new things.


I agree.


> (Smilie)
> That horse, trained correctly, thinks that palin lead shank, or that halter controls him, when neither is true. There is no way you could lead a full grown horse, with a plain lead shank and halter, were he not, through correct training, thinks he was physically controlled
> Same goes for correct training with a bit.
> HOWEVER, once a horse learns that this is in reality a 'bluff', then yes, you might need to use whatever it takes to convince him otherwise, whether that be a halter and stud shank, or a stronger bit with contact, but neither are ideal, and that one hopes to avoid in the first place,ideally.


Yes, and unfortunately I've ridden a few horses that have learned that our control of them is a bluff. 

It's interesting, I've talked a lot with people who believe in a fairly strong and steady contact, and also with those who believe in never having contact at all, who ride bitless and only use their seat and legs. Both are extremes, I believe. Some of the hard core bitless people believe that every horse can be ridden without a bit and it's only pressure that makes horses "hot" and proper training (especially groundwork) will create a horse that will never gallop off with a rider bitless. They say horses that do run off uncontrolled bitless would do the same thing in a bit. 

That has not been my experience, with some horses enjoying the freedom of a rider with no ability to cause them pain by running as fast as they can. For these horses, they need some incentive to stop enjoying themselves more than the rider wishes.

Horses can be taught to carry themselves with their balance off the forehand on a loose rein. Horses can be taught to move heavily on the forehand with contact. Vice versa for both those things. If you have a horse that balances themselves naturally, I'd recommend that you do nothing to mess that up. A strong contact is more likely to mess up that balance than no contact. 



> (Skyseternalangel) Also, for those that are still hung up on the whole "raising their backs" thing... go try some belly lifts on your horse and see what happens. There is a reason they are called BELLY lifts.


Yes, horses can contract back and abdominal muscles. This does not make the spine curve appreciably nor can horses move while holding themselves in that manner. Horses with over developed abdominal muscles are using them to "prop up" the hind end either from weakness or being made to do things too demanding for the hind end muscles to manage (or they have a chronic cough or ulcers). Belly lifts would possibly help develop the back muscles, but you'd have to do it over and over repetitively or it has no use as a muscle strengthening exercise. Better to use it as an occasional stretch and strengthen the back with ridden work. My horse can also fold her hind end clear underneath her if you spray cold water under her tail. This doesn't say a lot about how she uses herself under saddle.


----------



## tinyliny

[CENTER said:


> "the horse’s energy should travel from his thrusting hindquarters through his back and to the bit. Then the energy should recycle, transferring some weight from the front end back to the hindquarters. This circle of energy is ongoing..." - USDF
> [/CENTER]
> 
> is a horrible picture. If someone believes the energy starts with the rider's legs, and doesn't involve the horses' legs, or that "_Without that limiting action of the rein, the energy would just “fall out” the front of the horse, leaving him running on the forehand. With the rein connecting to the rider’s seat, the energy is recycled back to the hind end..._", then they are likely to ride with hamfists on the reins.
> 
> After all, they have to hold their horse together.
> 
> Odd, isn't it. A horse can obviously collect on its own, without a bit. A horse can collect - at least when nervous - with a rider and slack reins. A horse can obviously be taught to move collected with slack reins, since many bridle horses do so. Yet I'm supposed to believe a rider is needed to hold the horse together, and that the energy of the hind legs is supposed to bounce off the bit (_Did you know the Germans have a word for it? "Abstossen". If the Germans have a word for it, it MUST be true!_) and return to the horse's hind legs.
> 
> Without a bit, "_the energy would just “fall out” the front of the horse [_like some sort of ectoplasmic spewing in a Ghostbusters movie_], leaving him running on the forehand_"...except horses can collect without a bit. How can that be? maybe there is someone else there when you ride...the horse! And maybe the horse does things. Maybe a horse can hold himself together, just like horses have for thousands of years.
> 
> Round backs and the "circle of energy" have nothing to do with real horses. They are illusions, and they apparently are comforting illusions to some. But in the end, they remain illusions. Unhappily, one can easily understand how a belief in those illusions leads to the idea that we hold a horse together, and you can't expect to hold a horse together without pulling pretty hard! :icon_rolleyes:



of course a horse can collect on his own, but if you want him to collect when and where YOU want him to, you will need to confine the forward energy, by either a bit, or by training . and that can be viewed as a circle of energy. 

you are allowing yourself to be limited by the verbage of those illustrations. 

my experience is that if you do nothing to indicate otherwise, the horse WILL move in a way that is sort of falling out the front. it is a flatter movement, and you can HEAR the difference in the footfalls between a hrose that is restraining itself (NOT falling out the front) and one that IS falling out the front. the falling out the front will have a much harder , sharper sound to the footfalls. you must either speed up the hind end, or slow the front end, to stop the 'falling' way of going.


----------



## Golden Horse

tinyliny said:


> please don't derail an interesting discussion with silliness. what is wrong with saying "modest (ly) collected canter"? I think anyone can imagine what is meant by that.


I have searched and not found it anywhere, as I have not found the term shortened walk, and you know me well enough by now that I will find fun in odd comments. Please do not be slapping my wrist over this, this MAY be a serious discussion, but there has been a deal of ridiculous things said in the course of it.

I did not realize that having a laugh was against the rules here now


----------



## Smilie

Gottatrot
'I think a curb bit can be used as lightly as a sidepull, but a sidepull or snaffle can also be used with the rider taking up the slack gradually, which creates the same "pre-signal" that a curb has. At first the pressure can be so light it could be maintained with yarn, and then increased gradually. This is how I use a snaffle, sidepull, curb or any bit or bitless bridle. How much time you allow the horse to respond before increasing the pressure depends on the horse, the speed, etc. So for my horses, a signal with no pre-signal is seen as a reprimand. Or on occasion, it happens when a horse trips heavily by mistake. Maybe they think I punish them for that, I'm not sure, but they don't hold it against me. 

You are confusing 'draw' with bit signal
Draw is the speed with which the rider takes up the slack, and that faster the gait, the more natural inclination for the rider to move their hands quicker, when in fact the rider should move his hands slower , in that uptake, allowing the horse to respond at speed to that uptake
Sure, you don't need a curb to take slack out slowly, and one also rides a western horse, ready to show, with slack in either the bosal or snaffle reins, because that horse is not ready to show western, until you can do so
I showed jr horses in trail, western pl and HUS (different bred jr horses in reining, working cowhorse,western riding ) Thus, yes, a horse should be able to do all maneuvers in a snaffle, before he advances to a curb
A snaffle, though, is a direct action devise, so while you can take slack up at whatever speed, there is no bit signal until contact with the bit is made

A curb has bit signal, in addition to draw time, by it's very design, and is also made to be used one handed. Sure, you can ride one handed with a snaffle, but think of that bit action in the mouth. Hold a snaffle bridle with one hand on the reins, and then with two hands, in that bridge.

A sudden uptake on any bit, is not an uptake but a jerk.
One of my favorite quotes, is by a very good trainer, who could drop the bridle completely, and perform a cadenced western riding pattern, nailing perfect lead changes.
In fact, he was in England, where both he and another rider on a dressage horse, performed a series of great straight line flying changes.. He then took the bridle completely off his horse, and repeated those flying changes. The dressage horse could not do it. He heard one spectator say'If I didn't see it with me own eyes, I would not believe it!'
Anyway, here is his advise.
"you can hold a horse for as much as it takes, while driving with legs, until he softens, just never jerk on a horse, or you soon will have a jerk for a horse'!

No, you can have slow uptake on whatever you are riding with, but that is not the same as bit signal time from either a curb or a Spade

BSMS, if your horse was almost falling forward, loping outside of some controlled area, it was because the horse had never learned to lope while keeping off his forehand


----------



## Smilie

Why a curb and not a snaffle has signal time

The time it takes between the rein cue and the shanks to move far enough to engage the curb strap is known as signal time
If the shanks are adjusted at the proper angle the horse will have time to relaize that the shanks are moving and prepare for the action before the bit is actually 
engaged
On a well trained horse, all you have to do is add legs ans seat, without actually engaging that bit


----------



## Smilie

Here is an article that goes into different aspects of a curb design that affects signal time

Bit Structure & Function


Snaffle Bits
Generally speaking, bits can be classified into three main categories, snaffle, curb/leverage and
hackamore and are designed to work on different pressure points.
By definition a snaffle bit is a direct pull or direct action bit, meaning that when you are holding the reins in two
hands atop your horse, you have direct contact with its mouth. Whatever you do with your hands, your horse
should do. For example, when you move your hand to the left, your horse will feel that cue and realize that you
want him to go that way.
Most trainers will start a young horse in a snaffle to gain the framework it needs to transition to a curb bit. Such a
foundation includes lateral flexion, collection, transitions, responsiveness to leg cues and more. Again, this depends
on the method of training the trainer uses. In the vaquero tradition of training, for example, horses are typically
started in a bosal hackamore.
Best if used with an all leather curb strap to prevent the bit from pulling through the horse’s mouth, O-ring and
offset D-ring snaffles are great bits for starting young colts, training exercises, introducing a new riding discipline or
softening an older, more seasoned horse’s mouth. 

The curb strap on a snaffle, is non functioning, far as any bit action

Function of curb strap on acurb bit bridle

'Curb/Leverage Bits Cont.
CURB straps
• A curb strap is an important piece of tack that applies pressure under
the horse’s chin to help with the leverage and timing of a curb bit.
•	Like bits, the types of curb straps and chains vary. Single chain curbs
apply more pressure than the double chain variety while an all leather
curb strap tends to be the gentlest and supplest.
•	A common rule of thumb to follow when adjusting curb straps is that
you should be able to fit two fingers vertically between the strap and
the chin groove.
•	A looser curb strap or chain allows time for the horse to get the signal
that pressure under its chin is coming. Riders who have quick hands or
are prone to jerking would be better off using a looser chin strap. On the
other hand, riders who have quiet, soft hands and great timing can get
away with using a little bit tighter strap. When a rider has great timing,
he will reward the horse by releasing pressure the instant his horse
performs the desired action.


----------



## gottatrot

Smilie said:


> Gottatrot...
> You are confusing 'draw' with bit signal
> Draw is the speed with which the rider takes up the slack, and that faster the gait, the more natural inclination for the rider to move their hands quicker, when in fact the rider should move his hands slower , in that uptake, allowing the horse to respond at speed to that uptake...
> Sure, you don't need a curb to take slack out slowly, and one also rides a western horse, ready to show, with slack in either the bosal or snaffle reins, because that horse is not ready to show western, until you can do so...
> _*A snaffle, though, is a direct action devise, so while you can take slack up at whatever speed, there is no bit signal until contact with the bit is made*_
> A curb has bit signal, in addition to draw time, by it's very design, and is also made to be used one handed. Sure, you can ride one handed with a snaffle, but think of that bit action in the mouth. Hold a snaffle bridle with one hand on the reins, and then with two hands, in that bridge.
> *A sudden uptake on any bit, is not an uptake but a jerk.*
> No, you can have slow uptake on whatever you are riding with, but that is not the same as bit signal time from either a curb or a Spade


Here's a quote from another thread on the forum called "Why Shanked Bits are Utterly Evil, etc.": (Sorry, the title is a little amusing) 
*



Presignal

Why is presignal important in a bit? Put yourself in the horse's place. If someone says "whoa" and twists your ear hard each time, you soon jump at the word, associate it with pain. Then you hold your breath and brace through your neck. When a horse braces through the neck, all your training or performance capacities go away. You can never maximize your horses abilities unless his neck is resistance-free, so there can't be any shock to the communication. That communication comes in sequence with its presignals in exactly the same order every time the bit moves. Its a wonderful machine. 

Any broken or hinged spot in a mouthpiece, including where a bit swivels on the cheeks, gives a presignal. Although some bits have more presignals than do others, the presignals always occur in a systematic order.

Presignal 1 occurs when you pick up the reins. Your horse feels that slight movement. Preload gives you that feel, as does the weight of decent reins. If you have sensitive, educated hands at all, you feel that weight move, which gives your horse plenty of presignal

Presignal 2 occurs when your horse feels the bit cheeks move. Vogt prefers a bit fairly loose where the cheeks mount to the mouthpiece. The horse feels the 'click-click' as the cheeks move. That's not a really sophisticated signal, but definitely exists. Loose cheeks provide more presignal and are more forgiving than is a solid bit, which causes things, good and bad, to happen fast.

Presignal 3 results when the mouthpiece rotates. Otherwise, it rests on your horses tongue. For example, when a triangular shaped low port mouthpiece rotates, your horse feels the port leave his tongue and move toward the spongy tissue on his outer bars. Your horse could respond to presignal 3. If he is educated to the bit, he knows that presignal 4 is coming...

Presignal 4 happens as the mouthpiece gradually wedges against that fatty tissue outside his bars. The more your horse fails to respond, respect or acknowledge your request, the more the mouthpiece rotates and the greater the pressure on the outside bars. Your horse has fair warning, signal after signal. He can respond now or feel the curb strap. 

Presignal 5, the final one, is the curb strap grabbing your horses chin, telling him he should have listened previously. Many bits work primarily off the curb strap, Vogt explains, which isn't so great because there's little presignal. With a solid grazer bit, for example, everything happens abruptly through the curb strap. The horse doesn't feel that presignal sequence. A horse can feel those presignals, Vogt says, even when your hand is faster than it should be. That's the glory of a really good bit compared to one that 'slaps' a horse.

Click to expand...

*If I'm wrong, maybe someone can enlighten me, but I don't see why a snaffle can't have some presignal also. If a horse can feel the rein shorten in a curb, they can in a snaffle. Certainly when you apply a touch to the cheekpiece of a snaffle it moves and the hinged mouthpiece also moves inside the horse's mouth. As the light "yarn" pressure is applied, the bit lifts in the horse's mouth from where it has been simply held by the horse. This is all prior to you causing any actual pressure. 
I understand the mechanism is different for presignal than with a curb bit, but I believe it is still possible to use any bit or even bitless bridle with presignal. 

I also personally differentiate between a sudden uptake on a bit and a jerk. I can make a sudden, soft or firm contact with a horse's mouth with no warning. That is how I sometimes tell a horse I am not pleased with what they are doing, and they better pay attention. When a horse is used to being signaled gradually and being allowed to choose the lightest form of contact they will listen to, this makes them pay attention. But I very, very rarely jerk on a rein. To me a jerk has the potential to cause injury to a horse, at least a bruise. It is something I reserve for times when the behavior is so uncalled for that it requires a harsh correction. I won't usually jerk a horse for throwing in a little buck, but I will jerk a horse if they start broncing on me. I won't jerk a horse for ignoring a signal but I will jerk a horse if they not only ignore a signal but lean in and run while pushing through.


----------



## updownrider

tinyliny said:


> please don't derail an interesting discussion with silliness. what is wrong with saying "modest (ly) collected canter"? I think anyone can imagine what is meant by that.


You have misquoted the original quote, but let me explain since I was the first to quote the original quote. 

This is the exact quote:



bsms said:


> Mia was capable of a modestly *collect *canter


I've never heard of or seen a modestly *collect *canter. I took his words literally as he does the posters on this board and the books he reads. I do not believe it was a typo or he meant collected since he quoted me and told me to get out more. Sorry for any confusion!


----------



## Skyseternalangel

gottatrot said:


> Yes, horses can contract back and abdominal muscles. This does not make the spine curve appreciably nor can horses move while holding themselves in that manner. Horses with over developed abdominal muscles are using them to "prop up" the hind end either from weakness or being made to do things too demanding for the hind end muscles to manage (or they have a chronic cough or ulcers). Belly lifts would possibly help develop the back muscles, but you'd have to do it over and over repetitively or it has no use as a muscle strengthening exercise. Better to use it as an occasional stretch and strengthen the back with ridden work. *My horse can also fold her hind end clear underneath her if you spray cold water under her tail. This doesn't say a lot about how she uses herself under saddle.*


No kidding, it's the equivalent of me sending a hungry bear to chase after you and you running like your life depends on it. Doesn't make you a marathon sprinter. 









This was back in 2012. Notice he is "round" and notice he's doing this in liberty. 

This was in 2015, this is him connecting under saddle. Not my reins are not tight at all, 








Granted it's canter/gallop (not sure which) versus trot (which was very calm and not overly forward since we were still in warmup)









Awful pic of us trotting stirrupless using photo merging

Completely different feel and shape from this ride back in 2011









I don't focus on the head. Past instructors (not all of them, the NZ one was amazing) have asked me to focus on the head but when I ride my horse, I don't. If anything I try and focus on my position, which is really crappy atm because I'm out of shape. 

And my purpose of mentioning belly lifts was to "show" you that those muscles and that shape CAN change when the belly is stimulated. I'd like to see you do a sit-up in motion without the use of anything to move you. It's non-sensical to bring up such comparisons


----------



## bsms

updownrider said:


> ...I've never heard of or seen a modestly *collect *canter. I took his words literally as he does the posters on this board and the books he reads. I do not believe it was a typo...


It was obviously a typo. Nor have I ever criticized anyone on this board for a typo. 

If you do not know what a moderately collected canter is, then you DO need to get out more. If you view collection as an on/off switch instead of a continuum, you need to feel the horse's back and motion as it gradually changes in either direction.

A horse is capable of collecting without a rider and without a bit, so the BIT is not containing energy. It is not a requirement for collection by a horse. And if you ask a horse to canter without pulling on the bit, the horse may or may not "fall out". That will depend on the horse's experience level.
_
"BSMS, if your horse was almost falling forward, loping outside of some controlled area, it was because the horse had never learned to lope while keeping off his forehand_" 

Completely, 100% true. She had lived her life in a corral. When I first walked her, on a lead line, thru the desert, she did not know to lift her feet over rocks. She was stymied by a 12" deep gulley - what to do? And when I first asked her to canter outside a small round pen, where the turn of the corral panels controlled her motion, she darn near fell over on the front because she had not learned how to do it on her own, let alone with a rider. She only knew how to canter in a round pen!

And happily, she now lives in open country and has experienced 4 mile gallops, and is learning about cattle:








​ With practice, she got better. She would never have done an FEI collected canter gait, but she would canter relaxed and self-controlled. Trooper will canter relaxed, balanced and controlled - with my daughter.

There are things I would change about my position today, and Mia was starting to tense up (and shortly after the picture was taken she decided it was time to race Trooper), but she was moderately (or modestly if anyone prefers - she was a lady at all times, even when we were fussing at each other) collected:








​
That is not a collected gait in the FEI sense, but neither is she strung out. She was concentrating because this was taken only a couple months after her first canter outside a round pen. The picture was taken just as she started to tighten her back - which is what a horse needs to do to accelerate and go fast. It takes a tenser back to transfer energy from the hind legs to the front end, which IS one of the functions of the horse's back.

People have told me Trooper was hollow in this picture. Apart from the fact that the saddle and pad cover the entire part of the back which could, at the most, hollow an inch, the fact is that my youngest would not be able to ride him like this if he was tense, off-balance, tight and strung out:








​
That is also not an FEI collected gait, but neither is it strung out and hollow. The ride is smooth because the back is supple. My youngest is having fun because it is smooth. Another moderately collected gait, somewhere on the continuum between strung-out and fully collected.

The bit is not used in either, because the bit has nothing to do with true collection. True collection comes FROM THE HORSE. It may come from a cue, or it may come because the horse has chosen, but it comes from the horse, not the bit!

In contrast, this was Mia's first ride in my new "slick seat" saddle. I was tense and so was she. She was not "hollow" because the back doesn't round down very much, but she WAS tense and tight and nervous, and that made me feel the same:








​ 
We were both tight, tense, and not particularly happy. On the bright side, the second time I rode her in that saddle, she accepted it and relaxed...and then I relaxed too.

And in the interest of honesty, I'll post this picture so folks can see both sides, including my faults as a rider...this is Trooper when I'm the one asking. In 7 years, he has never REALLY accepted me...maybe because it was a male who spurred him bloody:








​ 
He is not unbalanced, but he is obviously tense, pulling like a freight train, with a stiff back and not much happiness for either of us! But then, I don't claim to be God's gift to horses or a skilled rider. That does not, however, prevent me from knowing something about the mechanics of a horse.

----------------------------------------------------------------

I think the difference in approach is this:

Some people believe it is their job to hold their horse together. It is their job, as a rider, to balance the horse. This leads to holding the horse in a frame - a "balanced" frame. It believes the rider balances the horse. This in turn requires a skilled and highly trained and experienced rider, to hold the horse together and achieve balance through the brilliance of the rider's efforts.

Others believe it is the horse who balances. One cannot hold a horse together. That is what the HORSE does! The rider's job is then to introduce the horse to being ridden in increasingly challenging situation - starting at a walk on flat ground, working up to various speeds and transitions, big turns, smaller turns, hills, up and down, going downhill when the footing is bad, etc. Just as a human learns to lift weights by lifting gradually increasing weights, and learns balance by trying to stay balanced in increasingly difficult situations, the HORSE learns balance under a rider by being ridden in increasingly challenging situations.

This can be done by a teen, or a pre-teen. It can be done by a first year rider. It assumes the horse is a living, thinking being, capable of learning. The result is not one, by itself, which would lead to being able to tell the horse "Shift balance NOW because we are at the sign with an E on it" - because the "E" has no meaning to the horse. It is not enough to win a show. But it IS enough for a horse to move balanced and strong.

The second approach has a few advantages:

1 - It respects the horse, and treats him as a full partner and not just some muscle and bone to be "held together" by the will of the rider.

2 - It can be done by a kid, or by a new rider.

3 - It results in a horse who doesn't WANT to rip the reins out of its rider's hands.

4 - The horse will be better balanced for most living, because the horse (unlike the rider) knows about how he feels - what the peak impact forces on on his legs, or how tired his back gets, or his shoulders, and what way of moving conserves his energy - things the rider cannot know for certain.

The drawback is that it won't allow you to win a horse show or competition and it doesn't leave much room for ego. After all, this approach realizes it is the HORSE doing the work, and has more to do with training and trusting your horse than it does with being a great rider.

"_I've talked a lot with people who believe in a fairly strong and steady contact, and also with those who believe in never having contact at all, who ride bitless and only use their seat and legs. Both are extremes, I believe._"

Agreed. There is nothing evil about a bit, but the bit does not does not hold the horse together, either. Good riding is somewhere in between.


----------



## Smilie

If I'm wrong, maybe someone can enlighten me, but I don't see why a snaffle can't have some presignal also. If a horse can feel the rein shorten in a curb, they can in a snaffle. Certainly when you apply a touch to the cheekpiece of a snaffle it moves and the hinged mouthpiece also moves inside the horse's mouth. As the light "yarn" pressure is applied, the bit lifts in the horse's mouth from where it has been simply held by the horse. This is all prior to you causing any actual pressure. 
I understand the mechanism is different for presignal than with a curb bit, but I believe it is still possible to use any bit or even bitless bridle with presignal. 

I also personally differentiate between a sudden uptake on a bit and a jerk. I can make a sudden, soft or firm contact with a horse's mouth with no warning. That is how I sometimes tell a horse I am not pleased with what they are doing, and they better pay attention. When a horse is used to being signaled gradually and being allowed to choose the lightest form of contact they will listen to, this makes them pay attention. But I very, very rarely jerk on a rein. To me a jerk has the potential to cause injury to a horse, at least a bruise. It is something I reserve for times when the behavior is so uncalled for that it requires a harsh correction. I won't usually jerk a horse for throwing in a little buck, but I will jerk a horse if they start broncing on me. I won't jerk a horse for ignoring a signal but I will jerk a horse if they not only ignore a signal but lean in and run while pushing th


Whoever wrote that article, either does not know how curb bits work, used correctly, is the type that advocates riding in a snaffle forever, uses a curb for control.
Read again, it is the uptake of the curb strap, felt when the shanks move, and not just shortening of the reins, making bit contact
The snaffle mouth piece only moves when bit contact is already made
Can you provide some signal by your draw. Sure. Is the bit itself designed for signal? No.


----------



## Smilie

this is Charlie, moving just in hand, with pretty good self carriage



A young three4 year old filly, on some of her first lopes-no collection asked for, just lightness in the face



This young cowhorse my son is riidng, certaily has hind end engagement




Up here, you just want abroke horse, that is sure footed!


----------



## jaydee

The 'shortened walk' is the stage between free walk and 'working/medium' walk where you gradually ask the horse to shorten its stride so the one walk flows smoothly into the other without losing impulsion or straightness 
Joking aside - There is NO such thing as a 'modestly collected canter' - if we're having an informed discussion we should at least try to use terms that are going to mean something
In the canter you've got working, medium, collected and extended - if you're hovering somewhere in between then you need to work harder to get it right. The differences you'll see between one horse and another in collected canter will come from the level of expertise/ability and from the type of horse because a little New Forest pony in collected canter isn't going to look the same as a purpose bred WB, as for photograph's taken at a split second in the action - never a good way to judge the way a horse moves.
It really annoys me the way some media groups will take a photo of Horse X slightly behind the vertical in a test and then use it as proof that Horse X is always ridden that way when in reality it might have been a few seconds of one solitary incident


----------



## Smilie

jaydee said:


> The 'shortened walk' is the stage between free walk and 'working/medium' walk where you gradually ask the horse to shorten its stride so the one walk flows smoothly into the other without losing impulsion or straightness
> Joking aside - There is NO such thing as a 'modestly collected canter' - if we're having an informed discussion we should at least try to use terms that are going to mean something
> In the canter you've got working, medium, collected and extended - if you're hovering somewhere in between then you need to work harder to get it right. The differences you'll see between one horse and another in collected canter will come from the level of expertise/ability and from the type of horse because a little New Forest pony in collected canter isn't going to look the same as a purpose bred WB, as for photograph's taken at a split second in the action - never a good way to judge the way a horse moves.
> It really annoys me the way some media groups will take a photo of Horse X slightly behind the vertical in a test and then use it as proof that Horse X is always ridden that way when in reality it might have been a few seconds of one solitary incident


Agree, and not to pull out worms, the same applies to western pleasure, far as that 'moment in time' Perhaps, an idea of how I feel, concerning that discussion!
Yes, you can capture a horse that might have head, so that tip of ears are below height of whithers< but it is not a disqualification, unless there are 5 consecutive strides like that. The horse will , or should place below a horse that never gets his head too low, but there are also judgement calls in a subjective class, versus one with a score.
If a horse travels with his head slightly too low, YET, rates speed, performs true gaits, is steady all the way around, that horse has every right to place above a horse who can't be rated on a loose rein, who is a poorer mover, and who is not steady in frame and speed all the way around
What i find very annoying here, is many judging events they have never showed in tried to take clinics in, and base their opinions from freeze frames or some drawings
Sorry, off topic, but when it touches other disciplines, I again feel I must express my thought on that general scenario, far as 'judging'

I can assure you, there is no way in hell you can show a western pl horse at upper end, in tough competition, that is on his front end. I have taken enough clinics that focus on having those shoulders up, actually feeling that lift, knowing how difficult it is, to achieve that, to the point of doing it eventually on a loose rein


----------



## Smilie

BSMS, any horse, whether a show horse or a recreational horse, that 'wants to rip the reins out of the rider's hands', has no basic good training.
You don't need to always ask a horse just to move in natural frame, in order to have a horse very soft in the mouth and face, in in fact, in any western training program that I know, produces horses way less likly to ever try and pull then recreational only horses
If you create ahorse that pulls, better look at your riding and training!


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs

Smile, 

Hopefully to answer your question on the pre-cue in the snaffle...

I was taught that the pre-cue is the same in the bosal or bosalita or any bit, with the actual lift of the reins. 

It can be as much as a couple of inches in the green horse or as little as a fraction of an inch in the trained one. In a finished bridle horse riding in the spade and romel reins, it is the picking up the finger to move it that is the pre-cue. 

When we started Oliver in the Bosal, the pre cue was about a six inch lift, now we are down to about 1/2 an inch in a short shanked bit. So it seems, as I learned it, that a pre-cue is not limited to any type of particular bit and extends to the nose (where the bosal sits) as well. It also comes in the form of a pre-pre- cue from seat pressure.

"*Look*, Lift, Leg"......


----------



## jaydee

Yes - the cue on the bitless just replaces the cue on the bit - even pressure on the rope around the neck becomes a cue
We ride a horse from back to front using cues from the legs, seat and body to send it into a 'light restraining hand'
The forward cues create energy that's rather like shaking a bottle of fizzy soda and your hands become like the cork or cap on the bottle that controls how much and when that energy gets released
If the hands are doing nothing and the bridle just there to look nice then we'd all be totally reliant on some alternate form of cues


----------



## tinyliny

Golden Horse said:


> I have searched and not found it anywhere, as I have not found the term shortened walk, and you know me well enough by now that I will find fun in odd comments. Please do not be slapping my wrist over this, this MAY be a serious discussion, but there has been a deal of ridiculous things said in the course of it.
> 
> I did not realize that having a laugh was against the rules here now



It seemed more that you were out to make fun of and belittle bsms, more than have a laugh. I mean having a laugh is cool. I'm all for it , but turning a typo, or a modestly unusual turn of phrase into a joke is making laughs at others' expense, and the discussion had been going along so nicely


----------



## Smilie

Reiningcatsanddogs said:


> Smile,
> 
> Hopefully to answer your question on the pre-cue in the snaffle...
> 
> I was taught that the pre-cue is the same in the bosal or bosalita or any bit, with the actual lift of the reins.
> 
> It can be as much as a couple of inches in the green horse or as little as a fraction of an inch in the trained one. In a finished bridle horse riding in the spade and romel reins, it is the picking up the finger to move it that is the pre-cue.
> 
> When we started Oliver in the Bosal, the pre cue was about a six inch lift, now we are down to about 1/2 an inch in a short shanked bit. So it seems, as I learned it, that a pre-cue is not limited to any type of particular bit and extends to the nose (where the bosal sits) as well. It also comes in the form of a pre-pre- cue from seat pressure.
> 
> "*Look*, Lift, Leg"......


I know what you are saying,afterall, I have shown jr horses, as well as trained them in a snaffle and bosal
I am not saying that the rider's up take can't be an additional/also mode of signal, nor that you need a curb for light response.
It still does not change the fact, that a curb is known and considered a bit with signal, due to it's very design, and that is why it is gone to correctly-for finesse.
We can agree that the 'draw', or riders's uptake speed on the reins, along with pressure applied, provides some 'cue', even though the snaffle bit itself is not abit considered to have signal, by it's very design.
The curb strap on a snaffle has no bit function. It has a function on a curb, that along with other features, provide what is known as bit signal, and you are not going to change those accepted principles of Western training programs!


----------



## Golden Horse

tinyliny said:


> It seemed more that you were out to make fun of and belittle bsms, more than have a laugh. I mean having a laugh is cool. I'm all for it , but turning a typo, or a modestly unusual turn of phrase into a joke is making laughs at others' expense, and the discussion had been going along so nicely



And by making more if it than intended you are helping HOW?

You have made it clear you don't get me, fine, move on, ignore it....


As I now will...jeez


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs

Smilie said:


> I know what you are saying,afterall, I have shown jr horses, as well as trained them in a snaffle and bosal
> I am not saying that the rider's up take can't be an additional/also mode of signal, nor that you need a curb for light response.
> It still does not change the fact, that a curb is known and considered a bit with signal, due to it's very design, and that is why it is gone to correctly-for finesse.
> We can agree that the 'draw', or riders's uptake speed on the reins, along with pressure applied, provides some 'cue', even though the snaffle bit itself is not abit considered to have signal, by it's very design.
> The curb strap on a snaffle has no bit function. It has a function on a curb, that along with other features, provide what is known as bit signal, and you are not going to change those accepted principles of Western training programs!



Pretty much agree, however I guess the additional point is that a pre-cue can come from something other than the bit and I suppose, that depending on the horse you are riding, getting too caught up on "bit philosophy" to the exclusion of "Equitation" generally can create its own set of problems. Anything can become a signal in the right circumstances if it is done consistently regardless of the bit involved. 

I once rode a horse who was kind of a mystery to me because as soon as I thought about trotting, he would do it BEFORE I did anything (or so I believed) to cue him. Made me feel a little out of control, even though he was somewhat doing what I wanted and not misbehaving per se.

Of course, it turned out that I was "pre-cuing" him. When I would think about trotting, I lifted my chin to look further out ahead (and all of the weight shift involved throughout the body). Voila! Trot. 

He anticipated the coming cue and would slip into what I wanted (arguably might be a desired thing or not). It took someone watching me before it was figured it out. 

What should have been a "pre cue" had become the cue itself.

Would have been very easy to interpret that as a bit issue rather than a rider/training issue and I think that kind of thing happens quite often and thus we see the common quest for the magic bit.


----------



## bsms

Agree on snaffles being able to be used with a pre-cue or whatever else one wants to call it. The horse can tell one is taking slack out of it, provided there is slack to begin with, and respond accordingly.

"_If you create ahorse that pulls, better look at your riding and training!_"

If it were any horse but Trooper, I'd agree. Trooper does not pull like a freight train with any other rider than me, and my other horses never do...well, Mia did at one time, but she stopped. After 7 years, I have no other explanation than Trooper dislikes me. As strange as it sounds, I think it is because he was in love with Mia - a love Mia did NOT, in any way, return. And I came and took his love away, 4-6 times a week, and she would follow me around in the corral when I cleaned the corral, and ignore Trooper. The picture of me riding him was one of the two times I've done so in the last 3 years. He seems to dislike me as much when I'm on the ground as when I'm on his back.

I'd like to like him. He is an excellent horse with everyone EXCEPT me...and after 7 years, I see no hope of it changing. I respect him for his good points, but I long ago gave up on liking him. Since the others horses seem to LIKE being ridden by me, I normally just avoid riding Trooper. But he is great with my daughter, and has carried some very big guys out into the desert and behaved flawlessly. He's a darn good horse until I get on him...

But with that exception, I agree. A horse pulls due to a fault in how he is ridden, most of the time. The vast majority of the time, maybe. Bandit has tried it before, but he doesn't get anything to pull against...

------------------------------------------------------------------

I've typed these quotes because I liked them. One, from Jean-Claude Racinet, discusses the circle of energy from his perspective (and mine, too:"Muscular energy is a manifestation of life, as a matter of fact, it IS life.​
Therefore, there is no energy created by the rider's legs, there is only energy set free by a signal from the brain of the horse, a signal associated with the request of the rider's leg (to the extent, that is, that the horse understands the meaning of this request and accepts to abide by it.

The energetic process starts in the horse's nervous system. Somewhere in the "computer", in the brain and its accessories, a "decision" is made to send a nervous impulse through a conductor toward a muscle, and thereupon the muscle does its job.

This job consists in establishing motion, the motion of a bone linked to another bone...until a limb planted on the ground, pulls the ground under the body of the horse.

Transformed into work, as motion, the energy IS SPENT. Period. The energy will never return to the rider's hand (where, incidentally, it did not originate). THEREFORE, THERE DEFINITIVELY IS NO CIRCULATION OF ENERGY IN THE HORSE'S BODY.

Besides being highly fanciful, this pseudo-scientific theory is highly irritating on two accounts: First, why should the 'energy' go back to the bit? Why not the poll, or the tongue, or the nostrils of the horse? Are we to understand that when a horse is prancing in the pasture - while he has no bit - he is not displaying any energy?

Seconds, why do those who speak about energy circulation never mention the front legs of the horse? The forehand most certainly partakes in locomotion, the front legs contribute (albeit less than the hind legs) by pulling the ground beneath the horse's body. Poor front legs of the horse, whose 'energy' - were one to take this theory seriously - must be non-existent..."

---Falling for fallacies, Jean-Claude Racinet​The second comes from a book I just started after getting home from work today, by a French Cavalry officer in the early 1900s:I firmly believe that _so long as the horse is not a soulless machine, so long as he enjoys mental faculties permitting him to receive impressions in all parts of his being more quickly than we can apply the aids deduced from our calculations, his training by the hard and fast rules of mathematics will ever remain the idle dream of a Utopian._

I am convinced that the main requisites of training are: to observe the horse at liberty, to reflect, and to strive to perfect one's self rather than to blame the horse's unwillingness or imperfections...

..._To observe_ and _to reflect_, these are the rider's surest means of success.

Unfortunately for him, we all to often blame the horse, and generally wrongly...The fault is nearly always with the rider...

The rider must reduce his actions to the very minimum and leave the horse the greatest possible freedom in his.

To be understood readily and quickly by the horse, the language of the aids must be the simplest, but in scientific theories it is rarely so, and the lessons are as difficult to give as to take. Training thus becomes as boring to the rider as to the horse...

It is calmness, and nothing else, that converts disordered jerky gaits into smooth, flowing ones. Here is a very important phase of training in which there must be no struggle. *A teacher must first get the confidence of his pupil, and then reveal the presence of kindness, gentleness and a will, that though calm, is inflexible.* This is the immutable and sovereign law of teaching, whether the pupil is man or beast.

To others more skillful, I leave the doctrine of violence. I have not the strength to practice it even if I wished...A spoiled horse, made stubborn by harsh treatment, sometimes has a bad disposition - an unbroken horse, never...

...Everyone who has watched horses move in open country at liberty, or under riders making no effort to balance them, or even when used as pack animals, is amazed at their cleverness and skill. A horse ridden in a halter or with nothing at all on his head is always straight and his gaits are regular. Usually it is otherwise when the rider attempts to guide of balance him....

...The truth is that skill may rectify gaits which have been spoiled by man and become habitual with a horse controlled by the rider's aids; but it was obedience to these aids that ruined the gaits...

...the horse carries our weight [the rider's] and his own, which, together change the balance and the horse therefor instinctively feels, much more accurately than we do, HOW and WHEN the formula should be modified. That is why the horse must be left free to dispose his forces (strength) as he sees fit, so as to obtain the results that we are seeking.

Horse Training Outdoors and High School by Etienne Beudant (1931) - all emphasis comes from the original text​Regardless of how others feel about books, these men - both with vastly more experience around horses than I'll ever have - agree with what I've concluded after watching horses - "Craigslist horses", which is the sort I own. It is what I call "The Doctor's Theory or Riding": "to abstain from doing harm", or "Primum non nocere": First, do no harm.

"_You don't need to always ask a horse just to move in natural frame, in order to have a horse very soft in the mouth and face..._"

I strongly suspect you are right, and a skilled rider can get a horse to do things I cannot imagine, and do so softly. But a man has to know his limitations (my youngest has "Dirty Harry" playing on TV right now), and for many rider, "Do no harm" is an excellent rule. 

"...the horse therefor instinctively feels, much more accurately than we do, HOW and WHEN the formula should be modified. That is why *the horse must be left free to dispose his forces (strength) as he sees fit, so as to obtain the results that we are seeking*."

I do not object for someone to try to train a horse to a higher level, if they have it in them. I do object when they suggest horses not trained for a sport are unbalanced. For the large majority of recreational riders, we should seek to help the horse figure out its balance, rather than try to impose our idea of it.

I also like this phrase: "*a will, that though calm, is inflexible*" - or what Tom Roberts described as "This will profit you not". If Bandit and I do 3 spins, and each time he ends up facing the same way we were going from the start, then why spin? At least, that seems to be working....what the lady I took lessons from would describe as, "You cannot make the horse DO anything, but you can limit his alternatives on doing something else..."


----------



## bsms

From the preface to "Horse Training Outdoors and High School" by Etienne Beudant (1931), written by Lt Col John Barry (the translator from the French original):"His is the correct ideal of a trained horse - one that seems to work completely free, meeting the demands of the moment as though unhampered by bit or rein.

At liberty the horse is always balanced, but when we mount we upset him. The object of intelligent training is merely to induce or to allow him to resume his natural balance. To be agreeable under the saddle he must be balanced; to be balanced he must be allowed freedom of movement. The center of gravity of a horse is constantly shifting; his balance ever changing...Under these varying condition he maintains his balance by using his head and neck as a man in walking a rope employs a balance pole. If denied the free use of his head and neck, he pulls, his gaits become rough; he stumbles or falls. The horse, not the rider, extricates the pair from difficulties...No horse "choked" by his rider can have that "spare" leg so aptly described by Will Ogilvie:_There is not the slightest doubt that when limbs_
_ Were given out, the gods gave every gallant horse his share_
_ Of a very useful four to employ in peace or war,_
_ And another to carry as a spare!_​...*To act when action is required; to permit the reins to slip to the end of the bight when occasion demands; to sit still and do nothing when nothing is to be done - these are the marks of a horseman*."​


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs

^^^like I said a few pages back, you have to know when to get out of their way and when to guide them. Sometimes too many things in your head (statistics etc) gets in the way of feel which is how you know what is the right thing to do at the time.


----------



## gottatrot

"You don't need to always ask a horse just to move in natural frame, in order to have a horse very soft in the mouth and face..."

Here's why a soft mouth and face are not _primary_ goals for me. I want them to be a biproduct of good training but not a focus. Focusing on them can also create a horse that moves unnaturally. It's not the word "natural" that is so important (taken to an extreme, riding is unnatural), but the fact that a horse being made to move unnaturally is not able to use his body properly and is doing himself harm to some degree, small or even large, especially over time. I really believe it's true that we as riders ruin a horse's movement, and in our arrogance we believe that we create a horse's movement.

As I've said before, not to pick on a particular trainer as a person, but with some forms of training I disagree with, here's an example of what too much focus on "soft in the face" brings. Just click through parts of the video and you'll see horses being asked to use their bodies in ways that will allow for body control and softness, but it's quite extreme and in my personal opinion harmful for any horse but especially a young one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdI_ILs0Pn4

BSMS, all of those quotes are excellent and I thank you for posting them for us. 

I appreciate how everyone has contributed to a good conversation on here with many great points. A counter point always makes me think about things more deeply, and I've learned that debating is primarily an exercise to help my own mind work through problems and to assist with clarifying my own understanding of things.

We all ride on concepts and principles, whether they are very simple ideas about how horses think and behave, or whether they are complex concepts we only think we understand until we really dissect them. I believe that having the wrong pictures and ideas in your head can be very detrimental to your riding and training, and in fact have proven that myself. I don't want to get on a horse and visualize goals of the horse softly placing his head between his knees as he moves forward or of me containing the horse's energy between my legs and the bit. I want to visualize the horses free lunging. My horses have beautiful movement, and my goal is to recreate that movement under saddle. I also want to "do not harm," and I want my horses to enjoy the work they do. 
If your horse moves like this, I think it is a worthy goal to try to ride them like this - head up, and nose out, and all:


----------



## jaydee

Just because a horse moves in certain way in the field doesn't mean that it will be able to move that way with the added encumbrance of a saddle and rider - plus that horse is just going from A to B , it wouldn't find it so easy to perform more intricate moves in that outline
On top of that draw a line from where the pressure of the bit would be to where a riders hands would be and you're close to being in a place where the action would be on the corners and not on the bars so almost ineffective - same if you were riding in a hackamore
So no not at all desirable in a horse that I'd want to ride


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs

Keep in mind there are a lot of spots available between the head up like that (the horse looks to be in a rather fizzy state of mind) and a horse with its head between its knees. 

The irony here is that as you mentioned, having a picture in your head of what you want a horse to move like and then attempting to get that movement at all times (even if you determined it is "natural") may be no more natural movement for that horse on that day, at that particular time than having its head or body put into another frame that you don't deem natural. If you intervene it is still human created movement.


----------



## bsms

Thought about it later...one of the meanings of "modest" is ""limited or moderate in amount, extent, etc." So maybe it wasn't a typo on my part, just good English. That aside...

For specific sports or shows, a somewhat unnatural movement is called for. That is OK, if the rider teaching the horse those movements has "tact", which Etienne Beudant defines as: 

"_The genius of equitation - the feel of the horse. It is the gauge by which the rider knows HOW, HOW MUCH and HOW LONG to act. With tact, the rider gets out of difficulties and succeeds._"

Which is nice, but tact is not something I have much of in my human relationships, and equine tact would take more years of experience to develop than I have left in my life. If at all. In my defense, I doubt rollkur would ever have been debated if some "world class riders" possessed significant "tact".

However, too many young riders are encourage to ride as if they possess tact, or as if an instructor yelling from the center of a ring can supply it for them. For the purposes of this thread, "round" doesn't happen. It is physically impossible, as bucking horses demonstrate. "Inverted" does happen, and I showed a picture of me riding Mia inverted. But that was one ride, and it would not take an instructor to tell anyone on her back at that moment that she was tense and had a stiff back.

As a practical matter, almost any rider, if they care about horses, can figure out in a few rides the difference between a supple back and an I-beam, and they will know instinctively that supple is better. 
----------------------------------------------------------------

Etienne Beudant and Jean-Claude Racinet were both fans of "Ramener" and "Rassembler" - the vertical face and the goal of "augment[ing] his action without appreciably increasing his speed". Near the end of his life, Tom Roberts saw a demonstration of western bridle horses. He said (IIRC) that it made him realize that other approaches could work well, and he thought (as co-founder of a dressage club) that it could give dressage riders food for thought. It would be interesting to know to what extent "Ramener" & "Rassembler" are desired because they have been taught so long that people forget other alternatives.

Certainly it has no part of my own goals. In riding, regardless if your instruction comes from books or from a human, we need to conserve the good and discard the bad.

I have no idea, for example, how Etienne Beudant reconciles the first part of his book with this:"Effet d'ensemble of the spurs

This is not within the reach of all who ride; it is like a razor in the hands of a monkey...

The first requisite for success is to prevent the horse from stretching out his neck and sticking out his nose...The legs close gradually, simultaneously, and forcefully until a frank support of the spurs is reached; the hands continue opposition until...[it] produces immobility...as soon as the horse becomes light, the hands, and then the spurs, and lastly the legs ease off. The effet d'ensemble frankly practiced is the only absolute way of preventing every defense. Even after the horse has become confirmed in its practice, a part of each training period must be devoted to this lesson.

If the horse backs at the touch of the spurs, he must be vigorously attacked until he moves forward...A horse must always go into the bit at the call of the spur; the more vigorous the call, the freer the response."​It amazes me that he and others could not see the conflict in what he wrote. Unless the translation from the French has lost a lot, it is in direct conflict, not only with what he wrote before, but with itself: "_A horse must always go into the bit at the call of the spur; the more vigorous the call, the freer the response_." I'd love to take a baseball bat and create a "free response" in the part of some humans!

If any wonder why I do NOT take the words of experienced riders at face value, consider what highly experienced riders will say and do."My Journey To Lightness with Philippe Karl Part V 

...Halfway through my first lesson, M. Karl decided that it would be profitable to teach me and Caspar the “Effet d’Ensemble”, which generated intense interest among the auditors. M. Karl then mounted Caspar (after briefly introducing himself with in-hand work) so that he could first introduce this concept to him, before instructing me the next day. After dismounting, M. Karl told me to attend the next lesson, wearing spurs. M. Karl remarked that he would have introduced the effet d’ensemble much earlier, but that Caspar and I needed to be confirmed in the prerequisite of proper contact.

The next lesson began with instruction in the technique necessary for the effet d’ensemble which I then used, to great effect, throughout all of the following work. The positive effect of this technique on all aspects of Caspar’s work and attitude was astounding and apparent to all.

M. Karl also taught the effet d’ensemble to another horse-rider pair. He explained that most horses will never need to be introduced to it, but that occasionally a trainer will encounter a horse which cannot be trained without it. These are horses which may be perfectly schooled at home, but behave as though they are completely unschooled when away from home. The trainer needs a non-violent method to completely overcome these horses’ defences when in any situation."

My Journey To Lightness with Philippe Karl Part V - Best Horses Online Blog​Thus Harry Chamberlin's quote (and I like much of what Chamberlin wrote, and learned a lot from reading his books) of the French Cavalry: "_The horse should believe God is on his back and the Devil as at his belly_". At least Etienne Beudant admits "_This is not within the reach of all who ride; it is like a razor in the hands of a monkey..._"

But frankly, it seems like a technique even a monkey might reject as "inmonkey", so to speak! In an extreme case, with a dangerous horse, it might help. But to view it as a reasonable option for a "_Journey To Lightness_"? To view it as something other than an extreme technique for use in the most extreme cases?

I don't know. It seems some folks who become experts lose sight of what they are doing to succeed. Perhaps that is why I think many riders are best off if taught by the horse instead of by expert riders...:icon_rolleyes: If we humans are not smart enough to find a better way, then perhaps we ought to hang up our spurs, as the saying goes. Used as a method of teaching the horse that the "Devil is at his belly" results in this:








​
I'll be darned if I understand humans. And if I cannot, how can a horse?


----------



## bsms

"_On top of that draw a line from where the pressure of the bit would be to where a riders hands would be and you're close to being in a place where the action would be on the corners and not on the bars so almost ineffective - same if you were riding in a hackamore

So no not at all desirable in a horse that I'd want to ride_"

You mean like this:








​ 
Or this, a month after I got him and before I realized what had happened to his front leg:








​ 
In both cases, a straight line from the bit to the hand puts the bit against the molars instead of the bars or tongue. With Mia, given her fear response (bolting), I turned to a curb bit - which rotates, and thus always applies pressure to the bars and tongue - to teach her to listen. Once she stopped using it as an evasion technique, she would listen to the snaffle as well, although she always acted happier in a curb.

Bandit came here believing a bit was an emergency brake, and any pressure - even without all the slack out - meant "EMERGENCY STOP!!!!" But while his mouth still isn't as responsive as I want, it is certainly getting there and all our riding is done with a snaffle. And no, it has not resulted in him being uncontrolled. His stiffness has more to do with how he got used to using his front leg, which was twisted around so the wear pattern on his hoof was from 7:30 to 1:30. It is now 6:00 to 12:00, but getting him comfortable with using it freely and relaxed is still a challenge. But he is very controllable, in a snaffle, with his face out in front.

This then raises the question: If I can do it, shouldn't EVERYONE be capable of doing it? Maybe the problem isn't the snaffle or the head position, but a rider using her elbows and fists for continual contact instead of her fingers for intermittent messages. Maybe horses listen better if the rider isn't worried about the horse ripping the reins out of her hand...










"_it wouldn't find it so easy to perform more intricate moves in that outline_"

If it understood the moves, it would change as needed without difficulty.​


----------



## Skyseternalangel

None of those horses look relaxed


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs

BSMS, having been in the military in the past you are familiar with situational awareness (I currently have two kids serving, one USAF one USMC). 

A lot of what you call tact, I think is what I call feel. Tom Dorrance talked a lot about both direct (I believed you referred to it as "the butt" at one point) and indirect feel. It really has a lot of similarities to situational awareness only it is specific to the horse. 

You are correct that it is one of the most difficult things to learn in horsemanship, but like situational awareness, it becomes habit when it is made a priority and then it becomes part of you. 

The difference between the supple and the I-beam is the beginning of developing feel, you can do it even if you don't think you have "tact". 

One (reformed) control freak to another, don't give up on it, give into it.


----------



## bsms

Relaxed?










When horses relax, it tends to look like this:










A horse using energy - either in the horizontal or for lifting - is working. A "relaxed" back during work is actually a supple back, doing the work with the minimum amount of tension, and with a flowing motion. Bandit, as I have said, trots like an I-beam is stuck up his butt, but that is understandable if one knows how he was ridden before.

But Mia tended to bring her own intensity to everything - sometimes with bracing, sometimes without, but she really was not often into "relaxing":


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs

BSMS, I know you are not asking for a rider critique so I will couch this in the form of a casual observation of human-horse body language. It is meant to help you and Bandit, not criticize you so please take it as such. 

Look at the difference in your body language from the first pic of you in your most recent post to the last pic. You are trying too hard and as a result it is making your horse anxious. Your horse is a mirror of you. You need to relax. The 2nd pic is a time where you needed to get out of your horse's way, you look like a man on a mission. 

Don't do anything _for_ your horse (2nd pic), do it _with_ them (first pic). 

Easier said than done, I know.


----------



## bsms

" _Your horse is a mirror of you. You need to relax. The 2nd pic is a time where you needed to get out of your horse's way, you look like a man on a mission._"

True, but the first picture was taken last fall, around October, while the second picture was taken a few years ago. And sensible Cowboy is an EASY horse to relax on, while Mia never was.

Bandit is in between the two - less sensible at this point than Cowboy, but much more reliable than Mia was. But as I've noted on the thread devoted to him and Cowboy, he is showing potential to become like Trooper or Cowboy - a reliable horse one instinctively trusts. He may make a mistake and he has a hard time relaxing in a trot, but he will not blow his mind. He is gaining confidence, both in himself and in his rider, and I guess I think of it as a circle of confidence - which can go in both directions.

Mia would have behaved better if I had relaxed, but she was just a darn hard horse to relax on - and she was my first horse and we rode for 7 years. Just as Bandit is having a hard time unlearning the habits of being ridden fast and hard on the reservation, I am having a hard time unlearning some bad experiences on Mia.

But just as I have more control when I control less, I have better position and balance when I try less. Less is more, but it is hard to do. Bandit needs to trust his back to me, and I need to trust him to 'have my back' while on him. Thus I conclude that riding is mostly a mental practice, with the body following the mind.


----------



## Smilie

JUst skimming, as I have family here today, and once again, my download quota for the month is used up, thus can't see a video
A horse that is soft in the face, accepts bit barrier, whether that barrier is an actual bit, or one that is a 'conditioned barrier, and does not mean he needs to carry his head in that Classic vertical headset at all. It means, that when you do engage the bit, his response is to give to it, versus lean on it
Without this softness, which has horse engage his rear, versus dumping on the forehand, correct stops, rollbacks , ect would all be impossible
If you have a horse that is not soft in the face and poll, your reining stop would well look those those of old-front feet jammed into ground, head up, neck stiff , mouth open, versus what a good reining stop looks like today.
There is a lot of lingo, in reining and working cowhorse training, like 'getting face on a horse, and that does not mean those horses are worked in any constant head set ever, esp going down the fence, turning a cow, ect


----------



## tinyliny

The technique you quote, the "effet d'ensemble", sounds exactly like what Cherie has described as her way of dealing with a horse that has deadened down and will not go lightest off the leg.


----------



## Skyseternalangel

bsms said:


> Relaxed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When horses relax, it tends to look like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A horse using energy - either in the horizontal or for lifting - is working. A "relaxed" back during work is actually a supple back, doing the work with the minimum amount of tension, and with a flowing motion. Bandit, as I have said, trots like an I-beam is stuck up his butt, but that is understandable if one knows how he was ridden before.
> 
> But Mia tended to bring her own intensity to everything - sometimes with bracing, sometimes without, but she really was not often into "relaxing":


The first photo. That horse is not relaxed, and I could find you thousands of pictures of unrelaxed horses being pulled on their face, on google.










This horse is relaxed. And forward... and through... and collected. He's more advanced in his training and musculature than the average horse. Because he's been ridden with rhythm and relaxation in mind first, not just being shoved into a shape.










This horse is relaxed, and doing self carriage... and he's forward and through.

With longer reins, the horse seeks the bit and has enough balance not to fall on his face.










Even western a relaxed horse, through and not falling on his face but achieving some level of self carriage











Relaxed hunter, through










Yes a horse can be "relaxed" at the walk like you show, but ask them to trot and more often than not their head comes up, their backs tense or become rigid, and they get stiff.


----------



## updownrider

bsms said:


> Relaxed?


Same horse. No contact, one hand, relaxed.


----------



## Skyseternalangel

updownrider said:


> Same horse. No contact, one hand, relaxed.


Because he was done working, and could relax his abdominal muscles that were working whilst he was working.

He was either ducking behind the contact or being pulled into a frame in the pic bsms posted. I can't be sure of which.


----------



## updownrider

^I get that, but bsms tends to pick on Totalis. I wanted to show him relaxed for once.


----------



## bsms

"Yes a horse can be "relaxed" at the walk like you show, but ask them to trot and more often than not their head comes up, their backs tense or become rigid, and they get stiff."

Ummm...and what about those horses whose head comes up but their back does NOT go rigid, and who do not get stiff?

Bandit goes rigid at a trot, but not at a canter. His walk may or may not be tense. And tense or relaxed has NOTHING to do with his head position. He can trot tense and level-necked.

Trooper does not canter tense, unless with me. And even with me, he will calm and relax after a while. Mia had an incredible slow jog, and could trot very relaxed when she wanted to, but she would tighten up if she thought about racing - because a tighter, tenser back is needed to transfer thrust. But she could also turn up her own butthole at any speed, and I got the bruises on my thighs from the poleys slamming in to them to prove it.

"_Same horse. No contact, one hand, relaxed_."

So what? MY point was that a horse who is working - either with elevation OR going forward - will not be "relaxed". The muscles are working, but those muscles can work with a rolling motion or like an I-beam...and the head position will remain the same with either. Bandit will do it at a trot, relaxing and tensing as we trot down the street. I'll feel both alternating, with no change in head position. But a horse who is doing work will not look "relaxed". Nor can one SEE the back muscles thru a saddle, and the head position does not reveal anything.

If one understands where the muscles attach, then it is obvious WHY that can happen. If one thinks of the main back muscle as a rope, only attached at the front and rear, then it could not...but that is NOT how that muscle exists. It has attachments all the way down, with every bone in the spine.


----------



## Skyseternalangel

bsms said:


> "Yes a horse can be "relaxed" at the walk like you show, but ask them to trot and more often than not their head comes up, their backs tense or become rigid, and they get stiff."
> *
> Ummm...and what about those horses whose head comes up but their back does NOT go rigid, and who do not get stiff?
> *
> Bandit goes rigid at a trot, but not at a canter. His walk may or may not be tense. And tense or relaxed has NOTHING to do with his head position. He can trot tense and level-necked.
> 
> Trooper does not canter tense, unless with me. And even with me, he will calm and relax after a while. Mia had an incredible slow jog, and could trot very relaxed when she wanted to, but she would tighten up if she thought about racing - because a tighter, tenser back is needed to transfer thrust. But she could also turn up her own butthole at any speed, and I got the bruises on my thighs from the poleys slamming in to them to prove it.


Show me.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs

This is going to be interesting.

What does each side see here in the still frame of this trotting horse?

http://www.horseforum.com/horses/photos/18983b4eb85344f9d4517e2abbb46f5f_full.jpg


----------



## updownrider

bsms said:


> "_Same horse. No contact, one hand, relaxed_."
> 
> So what? MY point was...


Must you argue everything? There was nothing to debate or argue in my post.
*MY *point, if you have forgotten that others in this thread are allowed to have without an argument, was that I wanted to post a picture of Totilas relaxed. That was it. End of story.


----------



## sarahfromsc

There seems to be a divide on what is natural and relaxed, what is not, and what is best for the horse.

I am a firm believer that just because something is natural does not mean it is the best thing to be done.

As with people, I believe horses can have poor posture. This poor posture can result in body issues down the line. Look out in a pasture with a herd and you can see horses with a poor way of carrying themselves, at liberty. Heavy in the fore, dragging the rear. This is their naturally way of going. Is it the right thing to do to continue to let the horse travel so poor once a saddle and rider are added? I believe it is the most humane to help teach the horse how to carry itself. Sometimes their 'natural' way of moving ain't all that and a bag of chips.

As for the pictures showing relax and not, this is my take. First the pictures are taken at a moment in time. We have not seen what was going on before, or after, the picture was taken. And we all can find pictures that will support or side of the debate. So, not real scientific.

Second. The grey looks like mine does when he is running out to meet the tractor hauling out round bales. He is tight because of the tractor, but excited cause there is food!

The black dressage horse looks tight in the neck and is breaking at the wrong point in the neck I believe. The rider is relaxed, and the horse's stride looks free and long.

The picture bsms posted that has him in a red shirt riding, that horse looks tense, he looks tense, the stride looks short and choppy, high head, and hollow.

I like a relaxed horse with a long free stride that moves out, so the other picture of the trail riders and horses, at that exact moment the picture was taken, looks like they are just schelping along; therefore, would not be relaxing for me, or my horse.

Pictures can be deceiving, people's perceptions are so wildly different, this debate could run on forever, and ever, amen.


----------



## gottatrot

> (reiningcatsanddogs)
> The irony here is that as you mentioned, having a picture in your head of what you want a horse to move like and then attempting to get that movement at all times (even if you determined it is "natural") may be no more natural movement for that horse on that day, at that particular time than having its head or body put into another frame that you don't deem natural. If you intervene it is still human created movement.


I should have been more clear. It's not that I want to have a picture in my head of how a horse should move at all times. It's that I want to study how the horse moves naturally on his own (different for every horse), and then try not to ruin that movement with my riding. It's not that I want to put the horse into a frame and say "this is how he moves naturally so it's right," it's that I want to avoid thinking the horse should move in a way that is different from how he moves normally, just because that's how I've seen other horses move under other riders. Or because of some principle I have about how a horse needs to round his "frame" to carry me properly. If the horse in the picture I posted moves like that at liberty, I'm not going to try to force him to carry his head much lower than that at the trot or hold his nose tucked in. I'll try to see if I can keep my rider interference down to the point where he can use his body that freely at the extended trot when I'm riding him. 



sarahfromsc said:


> There seems to be a divide on what is natural and relaxed, what is not, and what is best for the horse.
> *
> I am a firm believer that just because something is natural does not mean it is the best thing to be done.*
> _*
> As with people, I believe horses can have poor posture. This poor posture can result in body issues down the line. Look out in a pasture with a herd and you can see horses with a poor way of carrying themselves, at liberty. Heavy in the fore, dragging the rear. *_This is their naturally way of going. Is it the right thing to do to continue to let the horse travel so poor once a saddle and rider are added? I believe it is the most humane to help teach the horse how to carry itself. Sometimes their 'natural' way of moving ain't all that and a bag of chips.
> 
> Pictures can be deceiving, people's perceptions are so wildly different, this debate could run on forever, and ever, amen.


I'm also a believer that "natural" does not mean best. Which is why I blanket my horses when they are cold and shivering in a climate where horses don't live and thrive naturally.

If a horse has that poor of posture when free, before riding the horse, there is a lot of work to be done. Adding a rider will only make things worse. We can't improve that horse by getting on him. First a person has to make sure the horse has no hoof or body issues, which are likely in a poor mover. Perhaps he's not suitable for riding at all. We have to check his nutrition and see if he is sick or has a muscle or neuro disorder. If none of that is the case, then the horse has to be worked from the ground until he develops enough muscle and a good enough stride to carry a rider. THEN we get on the horse and try not to ruin what he finally has.

I've seen it done the opposite too many times. The horse is a poor mover for some reason, and then riders get on to strengthen the horse and the horse becomes lame. Put a poor rider on that horse or someone with personal goals in mind rather than the horse's welfare and he is done for.


----------



## sarahfromsc

Reiningcatsanddogs said:


> This is going to be interesting.
> 
> What does each side see here in the still frame of this trotting horse?
> 
> http://www.horseforum.com/horses/photos/18983b4eb85344f9d4517e2abbb46f5f_full.jpg


I see what I think is a young horse being trained.

I see contact without asking fo a frame or headset, or whatever. Just enough contact to support the youngster and give him consistent cues to build hid confidence.

I see a free nice stride.

Alert, but no tenseness or brace through the neck or face.

Not only do I see forward, I can almost feel the forward.

I see the slightest bend in the horse.

I see a relaxed horse.

That is my sttttory and I'm sttttticking to it.


----------



## Skyseternalangel

Reiningcatsanddogs said:


> This is going to be interesting.
> 
> What does each side see here in the still frame of this trotting horse?
> 
> http://www.horseforum.com/horses/photos/18983b4eb85344f9d4517e2abbb46f5f_full.jpg


Tension, exasperated by the view of the large under muscling of the neck, which wouldn't be there if the horse was carrying itself in a relaxed fashion.

He's probably learning, but being pushed too much for his education.


----------



## sarahfromsc

gottatrot said:


> I should have been more clear. It's not that I want to have a picture in my head of how a horse should move at all times. It's that I want to study how the horse moves naturally on his own (different for every horse), and then try not to ruin that movement with my riding. It's not that I want to put the horse into a frame and say "this is how he moves naturally so it's right," it's that I want to avoid thinking the horse should move in a way that is different from how he moves normally, just because that's how I've seen other horses move under other riders. Or because of some principle I have about how a horse needs to round his "frame" to carry me properly. If the horse in the picture I posted moves like that at liberty, I'm not going to try to force him to carry his head much lower than that at the trot or hold his nose tucked in. I'll try to see if I can keep my rider interference down to the point where he can use his body that freely at the extended trot when I'm riding him.
> 
> 
> I'm also a believer that "natural" does not mean best. Which is why I blanket my horses when they are cold and shivering in a climate where horses don't live and thrive naturally.
> 
> If a horse has that poor of posture when free, before riding the horse, there is a lot of work to be done. Adding a rider will only make things worse. We can't improve that horse by getting on him. First a person has to make sure the horse has no hoof or body issues, which are likely in a poor mover. Perhaps he's not suitable for riding at all. We have to check his nutrition and see if he is sick or has a muscle or neuro disorder. If none of that is the case, then the horse has to be worked from the ground until he develops enough muscle and a good enough stride to carry a rider. THEN we get on the horse and try not to ruin what he finally has.
> 
> I've seen it done the opposite too many times. The horse is a poor mover for some reason, and then riders get on to strengthen the horse and the horse becomes lame. Put a poor rider on that horse or someone with personal goals in mind rather than the horse's welfare and he is done for.


Please, I am not in preschool. You do not have to explain to me about body issues. I have enough of my own.

It just seems there has been a go around about natural always is best. And some mammals are just born with poor posture, so going natural is not always best.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs

Now if I say the horse is seven, gelded six months ago, still studdish, the second time ever in a bit and 12th ride under saddle, has recovered from a BCS of 1 five months prior and has no previous saddle training......does anything change?


----------



## Skyseternalangel

Reiningcatsanddogs said:


> Now if I say the horse is seven, gelded six months ago, still studdish, the second time ever in a bit and 12th ride under saddle, has recovered from a BCS of 1 five months prior and has no previous saddle training......does anything change?


So he's a restart project due to time off and injury? (not sure what BCS is)

On the 12th ride I would still be trotting. Until he's more relaxed and has more rides of relaxed walk and trot under his belt then start to do some lope/canter in short sessions.

Every horse starts somewhere though, but I'd try and stay where the horse wasn't overly tense


----------



## sarahfromsc

Reiningcatsanddogs said:


> Now if I say the horse is seven, gelded six months ago, still studdish, the second time ever in a bit and 12th ride under saddle, has recovered from a BCS of 1 five months prior and has no previous saddle training......does anything change?


Well, bless my own heart, I wasn't to far off!

Ok, what is your take on the picture?


----------



## Smilie

updownrider said:


> Same horse. No contact, one hand, relaxed.


Gotta say, I don't like that first picture!


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs

BCS is body condition score. So this was him five months before.

http://www.horseforum.com/horses/photos/85c25c20b6301fb26f5fbae268829c6b_full.jpg 

It's my Oliver. 

In retrospect you are correct that he was being pushed a little too fast, but knowing him as I do, in that snapshot in time, Sarah had it right that he was actually alert rather than tense. When he gets tense, his ears go wonky and he stops reaching underneath 'cause first, his tushie gets tight.

That first picture, was him at a trot. Because of the way he gets tense, we did not canter him for the first time until two months later, he wasn't ready for it.


----------



## Smilie

sarahfromsc said:


> Well, bless my own heart, I wasn't to far off!
> 
> Ok, what is your take on the picture?



Just looks a like a trail horse, checked for a moment, to take a picture
Have many similar poses, where my horse was just going along, and then I was asked to stop, so hubby could take a picture. Thus, I just raised my rein hand some, as you are doing , to give enough bit contact to ask the horse to pause


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs

Sarah, 

My take is that he was being his usual curious self and that he was alert and relaxed though a little bit wondering what was happening and what this was all about. It was all still very new to him. You nailed the hands, that was exactly what the trainer was trying to do with him at the time.


----------



## Smilie

sarahfromsc said:


> I see what I think is a young horse being trained.
> 
> I see contact without asking fo a frame or headset, or whatever. Just enough contact to support the youngster and give him consistent cues to build hid confidence.
> 
> I see a free nice stride.
> 
> Alert, but no tenseness or brace through the neck or face.
> 
> Not only do I see forward, I can almost feel the forward.
> 
> I see the slightest bend in the horse.
> 
> I see a relaxed horse.
> 
> That is my sttttory and I'm sttttticking to it.


OOPs, you did not ask about your avatar picture, which I responded to!
What do I see-a young horse ridden with, way too much contact, and not enough legs.
You do not need to hold a young horse with the bit, to help him balance!
I don't like what I see, eso training a western horse


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs

Smile, that was a freeze frame snapshot I took from a video where the horse was being ridden in a continuous circle. Pictures can be so deceiving sometimes! That wasn't me riding, that was a bridle horse trainer, so he actually has very soft hands but was trying to accomplish something specific with the horse at that time.


----------



## Smilie

Reiningcatsanddogs said:


> This is going to be interesting.
> 
> What does each side see here in the still frame of this trotting horse?
> 
> http://www.horseforum.com/horses/photos/18983b4eb85344f9d4517e2abbb46f5f_full.jpg


This is the still picture I last commented on.
I find way too much rein contact, and not enough legs. On a young horse, you want that movement first, from behind, allowing the horse to relax in front

Can't find a trotting picture, so I will use one , loping. I am not asking this young horse for any head position either, or collection, but I do expect that softness and giving, thus no tight reins
I also don't ride with spurs, until the horse is past the green stage.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs

You mean more like this?

http://www.horseforum.com/horses/photos/80c39d7fd1e788be33c22933af6d50a6_full.jpg

Sometimes it is a process.


----------



## sarahfromsc

Reiningcatsanddogs said:


> Sarah,
> 
> My take is that he was being his usual curious self and that he was alert and relaxed though a little bit wondering what was happening and what this was all about. It was all still very new to him. You nailed the hands, that was exactly what the trainer was trying to do with him at the time.


That snapshot in time reminded me of the first rides on my horse in the bit. I had to support him, and I don't mean hold him up. But the first few rides he gave me enough sign that he wanted me to do the directing. That is the only way I can describe it.

I thought he looked alert, but not that scary braced alert. Or, "I am going to blow" alert.


----------



## Smilie

Can't really compare the two, as in the one he is tracking up, and in this last one, just going along relaxed
I am not being critical, as there are more then one way to train a horse, and a picture is just a moment in time. I do prefer a look where the horse is moving more free in front, until asked to work on framing up


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs

No, I completely get it, no offense taken that is why I asked for people's reads on it, because there are so many different ways and interpretations.....too much, not enough.....relaxed, tense, frustrated, exasperated.....and we still end up with good horses.

That horse was still learning to take any kind of direction from the seat, had several gears of trot and the reins were the most clearlycommunicated way to let him know where we wanted him to settle in (the gear of trot that does not cause the rider's spinal disks to collapse) and have him understand controlled forward movement/rating. Once he could understand the bit and gained a little read in the seat we went back to the bosal and changed focus again to the legs and seat. Same thing you are doing just in a different order and a longer time line. 

I am liking how he is turning out a year since we started so I can't complain.


----------



## tinyliny

Reiningcatsanddogs said:


> This is going to be interesting.
> 
> What does each side see here in the still frame of this trotting horse?
> 
> http://www.horseforum.com/horses/photos/18983b4eb85344f9d4517e2abbb46f5f_full.jpg



I see a horse that is pulling against the bit, but the rider is not entirelly resisting, rather is 'staying with" the hrose, kind of supporting by not quite asking enough to get the horse to answer the bit. this horse is rushing past its natural trot speed, and is falling onto the front legs a bit, which is evidenced by how the hind leg is leaving the ground before the fore leg.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs

tinyliny said:


> this horse is rushing past its natural trot speed, and is falling onto the front legs a bit, which is evidenced by how the hind leg is leaving the ground before the fore leg.


Tiny, that is exactly why I picked this particular frame to freeze out of the video! :thumbsup:

Just like our eyes, snapshots can be misleading AND at the same time, they can also help you pinpoint where to go next in training once you know what exactly you are dealing with and to what degree. 

In real time to your eyes, via the video and despite the head/neck the stride looks pretty darn good, reaching under nicely almost collected; take it down to a single shot and you see the slight rush to the forehand. Very good Tiny!


----------



## Smilie

Reiningcatsanddogs said:


> No, I completely get it, no offense taken that is why I asked for people's reads on it, because there are so many different ways and interpretations.....too much, not enough.....relaxed, tense, frustrated, exasperated.....and we still end up with good horses.
> 
> That horse was still learning to take any kind of direction from the seat, had several gears of trot and the reins were the most clearlycommunicated way to let him know where we wanted him to settle in (the gear of trot that does not cause the rider's spinal disks to collapse) and have him understand controlled forward movement/rating. Once he could understand the bit and gained a little read in the seat we went back to the bosal and changed focus again to the legs and seat. Same thing you are doing just in a different order and a longer time line.
> 
> I am liking how he is turning out a year since we started so I can't complain.


See, now that last sentence, is the most important! 
If the horse is happy, you are happy, and the horse continues to improve, as you go along, then you are heading down the right path!


----------



## Smilie

tHis is a son of Charlie's (her one and only.) His sire is the AQHA pleasure horse Dont Skip THis Chip. No, he is not really engaged, just strolling along out in pasture, but you can see how natural that level topline is for him.



This is Charlie, when she first had to go in a curb, one handed. Not me riding, as I just had knee replacements.Again, nothing forced



Young horse, first few rides, from my reining mare-again ona slightly loose rein, with a head carriage he prefers to be more up


----------



## gottatrot

Smilie said:


>


I like how this horse is being ridden. I would say that is a picture of a balanced rider that is working with the horse, and the horse appears balanced and comfortable. 

Yes, Smilie, I agree that many horses also naturally carry their necks and heads level rather than elevated. And I believe I can see with all these recent pics you've posted of your horses that they appear to be traveling comfortably without having been forced into a position where they don't balance as well.


----------



## bsms

^^ It looks to me like a reasonably balanced horse whose rider is working with the horse instead of trying to shape the horse.

"_Show me._"

I cannot. Not because what I said is wrong, but because there is no picture that will prove it to someone who wants to believe otherwise. IF A PERSON ASSUMES AN ELEVATED HEAD = TENSION, THEN EVERY PICTURE WITH AN ELEVATED HEAD WILL "PROVE" TENSION.

I got a chance to ride Bandit yesterday, for the third time this month and just the 6th time since Christmas Day. He gave me the best trot he ever has given me, for about 300 yards (admittedly, going uphill). Then he decided he really did NOT want to trot beside Trooper, and his back went hard and rigid in preparation for a race...and we then had a heated argument about what to do next! His head position did not change, but I have no way to PROVE to you how his back was acting.

Apart from not having neighbors stationed along the road to take pictures, no picture would reveal his back was moving in a firm but rolling, supple motion - and then turned into an I-beam. It was extremely obvious to the rider, but there would have been nothing to see in a picture.

Racinet's book on fallacies has a good chapter on the muscles of the back and how they are used. I cannot replicate that much text, and 'fair use' would not allow it to be done to that much copyrighted material anyways. Buy his book if you want a good explanation.

Apart from that, all I can say is I did it on Bandit yesterday afternoon. But my point - that the back can change from supple to stiff in a moment, without a change in head position - is impossible to photograph, even if my neighbors were inclined to line the street and take pictures.

I can tell you that Mia was not tense in this picture, and I've never known Trooper to be tense with my daughter (she claims he has a stash of marijuana in the corral), but I certainly could not prove it:








​ 
Here is a test anyone should be able to conduct: stand beside your horse while someone gives your horse incentive to raise or lower his head. Place your hands at the front of the withers, at the withers, behind the withers and at the front of the back while the horse is moving its head and neck up and down. Feel which muscle tighten. 

That is not a ridden demonstration, but it is about the only one I can think of for someone to DO, with a horse, and let them decide for themselves if a raised neck = braced back.

Tension in the back, by itself, is not wrong. It is required for the horse to move properly. Impulsion - used to create either forward movement or movement in the vertical - requires the back muscles to be used, and a muscle being used, by definition, tenses. But it does not require bracing, or the I-beam that Bandit defaults to in a trot.

However, what Bandit needs is not for me to "hold him together", but suppling exercises - practice turning, changing speeds, etc - combined with learning I will not slam up and down on his back. Exercise and trust will, over time, free up his back and help him learn to use his body better. I do not need to hold him together, nor do I need to imagine that MY legs create impulsion, MY legs create energy, or that I need to contain the energy with the bit to prevent it from falling out the front. Those illusions would delay Bandit's progress, not create it.

BTW - since a lot of dressage lovers seem to feel dressage is under attack - I don't see anyone saying it is wrong to practice dressage with a horse. I have no doubt that Edward Gal could take Bandit out into the desert and have Bandit happy and content, while I could not ride Totilas successfully in an arena. I actually think the evidence indicates rollkur does not harm a horse, regardless of how much I dislike the look.

But if someone, often a relatively inexperienced rider, much less experienced than I am even, is trying to contain the horse's energy with the bit, to hold the horse together so the horse will round up underneath the rider, then that is likely to lead to bad riding. The rider is trying to get the horse to do what horses cannot do, using tools that do not exist.

On a thread not long ago ( http://www.horseforum.com/english-riding/dressage-vs-endurance-should-i-buy-658297/ ), I was told that every new rider needed dressage lessons to become a good rider. I think that is backwards. Unless those lessons are taught by a truly fine instructor, what the rider needs is to learn how to ride the horse as a partner. Once the rider understand the horse, THEN lessons in dressage might be very helpful. But a certain degree of equine tact is needed before one tries to train a horse to divert its energy up on the front.

It seems to me a new rider needs to meet the horse first. Once the rider learns to ride WITH the horse, they can try to learn how to get a horse to do things it would not naturally try to do - be it WP or dressage or reining or barrel racing. Hacking creates the foundation of understanding that an understanding rider can use to then teach a horse some new tricks...








​


----------



## Smilie

BSMS
"Wrong. Some of the veterinary community has a stance against Rollkur for a reason!

Scientific evidence remains unclear, as tot he effect of Rollkur, with some saying in good hands it can prove not to be harmful, but has potential to be so, in not as educated hands, plus those professionals set standards for others.

Conclusion for following link :

We recognise that the scientific evidence is conflicting, and likely to remain so as each party seeks determinedly to prove its case. For this reason we doubt that science will ever provide a single, clear, unambiguous and unarguable answer. It therefore falls to humans to do what the horses cannot, namely to follow the precautionary principle: as nature provides no evidence of horses choosing to move in hyperflexion for an extended period of time; and as hyperflexion can create tension in the horse's neck and back which has no justifying necessity; and as the horse in hyperflexion is, by definition, unable fully to use its neck; and as the psychological consequences of such treatment remain latent (perhaps in an analogous position with horses which are whipped aggressively but which can still pass a five star vetting), we should take all appropriate steps to discourage the use of this training technique, for the horse's sake."

The Classical Riding Club | Rollkur and CRC

Sure , a horse can become tense, while still having head held lower, BUT, anyone trail riding, knows that when a horse sees something ahead, he considers a potencial threat, esp a green horse, his first reaction will be to raise his head , try to stop and stare. This is pre -flight mode, and to diffuse it, asking the horse to lower his head , while giving to the bit, and keep forward, is a 'calm down' cue, and will, along with body control, enable you to prevent that flight reaction.
If you have a horse, not taught to give to the bit when asked, that just sticks head up, neck tense, nose out, jaws stiff-good luck!


----------



## jaydee

A few comments
1. I've already said it - its not fair to judge a horse/rider from a few isolated photos, you really need to see them first hand or at least on a video. Top dressage horses are now selected with preference for a hot horse that's sharp off the legs because it makes them so much easier to get collection and lateral moves in collection from them, they can also be very light on your hand and when riding a very flexible, keen, fit, energetic horse in double bridle its extremely easy to have them go behind the vertical occasionally.
2. To really judge if a horse is too much above the vertical a lot of the time when ridden you have to see it being ridden for a reasonable length of time but if you can put your hands on the horse and run them up the underside of its neck then you'll know immediately if its a 'bracer' because the muscles under there will be hard and over defined. You can reverse it but to do that you've got to first get the horses head where it should be and that takes time because those muscles don't want to do that any more
bsms - Not sure how I can compare photos of your horses bit to hand contact line with them standing still on draped reins to a horse that's being ridden in contact with its head in a good position.
I would say that without exception all of the horses that I've had dealings with that were above the bit and showing signs of an overdeveloped underside to its neck got that way because they had either not been trained properly from the start to accept contact or had been ridden badly, in both cases the nose goes up to evade the bit and the horse braces its neck to help achieve that
A horse that is allowed to ride on a light contact or even no contact 'as and when' isn't remotely the same thing
I can't post this photo because its got a watermark on it but follow the link and 'oh my gosh' is that Charlotte riding Valegro out on a hack, relaxed, on a light hand and not performing a piaffe - in fact not even collected! Its not going to ruin him though because the moment he's asked to give to pressure he'll do so, softly and willingly because he's been trained to do that
Bob Langrish Equestrian Photographer: Galleries


----------



## tinyliny

Gosh, I am enjoying this discussion! so many great things to think about. this has got to be one of the best threads on the forum!




bsms said:


> ^^ It looks to me like a reasonably balanced horse whose rider is working with the horse instead of trying to shape the horse.
> 
> "_Show me._"
> 
> I cannot. Not because what I said is wrong, but because there is no picture that will prove it to someone who wants to believe otherwise. IF A PERSON ASSUMES AN ELEVATED HEAD = TENSION, THEN EVERY PICTURE WITH AN ELEVATED HEAD WILL "PROVE" TENSION.
> actually, to a certain extent, ANY time a horse raises his head, really raises it about as high as he can, there is some kind of tension. or, perhaps , elevated alertness. certainly, there is less relaxation. when a horse looks off at some sound in the distance, he is on alert, thus his level of tension goes up. conversely, ANY form of getting a hrose to truly lower his head, well down, will induce an increase in relaxation, ableit perhaps short lived. that is why teaching yoiur horse to lower his head on command is a valuable skill.
> 
> I got a chance to ride Bandit yesterday, for the third time this month and just the 6th time since Christmas Day. He gave me the best trot he ever has given me, for about 300 yards (admittedly, going uphill). Then he decided he really did NOT want to trot beside Trooper, and his back went hard and rigid in preparation for a race...and we then had a heated argument about what to do next! His head position did not change, but I have no way to PROVE to you how his back was acting.
> I can beleive you. if you were able to monitor it, you would have felt that his POLL and his JAW would have gone hard, suddenly, with the change of mental state in this horse.
> Apart from not having neighbors stationed along the road to take pictures, no picture would reveal his back was moving in a firm but rolling, supple motion - and then turned into an I-beam. It was extremely obvious to the rider, but there would have been nothing to see in a picture.
> 
> Racinet's book on fallacies has a good chapter on the muscles of the back and how they are used. I cannot replicate that much text, and 'fair use' would not allow it to be done to that much copyrighted material anyways. Buy his book if you want a good explanation.
> 
> Apart from that, all I can say is I did it on Bandit yesterday afternoon. But my point - that the back can change from supple to stiff in a moment, without a change in head position - is impossible to photograph, even if my neighbors were inclined to line the street and take pictures.
> 
> I can tell you that Mia was not tense in this picture, and I've never known Trooper to be tense with my daughter (she claims he has a stash of marijuana in the corral), but I certainly could not prove it:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​ those horses have head positions that are barely what I would consider 'elevated'. they are up, but since the poll is still forward, out as far away from the shoulder as it can get at that height, there is not "compressing" of the neck, thus, no dropping of the base of the neck, thus no inverting.
> 
> if , the horse brings the poll back ward , tenses the poll and jaw, drops the bottom of the neck (create more of the "swan" position), this is eveidence of increased tension.
> 
> If I saw your horses lower their noses a little, as they trotted along, I would see even a bit more relaxation, but in that photo, they appear to be somewhat on alert looking for things in the distance. so, they are outwardly focussed. having them a bit more "riderly" focussed, and this can be evidenced by a soft flexion at the poll, would make me more comfortable while riding them.
> Here is a test anyone should be able to conduct: stand beside your horse while someone gives your horse incentive to raise or lower his head. Place your hands at the front of the withers, at the withers, behind the withers and at the front of the back while the horse is moving its head and neck up and down. Feel which muscle tighten.
> 
> That is not a ridden demonstration, but it is about the only one I can think of for someone to DO, with a horse, and let them decide for themselves if a raised neck = braced back.
> 
> Tension in the back, by itself, is not wrong. It is required for the horse to move properly. Impulsion - used to create either forward movement or movement in the vertical - requires the back muscles to be used, and a muscle being used, by definition, tenses. But it does not require bracing, or the I-beam that Bandit defaults to in a trot.
> 
> However, what Bandit needs is not for me to "hold him together", but suppling exercises - practice turning, changing speeds, etc - combined with learning I will not slam up and down on his back. Exercise and trust will, over time, free up his back and help him learn to use his body better. I do not need to hold him together, nor do I need to imagine that MY legs create impulsion, MY legs create energy, or that I need to contain the energy with the bit to prevent it from falling out the front. Those illusions would delay Bandit's progress, not create it.I agree. Bandit needs more suppling and more trust that his rider will move WITH him. before that, it is pointless to try and get Bandit to move with YOU>
> 
> "First you get with your horse, then you get your horse with you".
> and , Bandit is not ready to get with you, so you must get with him.
> 
> BTW - since a lot of dressage lovers seem to feel dressage is under attack - I don't see anyone saying it is wrong to practice dressage with a horse. I have no doubt that Edward Gal could take Bandit out into the desert and have Bandit happy and content, while I could not ride Totilas successfully in an arena. I actually think the evidence indicates rollkur does not harm a horse, regardless of how much I dislike the look.
> 
> one reason Edward Gal is such a lovely rider is that he CAN get 'with' a horse, and thus bring out the best in them. he does not ride at all times as you would see in the Youtube videos. first he builds that "withness".
> But if someone, often a relatively inexperienced rider, much less experienced than I am even, is trying to contain the horse's energy with the bit, to hold the horse together so the horse will round up underneath the rider, then that is likely to lead to bad riding. The rider is trying to get the horse to do what horses cannot do, using tools that do not exist.
> 
> On a thread not long ago ( http://www.horseforum.com/english-riding/dressage-vs-endurance-should-i-buy-658297/ ), I was told that every new rider needed dressage lessons to become a good rider. I think that is backwards. Unless those lessons are taught by a truly fine instructor, what the rider needs is to learn how to ride the horse as a partner. Once the rider understand the horse, THEN lessons in dressage might be very helpful. But a certain degree of equine tact is needed before one tries to train a horse to divert its energy up on the front.
> what sort of lessons would you suggest?
> 
> It seems to me a new rider needs to meet the horse first. Once the rider learns to ride WITH the horse, they can try to learn how to get a horse to do things it would not naturally try to do - be it WP or dressage or reining or barrel racing. Hacking creates the foundation of understanding that an understanding rider can use to then teach a horse some new tricks...
> 
> and, yes, this is so. but, dressage lessons CAN be about learning to be 'with' the horse. the very, very rock bottom foundation is about allowing the horse to move freely, rythmically, and learning how to stay out of their way. I spent many lessons doing just that, and gradually , being asked to try and pick up a contact and begin asking the horse to "shape" somewhat for me, without upsetting his rythm and relaxation. really hard to do!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​


----------



## Smilie

I was not judging any picture, freeze moment in time, but just responding to BSMS's comment, in case you were referring to my post, Jaydee.
In fact, now reading it more carefully, I might have mis read a great deal of it, so just ignor comment,concerning Rolkur, as I agree any moment of time, can catch any discipline in bad light, and also that' tools ' used by some professionals in any discipline, used short term, correctly, can achieve desired results, but can create bad results, trying to be copied by the masses
Just a few examples that are not specific to any discipline.
The use of draw reins, short term, to teach a horse that wants to elevate head, versus shoulders in a lead departure, can be okay, but using draw reins as general training aids, can dump a horse on his front end like nothing else!
Using a twisted wire, short term, to get a horse who has become a bit heavy in a plain snaffle ( with that 'bit heavy', in no way associated with bit resistant, but by what a pro considers, using that term, to fix a small degree of heaviness, not even noticed by the average rider), works well, then going back to a plain snaffle asp.
Just riding a horse in a twisted wire snaffle, is not okay, and misuse.
I was in no way knocking dressage in general, as I have seen many very well trained dressage horses at various events, to appreciate the ability and training


----------



## Smilie

I agree with TinyL., that to me those two horses are too focused on stuff around them, but would be okay riding out, long as when you did ask for some softness in the poll and face, it would be there
in other words, if I were to apply light leg and just fix my rein hand, I would want that horse to give softly in the poll and face, versus sticking nose out, head higher, neck tense , jaw tight. if you got that, so it is there when asked for, fine to ride a horse out on a loose rein, letting him carry his head and neck where ever he is comfortable doing so

BSMS

'However, what Bandit needs is not for me to "hold him together", but suppling exercises - practice turning, changing speeds, etc - combined with learning I will not slam up and down on his back. Exercise and trust will, over time, free up his back and help him learn to use his body better. I do not need to hold him together, nor do I need to imagine that MY legs create impulsion, MY legs create energy, or that I need to contain the energy with the bit to prevent it from falling out the front. Those illusions would delay Bandit's progress, not create it.'

I don't think anyone is trying to tell you to ride Bandit out on a trail ride, collected, between bit and legs, as I for one have tried to point that out over and over again!
In fact, I do re call saying that hanging on tot he mouth of a horse that has gotten on the 'muscle' will even make him more so and just fuel his being high
Body control, broke, movement, all come before you ever ask collection of any horse, even in an arena setting.
However, riding a horse out, before he has what I call face and body control , is also what I chose not to do.
Having 'face; does not mean you ride that horse with a head set-far from it! You ride that horse on a loose rein, but just like having brakes, which you also don't ride, is there if you need it
I don't use endless circling, as I have seen some riders do, on a trail ride, trying to get control of their horse. For one thing, you are not really addressing the problem, there are places you can't circle, and it can really be disruptive in a group ride
I totally agree that Bandit is not ready to be asked to move in any form of collection-needs basic softening and body control


----------



## jaydee

No my post wasn't in response to you at all Smilie but just a general one to any photos put up showing horses in less than desirable outlines - mostly in the dressage arena but you often see unfortunate ones of all sorts of competitive riders and non competitive where its too easy to forget that it was possibly just something that happened in the space of a few seconds so not comparable to say a horse that's always ridden with its nose too high and neck braced for long periods or one that's ridden in true Rolkurr in the same way


----------



## updownrider

bsms said:


> "_Show me._"
> 
> I cannot.



In this day of easy video, I don't know why you say you cannot "show me". 

By the way, the text to Littauer's Common Sense Horsemanship is online for anyone to read, it might be easier for others to read if in the future you post the link instead of a picture of a block of text.
https://archive.org/stream/commonsensehorse010454mbp/commonsensehorse010454mbp_djvu.txt


----------



## jaydee

bsms - your legs and seat create energy - yes they do - and that energy then creates impulsion
You cannot have impulsion without energy
When you start to work towards containing that energy you're developing collection and elevation
Obviously you're not going to ask a green horse to collect - and no horse should be ridden collected in a death grip but your hands and therefore the bit or hackamore still have to set a boundary to control the forward movement you're creating
I only have to give a gentle pressure on K with my legs and she will go from a standstill to a canter so the rest of my body - and hands - have to tell her exactly how I want her to go forwards, speed, length of stride, direction and angle. I don't have kick harder for canter than I do for walk
The majority of the time someone asks why their horse won't whoa or turn or walk in the right direction in a direct line its because the horse either hasn't been trained to understand the cues or the rider isn't asking correctly or clearly enough for the horse to understand. They aren't mind readers 
The majority of the time when someone asks why a horse runs off, bucks or spooks all the time the answer is simply - Because they can. The rider is doing nothing effective to stop them doing it which is as good as training them to do it
The rider in this video (*NOT* posted for critique) freely admits that her horse's trot is unbalanced and a work in progress, uneven striding, no focus on real forward movement and lack of definite direction, the heads all over the place because the horse can't maintain a good steady contact and soften and round to it.





Then compare to this young horse that's only had 6 weeks under saddle but already got good self carriage, accepting contact, rounding up softly, relaxed, forward going action with much more focus on where its going and what its being asked to do and a way more even stride





Again - not posting for a critique as I don't know either of these riders - just to try to show the difference in the way a horse can move when you give it some help to figure it out


----------



## gottatrot

Hopefully this isn't too off track for the conversation but again I would like to point out the a lowered or elevated neck should be considered in relation to the horse's anatomy. For a quarter horse that travels around the field with a neck that is nearly level with their spine, to raise their head to the point where a Freisian is walking around relaxed would mean the horse is really upset or nervous. For that same horse to lower their head might mean the head drops below the withers slightly. So for someone to go around saying a horse should lower the head in order to relax, I think you must consider "lower compared to what?" 

Some horses sleep with the neck lowered, and some with the neck elevated, and the only time my horses have their heads as low as the top horse when sleeping is after being heavily sedated.
So one horse I ride might have a "lowered head" to be relaxed at the top photo horse's level, but another horse I ride might be relaxed with his head and neck in the bottom position. 
















I won't go into Rollkur but regardless of whether it has yet been proven to cause the neck arthritis and nuchal ligament issues we've seen in dressage horses, a horseman should at least consider if it might be psychologically damaging to a horse. 

I will also say that some horses relax more when they lower the head and neck. Other horses relax more when allowed to raise the head and neck to look around and make sure everything is safe. On some horses you can't convince them things are safe because you keep the head where you believe a horse would carry it in a "relaxed" position. This will make them brace and be tense as they worry about what they're not seeing. On these horses, allowing them to raise the head and see around them will cause more relaxation. 
Of course, is riding a relaxed activity? Not really. To the nature of a horse, getting up and trotting and cantering around is not a relaxing time as compared to grazing. So I guess we're talking about relative relaxation, as in a horse that is not in fight or flight mode.


----------



## Smilie

Yes, head position, what is natural for any horse depends on conformation.
I don't think anyone suggested there is one position that should be sought for all horses, far as that alert, pre spook head position. It is a relative request, in relationship as to where that horse carries his head relaxed, in the request for the horse to lower his head, while asking that horse to give at the poll.
Any horse, walking along on a loose rein, if he becomes concerned about something ahead, will raise his head BEYOND where he was carrying it, naturally, relaxed, and on a loose rein
I have yet to ride a horse of any conformation, when concerned about something up ahead, who lowers his head,and softens at the poll, and tries to stop and stare.No, they will try to stall out, while fixating on the object of their concern, raise head beyond where they were carrying it, while stiffening neck and poll.
You thus ask that horse, to give at the poll, and lower his head back to where it was, before he went on the alert, and not where breed x carries his head 
Gotta take things in context!
We all also use what works for us. I have never yet found any time allowing a horse to stop, loose forward, put head up to check some object up ahead, tense, focus on that object, tune me out, works, far as riding safely through stuff. Sure, maybe on a big meadow or flat, where, if the horse were to follow up with an attempted spin and bolt, you have room and footing to dis engage hips, ect, but try that on a steep trail, with a drop off!
Horses do have body language, and when a horse raises his head, tries to stall out, tries to stare intently at something ahead, he is in pre flight mode.You scale him back a few amps from that brink, by asking him to keep foreward, lower his head, and give in the face and poll


----------



## Smilie

Yes, head position, what is natural for any horse depends on conformation.
I don't think anyone suggested there is one position that should be sought for all horses, far as that alert, pre spook head position. It is a relative request, in relationship as to where that horse carries his head relaxed, in the request for the horse to lower his head, while asking that horse to give at the poll.
Any horse, walking along on a loose rein, if he becomes concerned about something ahead, will raise his head BEYOND where he was carrying it, naturally, relaxed, and on a loose rein
I have yet to ride a horse of any conformation, when concerned about something up ahead, who lowers his head,and softens at the poll, and tries to stop and stare.No, they will try to stall out, while fixating on the object of their concern, raise head beyond where they were carrying it, while stiffening neck and poll.
You thus ask that horse, to give at the poll, and lower his head back to where it was, before he went on the alert, and not where breed x carries his head 
Gotta take things in context!
We all also use what works for us. I have never yet found any time allowing a horse to stop, loose forward, put head up to check some object up ahead, tense, focus on that object, tune me out, works, far as riding safely through stuff. Sure, maybe on a big meadow or flat, where, if the horse were to follow up with an attempted spin and bolt, you have room and footing to dis engage hips, ect, but try that on a steep trail, with a drop off!
Horses do have body language, and when a horse raises his head, tries to stall out, tries to stare intently at something ahead, he is in pre flight mode.You scale him back a few amps from that brink, by asking him to keep foreward, lower his head, and give in the face and poll
You can also use a counter bend, or other body control position, where that trail does not allow most other body control exercises


----------



## gottatrot

jaydee said:


> bsms - *your legs and seat create energy - yes they do - and that energy then creates impulsion...*
> 
> The rider in this video (*NOT* posted for critique) freely admits that her horse's trot is unbalanced and a work in progress, uneven striding, no focus on real forward movement and lack of definite direction, the heads all over the place because the horse can't maintain a good steady contact and soften and round to it.
> Trotting Eden - YouTube
> 
> Then compare to this young horse that's only had 6 weeks under saddle but already got good self carriage, accepting contact, rounding up softly, relaxed, forward going action with much more focus on where its going and what its being asked to do and a way more even stride
> Saratoga Golden Girl collected trot - YouTube


I know, semantics. But the seat and legs do not create energy. They relay cues that a horse can learn mean "horse, create energy." They can also be taught as cues that mean "stop," or "slow down," or "bend," etc. So I'd say the seat and legs CAN be used to signal the horse to create energy. You also can sit on a horse completely loosely and not give them any cues, and the horse can create tons of energy on their own. 

It's similar to the common teaching that because a nervous rider can create a nervous horse, and a tense rider can create a tense horse, if you see a nervous or tense horse, the rider must also be nervous or tense. However, I've learned that a calm, relaxed rider does not necessarily = a calm and relaxed horse. It can help, but doesn't necessarily.

I won't critique the riders in the videos, but if you were to throw the riders' reins away, I believe you'd still have one horse that was moving awkwardly with a rider that isn't helping or moving with the horse's center of gravity, and you'd still have one horse that was moving with a naturally nice gait and a rider that is not interfering with that balance (assuming the riders can balance the same without their reins, LOL). 

I think there are a lot of variables in the two videos that make them interesting to compare. 1) the anatomy and natural movement of the horse 2) the ability of the rider to move with the horse and not interfere or throw off the horse's gait 3) previous experiences of both horses relating to training 4) possibly the most important: the temperament of the horse and willingness to accept either an intermittent bumping of the mouth with the bit, or a steady, firm contact on the bit.
So it would be difficult with all these variables to say how much each rider is creating the horse's movement. My guess is, one is interfering more than the other, but the innate talent and temperament of one horse and possibly a kind start in life (in the second video) would cover up more faults. 

(An aside, the color of the second horse is interesting...maybe silver bay. Also, I don't think I'd call the second video a collected trot, just an OT remark).


----------



## jaydee

I think you are getting too much into semantics now
Sylvia Loch once compared the sort of energy a rider can produce and then contain in a horse as being like a spring compressed between the hand and leg/seat. Its just a way to try to explain how it feels using one interpretation of 'energy'. 
And
No that second horse is not doing a collected trot, its just working in contact, self carriage, balanced and going forwards through its back in a correct outline. You would (hopefully) not be asking a horse that's only had 6 weeks under saddle to be working in collected trot. I would expect that horse to also be able to perform like that on the lunge without side reins because it looks to have had time spent on it doing good groundwork to train and condition it to have that self carriage
Any horse can move badly if allowed too/badly trained/poorly ridden 
Any horse can work correctly if well trained/well ridden
Obviously they will not all look the same - the type/conformation of horse will always impact visual overall appearance but correctness will still be correctness


----------



## bsms

The energy does not begin with the rider's legs, but the horse's. The rider asks the horse to create it, and the horse, if trained right, will respond. But if, for example, a person who asks the horse for energy forward also tends to balance on the reins, the horse can soon decide it is not worthwhile, regardless of what the rider does with his legs. I'm sure I'm not the only person who has met a horse who wouldn't go faster than a walk no matter how hard or how long you kicked because he had learned wrong. We ask the horse to respond, and if we do it right, we can ask him with ever softer cues and he'll learn...but we can also do it wrong and teach him to need ever heavier cues. Mia would typically shift gears up at a kissing sound, but I didn't believe "impulsion starts with the rider's lips"!

I think there are two serious problems with the "circle of energy" - and semantics often lead to action:

1 - Energy does not bounce off the bit, but if someone believes they need to control or constrain the horse's energy WITH the bit, or to "hold the horse together" to prevent the energy from "falling out the front", then that word picture is practically DESIGNED to create a heavy-handed response from the rider. I can't think of any word picture which would do more to create heavy hands, particularly if the horse decides to go fast.

2 - It ignores the front legs and shoulders. If you understand that the horse is using the internal muscles of the shoulder to elevate, along with a changed stride with the front legs, then two things become clear: A) the horse may actually be using his front legs HARDER during collection instead of LESS, and B) the shoulders - not the outside muscle, but the ones inside that allow a standing horse to elevate his withers - need development.

In Bandit, I now realize WHY he ducks down his head down after 45 minutes of riding. He tends to elevate himself, not with leg strides, but just hard work with his shoulders. Ducking down - if you watch the shoulders when a horse ducks his head down to graze - spreads the shoulders apart and it looks to me like it would stretch those inner shoulder muscles. It isn't the BACK that has tension to release, but his shoulders. And relying on those muscles shows he IS heavy on the front. :icon_rolleyes:

"Round" creates the idea of restraining the front, and then the horse wells up underneath you, creating an arch (and we know that arches are structurally strong). "Elevation" at the front of a back that cannot round creates the idea of work, and energy expended for the pleasure of the rider. I have no more problem with that than I have with asking a horse to canter when the horse might feel like strolling. Both are for the rider's pleasure. But we ought to appreciate that the horse is working more to please us.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs

gottatrot said:


> It's similar to the common teaching that because a nervous rider can create a nervous horse, and a tense rider can create a tense horse, if you see a nervous or tense horse, the rider must also be nervous or tense. However, I've learned that a calm, relaxed rider does not necessarily = a calm and relaxed horse. *It can help, but doesn't necessarily*.


Correct, that is not ALWAYS the case but it most often is. Any absolute when applied to a living entity, by its very nature, will be proven wrong by exception. 

Perhaps a more accurate way of putting it is "Calm, relaxed rider = a calm_er_, _more_ relaxed horse than a nervous rider + a nervous horse"


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs

I think where things are going sideways is the use of the term "energy". 

From my understanding in English riding it isn't just about the willingness of the horse to move out, but also in the crispness of the movement itself. 

So maybe clarification of what people are calling "energy" might help?


----------



## bsms

A lot of it also involves degrees. A horse with its neck inverted is almost certainly bracing and tense. A horse with a neck at 45 degrees and nose forward MAY be tense or may be feeling fine. A horse with its neck lowered is more likely to have a relaxed back, but I've been on horses with low necks and tense backs.

A horse looking around on a trail ride may be very relaxed. Or not. Bandit and Mia would both look around because they liked getting out. But they could also see something that WOULD tense them up. Head and neck position is only ONE indicator. When Bandit gets ****y, he either throws his head way up, or ducks it down - maybe to a 'pre-buck' position, although a horse can also turn fast with its head low. Either way, it isn't the head position by itself that tells me, but his back, the situation, what he was doing 5 seconds earlier, the ears, the way he moves his head, etc. The total picture then tells me if I need to try to calm him, or tell him I'm willing to fight if he insists on it. I don't want to bully a horse but I don't want to be bullied by one, either. Fear or confusion is a teachable moment if handled right. Resentment or rebellion is too, in the sense of making sure the horse gains nothing by acting that way, or even finds himself getting things he doesn't want.

I've had Bandit pull his head WAY up, look sideways at a flapping flag, no tension in his back, and then go "_That's cool...back to work_". I've had him give a fear reaction to a garbage can, but be utterly unconcerned about a 6' tall inflated penguin someone was using for a Christmas decoration in their yard (don't know why). READING the horse is important, but that only is learned by trial and error and time.

I will say that I've only had problems with head position affecting control when Mia would go into racing mode (and originally in bolting mode). The she would stretch her head and nose out as a bit evasion. It would release any pressure by redirecting it to the molars (bit in the teeth), and then she would try to take control. She learned not to bolt, but I didn't have the countryside needed to run her 4-5 miles so she could learn running hard is work too! 

That can be dealt with in a snaffle, or at least I've been able to tell Bandit it won't get him anywhere in a snaffle, but at the time I needed the help of a curb bit to prevent that evasion from working. But a horse can certainly learn to be controlled and obedient with its head in a natural position. It is a training issue, not a physical one.

But of course, the amount of control I need for my riding differs from a sport horse. Mia could not side pass to save her soul in an arena, but would do it beautifully in the desert - IF there was a reason to do so. That was because her own intelligence allowed her to figure out what I was asking and what made sense, while the arena offered no wisdom and I didn't have the skill to teach her side passing totally on my own. Bandit would be a total failure as a sport horse, but he has a lot of potential as a trail companion. BTW - worked for the first time on circles yesterday with him, and his front left leg - the one that he used to use twisted - is going to be a big obstacle to overcome. But the problem isn't natural movement, but an unnatural movement bad shoeing and handling created. I could easily see him getting arthritis in that leg 10 years from now, but he's worth trying to help.


----------



## jaydee

bsms - the horses legs will stand there all day long if it feels like it - on their own they aren't energy and won't produce energy that's worth squat for riding
'Kick starting' the horse to release that energy and then channeling it by using the right cues is what makes the horse perform for the rider
A horse can do all sorts of stuff when its loose in the field - we take that natural ability and then train the horse and refine that ability so we can use it for our purpose. You can't sit on a horse like a crash test dummy and expect good results
You also can't get good results by looking for excuses or illogical reasons to not do things properly


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs

bsms said:


> A horse looking around on a trail ride may be very relaxed. Or not...... READING the horse is important, but that only is learned by trial and error and time. QUOTE]
> 
> Yes. When Oliver does this:
> 
> http://www.horseforum.com/horses/photos/a9f8ef5130cfacec5e43bfe92c06a693_full.jpg
> 
> His wheels in his head are turning. I am not much worried that I am going to be inadvertently trampled unless Godzilla himself is about to emerge from the tree line. Cautious yes, concerned no.
> 
> But when Cowboy does this:
> 
> http://www.horseforum.com/horses/photos/82ee667195b40ae79b8e4a760701d5da_full.jpg
> 
> You might want to double check your ground position because chances are good that he will go to the same answer each time, THINK LATER! RUN FOR YOUR LIFE!
> 
> It is why Oliver is a leader and Cowboy is a follower.


----------



## Smilie

Reiningcatsanddogs said:


> I think where things are going sideways is the use of the term "energy".
> 
> From my understanding in English riding it isn't just about the willingness of the horse to move out, but also in the crispness of the movement itself.
> 
> So maybe clarification of what people are calling "energy" might help?


Yes, the terminology (energy ) might be confusing, esp when it is being applied to a horse just moving out, or asked to move collected

Can we all agree that desired 'energy'. includes impulsion, and not just a horse moving with energy on his front end, when we ask for collection?

For a horse to learn to drive up from behind, with that bit, or learned invisible bit barrier, to contain that 'energy/ impulsion, rather then just let the horse dump on the front end, thus letting the energy flow, fall out, into forward momentum, where the horse moves on his front end, the horse has to have all the basics first, before you ever teach that 'collection'
The problems you mention BSMS, is on horses where incorrect training never put impulsion on that horse first, correct gaits, body control, giving in the poll and to the bit, before asking for a head set, thus achieving false collection and bit intimidation.

When you speak of that energy/impulsion, generated by the legs, driving the horse up from behind, while establishing some sort of bit barrier to contain that energy, you are talking about one form of riding only, on a horse ready to be ridden at that level, having all the other basics you focus on, before ever asking the horse to move in that manner-not all the time-only when asked for.You are talking of collection-not riding out, not racing, not running games, ect, ect
You are talking of a horse that understands true collection, and can in no way use Mia, or any other horse you have, never trained to that level, as any example that can apply to that sense of 'contained energy'
Why do you concern yourself , with riding collected, if you never intend to ride that way, or train a horse int hat manner?
On a recreational horse, all I want is for that horse to be soft and giving to a bit, and to have body control, and good forward motion, that needs no constant leg pressure, and where the horse goes at the gait you ask for, on a loose rein, BUT, never leans on that bit. If he does, you should be able to take hold of him, have him give tot hat bit, as you also apply legs, thus correct him, and immediately then give him slack again. I'd be the last person to tell you to train ride, holding a horse between legs and reins!!!!!

This discussion, wrong application of 'contained energy, is about as off target as if someone asked how to get a good hind end stop, and I went into how to get a reining stop from speed!
Of course race horses have lots of energy, running at racing speed, and that bit contact then actually encourages them to run, as they are trained to run on their forehand and on the bit, with bat, versus legs, due to position of those legs, asking for more 'energy'
A bolting horse has plenty of energy, but not the energy we want. Collection demands a form of 'contained energy, and the motor of the horse is in the rear, and that is where that energy comes from. It is a well accepted principle in riding also, that legs control or cue the horse from the withers back


----------



## jaydee

I put this video on Smilie's thread but will also put it here so it might help some people understand the difference between collected trot and working trot and that riding in contact with the horse in a good outline does not necessarily mean that its collected - it just means that its *not inverted* and so its going to be responsive to the riders cues in a positive way


----------



## Smilie

Sure, that head position is not a 100% rule, and not saying I never let a horse just look at something, BUT, you can feel when they tense, when they start to stall out, and that is when for me, you need to get them 'back to you'. There is not just softness and giving in the poll, using just you hands. Because my horses understand leg aids, by bumping their sides at the same time, I get that total response
You can pretty much tell when all a horse is going to do, is look at something, maybe try to side step a bit, or if he is thinking about 'leaving the country"
When that happens, I want that horse giving in the poll, thus relaxing in the jaw, versus head up, trying to evade the bit, neck stiff, programed for flight
A horse can look at something all he wants in the distance, with his head up, but if he tenses, tires to stiffen his neck, you bet I am pro active and get that face , poll and head, and any other body past needed, using my legs!


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs

Smilie said:


> You can pretty much tell when all a horse is going to do, is look at something, maybe try to side step a bit, or if he is thinking about 'leaving the country"


Yes, you can.

As to stopping or not, I take it on an individualized basis.

I do let Oliver take a gander on the trails, often because I am as curious as he is as to what is up ahead. 

Since he does not alert at tree stumps, pumpkins, tarps or any other nonsense, I know that when he does, something or someone is there. Could be a deer, a hunter in a tree blind, a turkey, a pack of feral dogs or a mountain lion. Nice to know which it is before biting off more than either of us care to chew. Once I figure it out, ask for forward and we go. 

He is not a baulker never has been and neither has he become one because I let him tell me something is there. Even when the horse in the lead is baulking at something, if I ask him to go on, he does. It is precisely that communication that I really appreciate from him on the trail, the real stuff not the imagined. 

Cowboy is a whole different ball of wax!


----------



## tinyliny

Reiningcatsanddogs said:


> bsms said:
> 
> 
> 
> A horse looking around on a trail ride may be very relaxed. Or not...... READING the horse is important, but that only is learned by trial and error and time. QUOTE]
> 
> Yes. When Oliver does this:
> 
> http://www.horseforum.com/horses/photos/a9f8ef5130cfacec5e43bfe92c06a693_full.jpg
> 
> His wheels in his head are turning. I am not much worried that I am going to be inadvertently trampled unless Godzilla himself is about to emerge from the tree line. Cautious yes, concerned no.
> 
> But when Cowboy does this:
> 
> http://www.horseforum.com/horses/photos/82ee667195b40ae79b8e4a760701d5da_full.jpg
> 
> You might want to double check your ground position because chances are good that he will go to the same answer each time, THINK LATER! RUN FOR YOUR LIFE!
> 
> It is why Oliver is a leader and Cowboy is a follower.
> 
> 
> 
> first of all, both of those horses have such stately heads!
> 
> but, what this brings to mind is that with regard to horses alertness and reactivity, the sooner you can get that horse's thought back on your, the better for the both of you. I am reminded of that Harry Whitney clinic I audited, when he said to "practice getting your horse to release his thought". becuase if you get good at it, you have your horse available to you at a moment's notice. if you know you can get your horse's thought back on you, , . . back available to your hands and seat and legs, at a moment's notice, then you WILL feel more comfortable allowing them to have more head, and more freedom and responsibility.
> 
> Smilie can ride out on the wide open trails on a loose rein only because she has laid the ground work wherein she can bring her horse's thought back to her very easily. the more she does this, during the hrose's training, the more the horse simply never leaves very far in the first place. the horse starts to WANT to keep his thought near you, and will come back to you by no more than you rustling your chaps, or coughing or the tiniest wiggle of your boot.
> 
> a horse that is not practiced at this frequent release of his outward thought and return to thinking on his rider, will go outward very hard. then, the ride will be tempted to ride on a tight rein, or be ready (nervously) for any sort of spook or bolt.
> 
> however, just riding on a tight rein won't really help. becuase, the horse will become innured to the rein pressure (and leg pressure if the rider is bootin him up to the bit constantly, trying to get him into a frame). the rein pressure can only be used to get the horse to RELEASE, to release the outward , hard thinking. to release the tenseness in his jaw and poll, to realease the drive to lean forward onto the rein. if the rider never stays in there with the rein long enough to get the release (and does whatever it takes, which might be more than just holding the rein tighter/longer), then the rider BUILDS in to that horse the capability to become hard in it's outward thinking.
> 
> the rein can help tremendously in this training, or it can cause it to metastasize into a nervous, resistance or 'deadmouthed' horse, whose thought is hardly ever available to you.
Click to expand...


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs

tinyliny;8706338
Smilie can ride out on the wide open trails on a loose rein only because she has laid the ground work wherein she can bring her horse's thought back to her very easily. The more she does this said:


> I agree very highly with this. But again, I think there is more than one way to achieve it. I describe it a bit differently but I think it is the same concept.
> 
> From the beginning, I told my trainer that Oliver talks to me the whole ride. Being the cowboy type, he would reply with some smart **** remark like "English or Spanish?"
> 
> It wasn't until about a month ago when we were out riding that I hear from behind me "By God! That horse _really does _talk to you doesn't he?"
> 
> In the way that you explained it Tiny, his thoughts/attention come back to me constantly no matter what is going on or where we are and a loose rein is the order of the day unless I am jumping....I never thought of it that way.
> 
> Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think I consciously did anything to train it into him? I wish I knew as it would help me in re-training Cowboy.


----------



## tinyliny

some horses are just more available. Cowboy may be the kind of horse that thinks he has to take care of himself all the time. he cannot afford to , in his mind, give you his full attention. or, he doesn't see you are very important . or, he's learned to not really engage with his surroundings at all, kind of tuned down into himself, as a defense mechanism learned long ago. hard to know.

I have no where near the skill to work the sort of training I saw Harry Whitney working on some horses that WERE tuned out and dull, unavailable. it wasnm't all cream puffs and sweet nothings, that's for sure. if the hrose is THAT hard in his unavailability, it can take something a lot stronger to get through it. but, usually, it wasn't that the trainer was beating or pushing on the horse. rather, they set it up so the horse beat/pushed on himself, unproductively. 

anyway, . . . . back to your regularly scheduled show.


----------



## Smilie

best example of where a horse really seemed to ask me 'now what;, is that bull moose story and my gelding Einstein.
I know, probably tired of hearing about it, but her goes again!
We were riding back, towards home, along a country road, when ahead of us was a bull moose, right up against the fenceline . It was fall and rut season. Anyone who knows bull moose, also knows when that lust gets in their eyes, anything is fair game.
Einstein stopped to look at him, but not in flight mode. This was a horse that truly trusted me 100% of the time. Still on a loose rein, he turned his head back, as if to ask me, 'now what'
The moose, I;m sure saw Einstein as some form of a challenge or a mate. I knew it would be stupid to either turn our back on him, or to try an d out run him, charging by where he stood
I thus decided to bluff him, and appear the aggressor. I untied the coat I had behind my saddle, waved it in the air, yelling, while asking my horse to charge that moose. Without hesitation he did so
Some of my horses are 'braver then others', but any of my horses ride out alone, or in the lead
Smilie is just about as good as Einstein was, and Charlie ride out fine also. However, when we ran into a herd of wild horses last spring, when she was in heat, and that herd stallion came towards us, while mares and young horses were kicking up their heels, you bet I needed to get her head down, her giving in her entire body, riding her past there with a lot of body control, as her whole though was 'he wants me!
Once past there aways, she again went in the lead on a loose rein Did I not have some of those tools on her, just let her stare and answer that stud's whinny, she would probably be now still out there, ready to foal!


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs

Haven't run into any moose yet, just herds of prong horn antelope and nasty dogs. 

With Oliver it is more like "What's that? Can we go check it out?" or "This soft ground feels really unstable and smells funky, do you still want me to go?" or "Hey, the barn is that way, can't we make another loop? I would rather not go home yet." 

But somehow, whatever my answer, he'll go with it. Now if only I could get him to be that easy with other riders


----------



## Bondre

jaydee said:


> bsms - your legs and seat create energy - yes they do - and that energy then creates impulsion


NO! We humans as a race definitely don't have the ability to create energy by squeezing with our legs. We can't even create energy by kicking like hell, no more than we can make a light bulb light up by squeezing it or kicking it. The first law of entropy emphatically states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, and no one is exempt from that. 

I prefer Gottatrot's rephrasing of this: the rider's legs are a signal for the horse to move with increased energy (the horse can't create energy either).



jaydee said:


> You cannot have impulsion without energy
> When you start to work towards containing that energy you're developing collection and elevation.


Agreed. My question now is whether there is any other way to teach a horse to contain that energy APART from using the reins? (and whatever they are attached to). The English riding tradition teaches riding with contact, but Western riding seems to achieve self carriage without containing the horse's head and neck so much (I say 'seems' because I have no personal experience of this, but this is my understanding from reading Smilie's and others' posts). 



jaydee said:


> I just to try to show the difference in the way a horse can move when you give it some help to figure it out


I watched the videos, and wondered if the second horse would have achieved such nice, balanced movement without the need to restrain her front end like her rider was doing. Is riding with close contact really a necessary step in teaching self-carriage? Or working gaits? Surely not. 

Cruising YouTube for videos of trot on a loose rein, I came across this sale video of a warm blood mare: 

 https://youtu.be/u3as4bi35M0 

Nice, relaxed motion. Constant reaching down with her head. Searching for the contact? Or merely stretching?

The received wisdom says that she is looking for the contact. Why do we make this assumption? How can we be sure that the horse is really searching for the contact, and not just enjoying some relatively free movement, experimenting with lowering and raising her head? Does she need the tension in the reins to balance (she is accustomed to lean on the bit)? Does she want direction from the reins (learned helplessness)? Why might a horse see contact as positive and search for it when it's missing, unless this is merely a conditioned response? 

Just my thoughts, and impossible to ever know what the horse is thinking anyway, but worth bearing in mind.

To finish off, I want to post the link to another video that I stumbled on in my search. This is the one-minute break for relaxation in an intense and fascinating discussion! It's titled "collected canter" (in Spanish), but could be renamed "who says WP has the slowest gaits?"  

 https://youtu.be/WNuajy6YgvU 

Apart from its funny side, the video beautifully illustrates just how hard elevated and collected movements are on the horse's front legs, as bsms demonstrated back at the start of the thread.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## churumbeque

bsms said:


> Way, way behind, and won't have time to respond to much tonight. But...
> 
> "_Collection in the riding sense is about harnessing that self carriage and natural ability to one that can be controlled by the rider - you're essentially shortening the horse by asking it to put its weight on to its rear end and then containing all that energy like a coiled spring that can be released as needed_"
> 
> The horse doesn't actually put much weight to the rear. It is statistically significant, but minimal. The horse does lift in the front, and that makes it ready to change directions or speed in a heartbeat. It is the same sort of motion a horse makes when nervous about what lies ahead - and in that sense, I've been on a collected horse many times. I was for a short time on Bandit on our last ride - while on a paved road in a neighborhood. He would not have the conditioning to SUSTAIN that motion, and there was a possibility that the motion would be followed by an explosion - but the motion was there and completely based in the nature of the horse! That is why dressage can be admired - it is rooted in the horse itself.
> 
> "_but I know how to shorten my reins very , very quickly. Even so, if I am near a place where that split second delay is going to make things dicier, I'll 'pre-shorten' just a bit_."
> 
> It is a trust and experience issue. As the horse gains experience, it can be trusted (and trust its rider). I scoot my hand forward sometimes, so the rein keeps some slack but I'll be ready to take it out if needed. But Mia reached a point where I was pretty confident with her around cars. Not semi trucks and not school buses, but cars. Bandit is making good progress, but he is a work in progress, as I am.
> 
> "_I havne't read anyone hear ever say you have to teach the hrose to ride with 'constant contact' not one person posted here has said that_."
> 
> Quite a few have. Heck, Littauer is my favorite author on riding, and he argues that putting a horse "on the bit" is the sign of an intermediate rider. Yet Mia was capable of a modestly collect canter on slack reins. Bandit canters nicely on slack reins, although his trot sucks eggs.
> 
> But many here are talking about the value of putting a horse "on the bit", which includes constant contact.
> 
> Saw this today:"The energy continues to travel over the horse’s neck, down to the (hopefully) relaxed mouth/jaw where it meet the next part of the circle of aids – the bit. The bit, through the reins connects back to the rider’s seat, completing the circle of aids. The reins determine the length of the frame, positioning and a degree of bend. Without that limiting action of the rein, the energy would just “fall out” the front of the horse, leaving him running on the forehand. With the rein connecting to the rider’s seat, the energy is recycled back to the hind end...
> 
> ...but let me reiterate that holding the reins in the first joint or two of the fingers truncates the connection right there. Besides being very unsafe, as it takes very little to pull the reins out of the rider’s hands, it also leaves the rider feeling the connection, literally, in their fingertips. The horse’s energy has no hope of connecting back to the seat. Properly holding the reins in the closed hand with bent thumb on top allowed for the energy to flow uninhibited through the forearm aligned to maintain the straight line from the bit to the elbow, through the supple, but not floppy wrist. Now the rider should be able to feel horse’s mouth in her elbows, instead of her fingertips."
> 
> Role of the seat in the circle or aids and circle of energy​Apart from being biomechanically ridiculous, consider:
> 
> "_the energy would just “fall out” the front of the horse, leaving him running on the forehand_"
> 
> Ummm...no. What happens is the HORSE will lengthen the stride of the front feet so that his balance remains. Collection increases the stress to the front feet because the front legs are redirecting forward motion into upward motion, lifting the withers. And that is FINE for fun. But it has nothing to do with a strungout horse, or a horse heavy on the front. And yes, I've been there enough to know what it feels like when it happens and how it feels when it does not. But there is something sad about the idea that the RIDER needs to keep the horse together, with no reference to what the HORSE will do because it makes sense to the horse!
> 
> "..._let me reiterate that holding the reins in the first joint or two of the fingers truncates the connection right there. Besides being very unsafe, as it takes very little to pull the reins out of the rider’s hands, it also leaves the rider feeling the connection, literally, in their fingertips_..."
> 
> YeGads! And the author rides horses! Pity her horse!
> 
> I've spent 7 years learning to ride on spooky horses, and I've NEVER worried about the horse ripping the reins out of my hands. It also has never happened. And the FINGERS are where our feeling is the most sensitive, not out bloody elbows! If I could not ride Mia like this, I'd quit.:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> I'd quit riding before I rode with my fists for fear my horse was going to rip the reins out of my hand! At my heart, I remain a fan of natural horsemanship. Not the marketing or carrot sticks, but the idea of asking "*Why would your horse WANT to rip the reins out of your hands?*" Because I don't think Mia ever wanted to, and I've seen no indication Bandit wants to, so...what is going on if that is a worry to someone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> Bandit was still having trouble when this picture was taken, and I still didn't realize how screwed up his front left leg had become from bad shoeing, and almost all of his experience was in a bosal and a bit was only used as his "emergency brakes"...but even then, new to each other, he could be ridden in fingertips.
> 
> "_I said that a hrose that is stiff, resistant, strong out is MORE likely to be explosive in its' spooks, and swing in a stiff manner, like a board or a gate swinging, and that is much harder to stay on. it can be plenty fast!_"
> 
> Agreed. Fully. A supple back feels better and is less likely to result in an explosion, but collection is NOT a prerequisite to swift changes in direction or speed.
> 
> "_who said a bucking horse is collected?_"
> 
> Smilie. And it is not. It is not rounded up because that is not possible, and it is not powering forward with the rear, and it is not lifting the front in in a pleasurable way.
> 
> "_You can have a head set and no collection, and collection, or engagement, without a head set_" - Smilie. And we agree on this. It is possible to both agree with someone and disagree at times - just as I like much of what Harry Chamberlin wrote while strongly rejecting his hatred of western riding.
> 
> Don't have the energy to read everyone else's posts tonight, but it looks like a good discussion. It has given me some ideas on how to use some of what dressage teaches to see if I can connect better with Bandit. I'll never look for a vertical headset, but I've got some ideas on how to convert some of his occasional nervous energy into something that may be more productive.


I hate to even get in on this thread as I just took some time to scan it a bit. I am a carriage driver and we drive with contact all the time. We don't have our body so whip, voice and rein are very important.
We can still be on a loose rein with head low when stretching but we still have a connection, now if my horse bolted like this and I shortened quickly she would not be on the bit and it would take a bit to gain control. You mentioned always riding loose rein but have the ability to shorten quickly in an emergency. the issue with shortening quickly is the horse is not on the bit so it really won't matter. I have been in situations driving and got into situations that could have needed badly had I not been on the bit and driven her more into the bridle.

When a horse is on the bit only then can you have them under you and be in control. When driving and my horse seems startled I push her more into the bridle. When doing maneuvers that depend on accuracy I have her in the bridle and on the bit. I always felt the lack of proper contact was your problem with Mia and thought with riding differently that the horse would not have had the issues you describe. You never seemed willing to look at another point of view.


----------



## jaydee

Bondre said:


> NO! We humans as a race definitely don't have the ability to create energy by squeezing with our legs. We can't even create energy by kicking like hell, no more than we can make a light bulb light up by squeezing it or kicking it. The first law of entropy emphatically states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, and no one is exempt from that.
> 
> 
> I watched the videos, and wondered if the second horse would have achieved such nice, balanced movement without the need to restrain her front end like her rider was doing. Is riding with close contact really a necessary step in teaching self-carriage? Or working gaits? Surely not.
> 
> 
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Now you're getting into semantics Bondre - or totally misunderstanding the general meaning of creating energy in a horse by using your legs/seat as a cue NOT to try to squeeze it out of the horse, I've no idea where you're getting that from. Maybe think of it like switching a light switch on or turning the ignition on a car.

How do you know that rider is holding that horse in that outline on a hard hand? Contact isn't about harsh restraint and that horse looks too relaxed to not have good self carriage that hasn't been ruined by bad riding or forced into it

The video of the horse seeking contact - the difference in a horse seeking and maintaining contact and one that's just stretching down and dropping the contact can be seen in how well the horse maintains its pace as explained and shown in this video


----------



## jaydee

And - yes, the higher levels of collection and elevation are hard on a horse but very few people ever achieve that level and of those that do the amount of work they do in those exercises is very little
Riding in contact, having a horse that responds correctly to being asked to ride in contact and having a horse work in a good outline does NOT always = collection, in fact the vast majority of the time it doesn't


----------



## updownrider

churumbeque said:


> I hate to even get in on this thread as I just took some time to scan it a bit. I am a carriage driver and we drive with contact all the time. We don't have our body so whip, voice and rein are very important.
> We can still be on a loose rein with head low when stretching but we still have a connection, now if my horse bolted like this and I shortened quickly she would not be on the bit and it would take a bit to gain control. You mentioned always riding loose rein but have the ability to shorten quickly in an emergency. the issue with shortening quickly is the horse is not on the bit so it really won't matter. I have been in situations driving and got into situations that could have needed badly had I not been on the bit and driven her more into the bridle.
> 
> When a horse is on the bit only then can you have them under you and be in control. When driving and my horse seems startled I push her more into the bridle. When doing maneuvers that depend on accuracy I have her in the bridle and on the bit. I always felt the lack of proper contact was your problem with Mia and thought with riding differently that the horse would not have had the issues you describe. You never seemed willing to look at another point of view.


I like this post so much I am re-posting it. :loveshower:


----------



## churumbeque

updownrider said:


> I like this post so much I am re-posting it. :loveshower:


I'm flattered😍


----------



## gottatrot

Bondre said:


> NO! We humans as a race definitely don't have the ability to create energy by squeezing with our legs. We can't even create energy by kicking like hell, no more than we can make a light bulb light up by squeezing it or kicking it. The first law of entropy emphatically states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, and no one is exempt from that.
> I prefer Gottatrot's rephrasing of this: the rider's legs are a signal for the horse to move with increased energy (the horse can't create energy either).
> Agreed. My question now is whether there is any other way to teach a horse to contain that energy APART from using the reins? (and whatever they are attached to). The English riding tradition teaches riding with contact, but Western riding seems to achieve self carriage without containing the horse's head and neck so much (I say 'seems' because I have no personal experience of this, but this is my understanding from reading Smilie's and others' posts).
> I watched the videos, and wondered if the second horse would have achieved such nice, balanced movement without the need to restrain her front end like her rider was doing. Is riding with close contact really a necessary step in teaching self-carriage? Or working gaits? Surely not.
> Cruising YouTube for videos of trot on a loose rein, I came across this sale video of a warm blood mare:
> 
> https://youtu.be/u3as4bi35M0
> 
> Nice, relaxed motion. Constant reaching down with her head. Searching for the contact? Or merely stretching?
> The received wisdom says that she is looking for the contact. Why do we make this assumption? How can we be sure that the horse is really searching for the contact, and not just enjoying some relatively free movement, experimenting with lowering and raising her head? Does she need the tension in the reins to balance (she is accustomed to lean on the bit)? Does she want direction from the reins (learned helplessness)? Why might a horse see contact as positive and search for it when it's missing, unless this is merely a conditioned response?
> Just my thoughts, and impossible to ever know what the horse is thinking anyway, but worth bearing in mind.
> To finish off, I want to post the link to another video that I stumbled on in my search. This is the one-minute break for relaxation in an intense and fascinating discussion! It's titled "collected canter" (in Spanish), but could be renamed "who says WP has the slowest gaits?"
> https://youtu.be/WNuajy6YgvU
> Apart from its funny side, the video beautifully illustrates just how hard elevated and collected movements are on the horse's front legs, as bsms demonstrated back at the start of the thread.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Love this whole post. Thanks for clarifying my verbage too, that the horse does not truly create energy either. Your thoughts and what you are wondering reflect my thought process too. That warmblood is moving beautifully and my thoughts are that she may be feeling the need to figure out where the rider wants her head, after spending much time having that part of her body directed by the rider. 
Funny video at the end there. It makes me wonder if a horse that has spent so much time learning how to put the brakes on with the front end has any capability to really extend or if his primary talent is braking and shortening.


> (Jaydee)
> riding in contact with the horse in a good outline does not necessarily mean that its collected - _it just means that its *not inverted* and so its going to be responsive_ to the riders cues in a positive way


The video you posted is a good one to see the collected trot. A question I want to look into is the difference in neck development between a horse that collects frequently on contact versus a horse that collects frequently without it. How much of that (in my opinion) overly large neck muscle is caused by the rider's contact? I'll have to find some videos of horses that do their collected movements "freestyle" to form an opinion.

I disagree with the idea of "it is not inverted and so it is going to be responsive..." This is not a given whatsoever. 
I've actually ridden very inflexible plus high headed horses that were very responsive, and having the neck, head or mouth in a certain position or even having that portion of the body responding softly to the bit is no guarantee the rest of the horse will respond well to the rider's cues. Not picking on gaited horses, but a Peruvian Paso I used to ride was like getting on a steel horse that had no bend whatsoever. Yet he was trained to go out on a trail, to go around an arena, and he used his high leg action to achieve movement such as turning quickly. He was not my horse and I had nothing to do with training him. But with neck up and head out, if you gave light rein and leg cues he'd slow, stop, turn on a dime, whatever. 

As well, I've ridden horses that had a trainer who believed in "suppling" but did not teach the horse to follow the head with the body. The horse would put the head and neck anywhere you wanted, hold it there and travel. But without the teaching to follow the head and neck, the horses just rubber necked around and the body was very difficult to control because there was no fine control with the seat and legs either. Since this person (obviously a non-pro) used the horses at the walk and jog only, she hadn't understood what this type of training would lead to at faster gaits. Not sure if you've ever been trotting around with a horse looking back into your eyes because you picked up that rein, while meanwhile you're just careening around the place. Not a fan.
My friend also has a horse that can easily disconnect what she is doing with her body from what she is doing with her head and neck. I've often been riding behind this horse traveling down a narrow trail, and spent time looking into the horse's eyes as my friend is riding her. She'll just look around and see what you all are up to behind her. It is disconcerting.


> *churumbeque* I am a carriage driver and we drive with contact all the time. We don't have our body so whip, voice and rein are very important.
> We can still be on a loose rein with head low when stretching but we still have a connection, now if my horse bolted like this and I shortened quickly she would not be on the bit and it would take a bit to gain control. You mentioned always riding loose rein but have the ability to shorten quickly in an emergency. the issue with shortening quickly is the horse is not on the bit so it really won't matter. I have been in situations driving and got into situations that could have needed badly had I not been on the bit and driven her more into the bridle.
> When a horse is on the bit only then can you have them under you and be in control. When driving and my horse seems startled I push her more into the bridle.


It's still only training and the constant bit contact is not necessary _*depending on the horse's training*_. I drive a lot too (minis) but we go on a loose rein and use the "ability to quickly shorten" principle. A constant contact does not mean the horse will respond better or worse to the cues. If the horse will respond to the cue, than a quickly shortened rein will ellicit the desired response. The need for consistent contact is a belief system. With some horses, you can stop them with the voice alone. If you have the right type of horse temperament and a horse that really believes the voice will stop them, you can even sometimes get a bolting horse to do a hard "whoa" off the voice alone. I've ridden several horses that were voice trained that well, having a cousin who believed in never using the bridle OR legs at all. All of her horses learned to be ridden off only verbal cues. 

And that's my opinion about the horse that looks around or doesn't look around, or raises his head or doesn't. I don't have any type of rule for these situations, but I've ridden and worked with enough horses that this has become a "feel" situation for me. There are a dozen things to consider, and it's on a case by case basis. What I know of the horse, how they're trained, how they respond to me personally, whether the object concerns me or just the horse, whether they prefer that I make the decision or trust their own judgment more. On some horses, a helicopter might fly low overhead and I'll shorten up the reins, make the horse trot out, and get him thinking about me. On some horses, I'll let him stop on a loose rein and watch and wait for the chopper to fly overhead. That's something I wouldn't give advice on how to handle unless I was there in that situation with the horse.


----------



## Smilie

This thread has been interesting, but also tiring, with the urge to beat my head against a wall at times!

BSMS, i don't even know where the following comes from:
'
I'd quit riding before I rode with my fists for fear my horse was going to rip the reins out of my hand! At my heart, I remain a fan of natural horsemanship. Not the marketing or carrot sticks, but the idea of asking "Why would your horse WANT to rip the reins out of your hands?" Because I don't think Mia ever wanted to, and I've seen no indication Bandit wants to, so...what is going on if that is a worry to someone?

There is no way on earth that amy good riding program has a horse so heavy, pulling, on his front end, trying to rip the reins out of your hands. No NH needed!!!!!
In fact, the entire idea, is to have a horse so soft, that a mere wiggling of your fingers, will have him give to the bit, and back up lightly, with proper added leg and seat cues.
I taught a green horse clinic, in which a father had a future youth horse, riding in a Parelli halter. That horse had no face (i have defined what I mean by that before ), with that horse being an actual danger to the rest of riders on their young horses at that clinic. I had to ask him to leave
Good horsemanship is good horsemanship, and all NH is, applying a label for subliminal messaging. Ie 'natural, organic, are all 'better'
Can you stop your horse, while he keeps frame and topline, purely on a loose rein, off of seat and legs?> Can you then back that horse, never making bit contact?


Unfortunately, can't watch any of those videos , to make any specific comments, until middle of next week. I am changing my internet provider, thus will have un limited down load data, which I don't have at the moment, using a cell phone stick.



Therefore- a horse seeking a bit, is created , English, by that horse having learned self carriage while always have some bit contact. Again, not criticizing , just noting the difference. Since, western, you eventually want that horse to move collected when asked for, keeping topline and frame, without any physical bit barrier/contact, during training, you have to allow moments for that horse to keep that total way of going without a bit contact. You might only get a stride or two at first, before you have to take contact again, but you build on that
Yes, horses can certainly learn to ride on a loose rein, without that step, BUT NOT COLLECTED OR IN FRAME.
Far as energy-no there is no power plant , generating x number of joules, if you wish to get into semantics.
These threads seems to go that way, LOL, versus focusing on principles , so that the entire thread, becomes a jumble of diagrams and physical equations, that I'm sure, anyone really wanting to gain some basic knowledge, just steers clear from! 

Here is a dictionary definition of energy:

Full Definition of energy
plural en·er·gies
1
a : dynamic quality <narrative energy>
b : the capacity of acting or being active <intellectual energy>
c : a usually positive spiritual force <the energy flowing through all people>
2
: vigorous exertion of power : effort <investing time and energy>
3
: a fundamental entity of nature that is transferred between parts of a system in the production of physical change within the system and usually regarded as the capacity for doing work
4
: usable power (as heat or electricity); also : the resources for producing such power

I am sure some of that definition can be applied to energy created behind, far as athletic movement in the horse, without wondering if there is a new source of energy generation postulated, besides wind and solar panels. Yup, no one here suggests using leg pressure to power your household needs!

How about 'energetic movement', generated in response to leg pressure?

Forget collection, forget head set, forget moving on a loose rein.
forget what horses do out in the field-I'm quite sure they are not lining up to give humans rides, asking to be saddled and bridled!
Horses are not actually even designed to do, what we ask of them-carry weight on their back.
A broke horse, not one running in the pasture, that surely can do airs above ground, lead departures and flying changes, without us even teaching them to do so, but a horse that does only the maneuvers asked for, on cue, at a specific spot, independent of speed, change of direction, feeling high, ect
THat horse, has to , in my books, both work on a loose rein eventually, BUT also accept contact, when asked to, instead of pulling, tossing head, fidgeting , demanding that release.
The reason so many people have a western pl horse fall apart at the lope, is because they don't feel when that horse is starting to fall apart and thus drive him up more with legs. Instead, they think they can just sit there, and that horse will be honest enough, trained enough, to continue to engage correctly, without that rider needing to do more then sit there for the ride. Completely wrong, as loping slow but correct, is very hard work, and mAny non pros don't feel when that horse starts to fall apart, happy with just slow and steady, versus slow but correct
Sure, you can ride a horse without ever using leg pressure-God knows, my husband does. When he stops, on the way back to camp, expecting his horse to stand stock still, while he glasses a hillside, and should that horse move, he goes to his hands.
I have to cringe, or offer to hold his horse by his headstall, while he uses those binoculars.
On the other hand, I will ask a horse to whoa, check him slightly with my reins then give him slack. If he moves, I don't resort to strong rein pressure, but instead, just make bit contact and get after that horse with my legs, until there is slack in the reins, with horse standing as asked
You don`t have to ride collected, but you sure need to ride with legs also, to have a truly broke horse, and in fact, with more legs than hands!


----------



## gottatrot

Something I've experienced, and I don't know how to describe it properly:
But in order to ride a horse on a consistent contact, light or heavy, the horse has to have a degree of muscle tension through the neck. As I was describing earlier, if a horse does not have this tension and only "gives" to the bit, then you can't have a consistent contact. So when you teach a horse to move into contact, you are teaching the horse to create a degree of muscle tension at least through the neck, so you can maintain the feel on the horse's mouth. I'm not saying here that this is wrong, I'm just saying that it is something that must happen. 

This contact then changes the rider's seat to some degree. I've spent a lot of time thinking about this, because I have an independent seat, but when you are riding a horse in contact, you are balancing some on the reins. If you didn't, your arms would just be pulled forward. It may be a very small degree of balancing, but having this constant contact changes your balance from completely dependent of the horse to one that involves the pressure of your hands and the muscle tension in your arms. Even if your arms and hands are moving and completely forgiving, a good rider is attached to the core and the muscle tension goes down through the core to the seat and legs, in order to maintain position. You can see this in the videos posted of riders with independent seats going on contact.

This shared balance is what I've felt in the past to be part of the "circle of muscles," but now I believe it is asking the horse to share your balance more than you share the horse's balance. The horse has a degree of lean against the weight of the rider's pull, in order to balance. Does this connect the drive of the hind end to the front end, creating balance? Or does this cause the horse to shift the balance more forward to balance out that pull of the rider? This in turn would cause the horse to have to use more impulsion to create collection than he would if he knew how to brake his own front end instead of involving the rider's pull in the equation. I think the horse does know how to brake and create collection, but he doesn't know that's what we want, and we struggle with communicating that idea to him without using the push and pull method.


----------



## churumbeque

gottatrot said:


> Love this whole post. Thanks for clarifying my verbage too, that the horse does not truly create energy either. Your thoughts and what you are wondering reflect my thought process too. That warmblood is moving beautifully and my thoughts are that she may be feeling the need to figure out where the rider wants her head, after spending much time having that part of her body directed by the rider.
> Funny video at the end there. It makes me wonder if a horse that has spent so much time learning how to put the brakes on with the front end has any capability to really extend or if his primary talent is braking and shortening.
> The video you posted is a good one to see the collected trot. A question I want to look into is the difference in neck development between a horse that collects frequently on contact versus a horse that collects frequently without it. How much of that (in my opinion) overly large neck muscle is caused by the rider's contact? I'll have to find some videos of horses that do their collected movements "freestyle" to form an opinion.
> 
> I disagree with the idea of "it is not inverted and so it is going to be responsive..." This is not a given whatsoever.
> I've actually ridden very inflexible plus high headed horses that were very responsive, and having the neck, head or mouth in a certain position or even having that portion of the body responding softly to the bit is no guarantee the rest of the horse will respond well to the rider's cues. Not picking on gaited horses, but a Peruvian Paso I used to ride was like getting on a steel horse that had no bend whatsoever. Yet he was trained to go out on a trail, to go around an arena, and he used his high leg action to achieve movement such as turning quickly. He was not my horse and I had nothing to do with training him. But with neck up and head out, if you gave light rein and leg cues he'd slow, stop, turn on a dime, whatever.
> 
> As well, I've ridden horses that had a trainer who believed in "suppling" but did not teach the horse to follow the head with the body. The horse would put the head and neck anywhere you wanted, hold it there and travel. But without the teaching to follow the head and neck, the horses just rubber necked around and the body was very difficult to control because there was no fine control with the seat and legs either. Since this person (obviously a non-pro) used the horses at the walk and jog only, she hadn't understood what this type of training would lead to at faster gaits. Not sure if you've ever been trotting around with a horse looking back into your eyes because you picked up that rein, while meanwhile you're just careening around the place. Not a fan.
> My friend also has a horse that can easily disconnect what she is doing with her body from what she is doing with her head and neck. I've often been riding behind this horse traveling down a narrow trail, and spent time looking into the horse's eyes as my friend is riding her. She'll just look around and see what you all are up to behind her. It is disconcerting.
> 
> It's still only training and the constant bit contact is not necessary _*depending on the horse's training*_. I drive a lot too (minis) but we go on a loose rein and use the "ability to quickly shorten" principle. A constant contact does not mean the horse will respond better or worse to the cues. If the horse will respond to the cue, than a quickly shortened rein will ellicit the desired response. The need for consistent contact is a belief system. With some horses, you can stop them with the voice alone. If you have the right type of horse temperament and a horse that really believes the voice will stop them, you can even sometimes get a bolting horse to do a hard "whoa" off the voice alone. I've ridden several horses that were voice trained that well, having a cousin who believed in never using the bridle OR legs at all. All of her horses learned to be ridden off only verbal cues.
> 
> And that's my opinion about the horse that looks around or doesn't look around, or raises his head or doesn't. I don't have any type of rule for these situations, but I've ridden and worked with enough horses that this has become a "feel" situation for me. There are a dozen things to consider, and it's on a case by case basis. What I know of the horse, how they're trained, how they respond to me personally, whether the object concerns me or just the horse, whether they prefer that I make the decision or trust their own judgment more. On some horses, a helicopter might fly low overhead and I'll shorten up the reins, make the horse trot out, and get him thinking about me. On some horses, I'll let him stop on a loose rein and watch and wait for the chopper to fly overhead. That's something I wouldn't give advice on how to handle unless I was there in that situation with the horse.


 if a horse is rubbernecking you need contact on the outside rein. You can turn a horse with just the outside rein. There is a big difference from contact and being on the bit. You can have contact and the horse can run right through the bridle. You can have a horse on the bit with very little contact.


----------



## tinyliny

gottatrot said:


> Something I've experienced, and I don't know how to describe it properly:
> But in order to ride a horse on a consistent contact, light or heavy, the horse has to have a degree of muscle tension through the neck. As I was describing earlier, if a horse does not have this tension and only "gives" to the bit, then you can't have a consistent contact. So when you teach a horse to move into contact, you are teaching the horse to create a degree of muscle tension at least through the neck, so you can maintain the feel on the horse's mouth. I'm not saying here that this is wrong, I'm just saying that it is something that must happen.
> 
> This contact then changes the rider's seat to some degree. I've spent a lot of time thinking about this, because I have an independent seat, but when you are riding a horse in contact, you are balancing some on the reins. If you didn't, your arms would just be pulled forward. It may be a very small degree of balancing, but having this constant contact changes your balance from completely dependent of the horse to one that involves the pressure of your hands and the muscle tension in your arms. Even if your arms and hands are moving and completely forgiving, a good rider is attached to the core and the muscle tension goes down through the core to the seat and legs, in order to maintain position. You can see this in the videos posted of riders with independent seats going on contact.
> 
> This shared balance is what I've felt in the past to be part of the "circle of muscles," but now I believe it is asking the horse to share your balance more than you share the horse's balance. The horse has a degree of lean against the weight of the rider's pull, in order to balance. Does this connect the drive of the hind end to the front end, creating balance? Or does this cause the horse to shift the balance more forward to balance out that pull of the rider? This in turn would cause the horse to have to use more impulsion to create collection than he would if he knew how to brake his own front end instead of involving the rider's pull in the equation. I think the horse does know how to brake and create collection, but he doesn't know that's what we want, and we struggle with communicating that idea to him without using the push and pull method.


such a wonderfully thoughtful post! I love that: shared balance!


----------



## Smilie

gottatrot said:


> Something I've experienced, and I don't know how to describe it properly:
> But in order to ride a horse on a consistent contact, light or heavy, the horse has to have a degree of muscle tension through the neck. As I was describing earlier, if a horse does not have this tension and only "gives" to the bit, then you can't have a consistent contact. So when you teach a horse to move into contact, you are teaching the horse to create a degree of muscle tension at least through the neck, so you can maintain the feel on the horse's mouth. I'm not saying here that this is wrong, I'm just saying that it is something that must happen.
> 
> This contact then changes the rider's seat to some degree. I've spent a lot of time thinking about this, because I have an independent seat, but when you are riding a horse in contact, you are balancing some on the reins. If you didn't, your arms would just be pulled forward. It may be a very small degree of balancing, but having this constant contact changes your balance from completely dependent of the horse to one that involves the pressure of your hands and the muscle tension in your arms. Even if your arms and hands are moving and completely forgiving, a good rider is attached to the core and the muscle tension goes down through the core to the seat and legs, in order to maintain position. You can see this in the videos posted of riders with independent seats going on contact.
> 
> This shared balance is what I've felt in the past to be part of the "circle of muscles," but now I believe it is asking the horse to share your balance more than you share the horse's balance. The horse has a degree of lean against the weight of the rider's pull, in order to balance. Does this connect the drive of the hind end to the front end, creating balance? Or does this cause the horse to shift the balance more forward to balance out that pull of the rider? This in turn would cause the horse to have to use more impulsion to create collection than he would if he knew how to brake his own front end instead of involving the rider's pull in the equation. I think the horse does know how to brake and create collection, but he doesn't know that's what we want, and we struggle with communicating that idea to him without using the push and pull method.


Have you not read anything I wrote, concerning having a horse work collected, or with implusion on a loose rein?
If the horse is pulling on you, you are riding with way too much contact, versus legs, and that horse can't be collected, but is on his forehand, even though he might have a head set.
Sure, he can learn to do that, move collected without a push and pull, for better phrase, as western horses at the point in training where they are ridden on a loose rein, collected, do it all the time!
You also ride with 'feel' Now, I am not speaking for everyone, all disciplines, but where I am coming from. No, you do not pull on those reins! You can set a bit barrier, and then drive that horse up until he softens, then release
The minute you start pulling on a horse, versus driving him up, you are in a loosing situation, far as having a soft horse, or one moving with his shoulders up
When a horse is leaning on a bit, with that rider then trying to outpull the horse, that horse is dumped on his forehand

Where are we going with this discussion anyways?
Sure has gone sideways from inverted form, down so many tangents, I'm really becoming lost, as is any pertinent information, someone not so concerned with mechanics, might look to glean from this
post!

Gaited horses- they are often started in shanked bits, taught not much more then to move out, with some head set, due to those long shanks I've ridden with some Walkers, and they don,t have much that I would call body control
Not saying it is wrong, as most gaited horses are just ridden, covering ground in some comfortable gait-that is what they are bred for, but to compare their head position and general giving at the poll, to a horse moving collected, just is no that comparable, as most of those gaited breeds are ridden with legs w off a horse, so there only is a head set possible, and not what would be considered collection, but then the thread did not really start out, around collection, or did it?????


----------



## Smilie

A horse rubber necks because someone has turned him, or flexed that neck laterally, without making those shoulders follow through. You should never (direct reining, as otherwise you don't even apply the inside rein to turn), use more rein pressure then it takes to see the inside corner of that eye-after that, use your leg and make that shoulder follow that nose.
Obviously, you can't do that driving, but if you are riding, you will get much , much further if you ride with about 20% hands to 80% legs.
Sure, a horse can rubber neck with strong rein pressure, as seen with a horse having his nose cranked to the rider's knee in one direction, still running off in the opposite direction, following his shoulders
Legs control a horse way more then the reins, correctly trained
That is why you put body control on a horse. Have that, and a suggestion by a rein, or even just a rein against the neck, will have that horse turn-not just his head and neck, but with his entire body following in correct bend and alignment


----------



## tinyliny

I don't have any problem with Gottatrot's point of view, nor do I find it outside of the scope of this discussion, nor do I see where you think she isn't reading your comments. reading them isn't equivelant with necessarily agreeing with them.

I understand totally what she is talking about when a rider rides with constant contact. that does NOT mean that a rider is pulling on the horse, nor the horse pulling on the rider. contact does not equal pulling. NO, it does not.

contact in the way it is used in dressage mean "meeting" each other, as two dancers meet, or two hands shake. it CAN become one pulling or the other leaning, but just because you have constant contact, does meet it IS pulling.

and, there is a sort of "shared balance". because the rider must follow the hrose's movement softly and evenly, it requires a very intimate connection with the horse, that personally, is one reason I LOVE riding dressage.

maybe it's more fun for me than the horse. I'd hope to make it as fair as possible, but the very nature of riding a hrose means putting him to your uses. so , you may get more out of it than he will.


----------



## gottatrot

Smilie said:


> Gaited horses- they are often started in shanked bits, taught not much more then to move out, with some head set, due to those long shanks I've ridden with some Walkers, and they don,t have much that I would call body control
> Not saying it is wrong, as most gaited horses are just ridden, covering ground in some comfortable gait-that is what they are bred for, but to compare their head position and general giving at the poll, to a horse moving collected, just is no that comparable, as most of those gaited breeds are ridden with legs w off a horse, so there only is a head set possible, and not what would be considered collection, but then the thread did not really start out, around collection, or did it?????


I think you misread, because I was not talking about the Paso as collected, I said he was very responsive. Which I believe was quite on topic since the idea posed by Jaydee was that it was a given that a horse moving with the neck up and nose out was not going to be responsive. So basically equating neck and nose position with responsiveness.
Gaited horses are quite diverse, and my example was of a Peruvian Paso. I understand what you're saying because I've ridden a Tennessee Walker that did just cover ground in an extended manner, quite stiffly, but although the Paso did not bend through his body, he was very obedient and responsive. If you wanted him to turn around a cone, he could do a tight turn on the mark. He just used his rapid leg movement to achieve the turning rather than bending through his body. 
I'm not saying none of the horses in this video brace, but some of them are arguably not stiff and quite responsive. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfGQpjLkL98

But your perspective is interesting, that a horse is not collected if the rider's legs are not used, and sometimes it seems collection is also a synonym in your mind for body control. I have read all you've written on this thread, but I disagree since horses can be extremely collected and also misbehaving badly, so it doesn't mean body control. Horses can have impulsion without the rider using the legs, so a horse can also collect with no leg contact. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBUSt8hPwio

I do know some people like to discuss as a way to organize their thoughts and come to conclusions, while other people prefer to discuss as a way to verbalize their conclusion (or even convince others their conclusion is correct). I personally am one who talks as a means to arrive at a conclusion, which can seem disorganized or useless to some. 
But for me the discussion has helped clarify some of my own beliefs. It's not that I haven't been taught these principles that others believe, it's that I question teachings and test them to see if they are true.


----------



## jaydee

I'm feeling like I'm repeating myself over and over again
Contact is not about holding the horse in a hard unforgiving hand, you should not be using force to keep it in that position. If you do that you'll create tension which = stiffness which will potentially = resistance and evasion which will then quite likely = that dreaded inverted neck
The horse should initially learn to give to pressure on the ground long before anyone sits on its back and touches the reins
The horse first learns good self carriage on the lunge - how to hold itself together correctly while working *in a confined area - * Most horses will do this - you aren't asking for collection or even that the horse's head is perfectly on the vertical - better that its slightly above than sucked behind. 
The horse has to seek contact not fight it and not try to avoid it by getting behind it
Self carriage is not the same as creating a false headset - that happens when the horse is tied in to a position for long periods of time and ridden in the same way to create muscle memory. A horse in a rigidly false headset won't seek the contact when asked to do a free walk and won't be moving correctly from back to front so will lack real impulsion, elevation and the sort of energy a rider creates/triggers/asks for or whatever term anyone finds most easy to understand
The whole process is a series of steps on a ladder with true collection at the top.


----------



## bsms

churumbeque said:


> ...We can still be on a loose rein with head low when stretching but we still have a connection, now if my horse bolted like this and I shortened quickly she would not be on the bit and it would take a bit to gain control. You mentioned always riding loose rein but have the ability to shorten quickly in an emergency. the issue with shortening quickly is the horse is not on the bit so it really won't matter...
> 
> When a horse is on the bit only then can you have them under you and be in control...I always felt the lack of proper contact was your problem with Mia and thought with riding differently that the horse would not have had the issues you describe. You never seemed willing to look at another point of view.


I guess my problem with this is that it does not reflect what I see daily with my horses, including what happened with Mia.

Control does not come from the bit. It comes from the training to respond to cues, and the horse learning that it is safer when it listens to you than when it does not. Mia, and now Bandit, were and are at their most "controlled" when I give them slack. If they loose it - because I've pushed them into a situation beyond their training - then I may need to BRIEFLY take aggressive action to LIMIT their options.

The best single piece of advice I got with Mia came (IIRC) from gottatrot, who suggested a curb bit might help me keep Mia in place because the design of the bit meant her favorite bit evasion would not work. Three arena sessions later, I rode her out. She tried to bolt, stopped, and found out the scary thing was not so scary after all. Her next attempt at a bolt came about 3 months later when she dragged her hind leg against a cactus. With a hundred spines in her rear leg, she "bolted"...for about 30 feet. Then I got her stopped, dismounted, and removed all the spines. We then continued our ride, and she never bolted again.

The second best advice I got with Mia was this story, told by Tom Roberts:








​
As I applied that advice to Mia, Mia's nervousness went way down. There is a reason why, at her new home, she is considered "a kid's horse". By the time Mia left last May, her biggest problem was me, and my memories of when things had not gone well. It has taken 9 months of riding with Bandit for me to realize how much inner tension I had while riding. 

For her part, she needed a place where she could go run hard. She has now tried racing other horses for 4 miles, unlike here where there is not place to canter over 1/4 mile without damaging the horses' feet. She was integrated into a real herd by a stallion, and roamed with a herd loose on many square miles of land, instead of living in a corral.

But your analysis: "_the lack of proper contact was your problem with Mia_" is 180 out from what actually made her better. She did not need MORE contact, or CONTINUOUS contact, but *less contact and more trust*. And I know that was the answer because that is what worked. It is hard to argue with results.

Mia, then and now, will also sometimes jump sideways or do a 360 degree very hard spin, starting relaxed and then completely relaxed afterward. A horse who "spooks", then stops and looks back at her rider with puzzlement and no tension, may have a few wires not connected in her brain. In the open country where she now lives, the KIDS can laugh at that. When you ride next to 7' tall cholla cactus, as I do regularly, it is a bit more disconcerting.

Bandit has some big issue with how he moves, related to having raced with a very heavy rider and having been shod poorly. His feet are much better and he twists his front left leg less often, but learning how to move naturally instead of unnaturally will take a lot of time.

But contact is NOT the answer for him. His previous owner told me to just push him past things - just "make him go" - but that left a horse who was submissive but nervous. My approach was (and is) to let him tell me when he is scared, and then take the time to show him he had no reason to be scared - to include going past most "scary things" on a loose rein. The result is not a spookier horse, but a much more confident horse. He increasingly checks in with me, not because he is worried I'll whip him, but because I've been right a bunch of times in the past and he wants to know MY opinion - ie, TRUST.

Unlike a driver, I have my legs and seat to communicate. I also have my own horse, and am TRAINING him, using Tom Robert's rules of training:

*"This will profit you. This will profit you not."
* *
"Quiet Persistence"
*​*
And since I am VERY happy with what I am seeing, I'll continue.*

It seems to me there are two contradictory theories on how to ride a horse. 

Theory A says the horse is just muscle and bone, and the RIDER creates impulsion, then uses his/her body and arms and shoulders to "hold the horse together", "prevent the energy from spilling out the front" and to "control the horse".

Theory B says the horse is a reasonable and rational animal, a thinking and living being. The horse is TRAINED to give a response to cues, and either learns bad things happen when it fails to do so, or good things happen when he does. The horse holds himself together, and learns to move in the way his rider wishes. The horse can learn to be confident, and can learn to trust a rider's judgment. The horse can, in fact, learn enough self-control and responsibility to be a well-mannered horse with a total newbie - because the HORSE IS ALIVE.

I subscribe to B. It seems many subscribe to A. And I see little hope of convincing either side to switch.

BTW - "You never seemed willing to look at another point of view."

If that were true, I'd still be riding bitless. I'd still be trying to dominate the horse. I would not be posting studies on how a horse moves because I would have known it all along. 

What I see is people who learned "dressage" as the basis of all riding, and who will not admit that millions of horses are well ridden without it. And while I have no problem with people riding dressage, they seem to have problems with people who do not...:icon_rolleyes:

"_Contact is not about holding the horse in a hard unforgiving hand_"

The question is not "What is contact?", but "Is it really needed all the time?" Lots of western riders experience the answer to be NO, it is not needed continuously to control the horse.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs

jaydee said:


> The whole process is a series of steps on a ladder with true collection at the top.


:loveshower:

...and sometimes that process is very long with two steps forward and one step back.


----------



## updownrider

gottatrot said:


> Something I've experienced, and I don't know how to describe it properly:
> But in order to ride a horse on a consistent contact, light or heavy, the horse has to have a degree of muscle tension through the neck. As I was describing earlier, if a horse does not have this tension and only "gives" to the bit, then you can't have a consistent contact. So when you teach a horse to move into contact, you are teaching the horse to create a degree of muscle tension at least through the neck, so you can maintain the feel on the horse's mouth. I'm not saying here that this is wrong, I'm just saying that it is something that must happen.
> 
> This contact then changes the rider's seat to some degree. I've spent a lot of time thinking about this, because I have an independent seat, but when you are riding a horse in contact, you are balancing some on the reins. If you didn't, your arms would just be pulled forward. It may be a very small degree of balancing, but having this constant contact changes your balance from completely dependent of the horse to one that involves the pressure of your hands and the muscle tension in your arms. Even if your arms and hands are moving and completely forgiving, a good rider is attached to the core and the muscle tension goes down through the core to the seat and legs, in order to maintain position. You can see this in the videos posted of riders with independent seats going on contact.
> 
> This shared balance is what I've felt in the past to be part of the "circle of muscles," but now I believe it is asking the horse to share your balance more than you share the horse's balance. The horse has a degree of lean against the weight of the rider's pull, in order to balance. Does this connect the drive of the hind end to the front end, creating balance? Or does this cause the horse to shift the balance more forward to balance out that pull of the rider? This in turn would cause the horse to have to use more impulsion to create collection than he would if he knew how to brake his own front end instead of involving the rider's pull in the equation. I think the horse does know how to brake and create collection, but he doesn't know that's what we want, and we struggle with communicating that idea to him without using the push and pull method.



I've watched this video several times and can't quite agree with your theory. 
The rider's seat does not change with the varying degrees of contact, even in the free walk at about 3:30. I also do not see the rider balancing on the reins, but I do see the rider communicating with the horse's mouth. Maybe it is the words you are using that I do not understand. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcDLLxgWa_Y


----------



## Skyseternalangel

Reiningcatsanddogs said:


> :loveshower:
> 
> ...and sometimes that process is very long with two steps forward and one step back.


Yep, or 15 back and one step forward.


----------



## Golden Horse

jaydee said:


> I'm feeling like I'm repeating myself over and over again
> Contact is not about holding the horse in a hard unforgiving hand, you should not be using force to keep it in that position. If you do that you'll create tension which = stiffness which will potentially = resistance and evasion which will then quite likely = that dreaded inverted neck
> The horse should initially learn to give to pressure on the ground long before anyone sits on its back and touches the reins
> The horse first learns good self carriage on the lunge - how to hold itself together correctly while working *in a confined area - * Most horses will do this - you aren't asking for collection or even that the horse's head is perfectly on the vertical - better that its slightly above than sucked behind.
> The horse has to seek contact not fight it and not try to avoid it by getting behind it
> Self carriage is not the same as creating a false headset - that happens when the horse is tied in to a position for long periods of time and ridden in the same way to create muscle memory. A horse in a rigidly false headset won't seek the contact when asked to do a free walk and won't be moving correctly from back to front so will lack real impulsion, elevation and the sort of energy a rider creates/triggers/asks for or whatever term anyone finds most easy to understand
> The whole process is a series of steps on a ladder with true collection at the top.


You are repeating yourself, and still people seem to struggle with this simple explanation..


You know what is funny, in my dressage lessons you very very rarely hear my coach asking for more contact in the way that some here seem to think we ride...The big thing is a 'pushing hand' rather than a 'pulling hand' and to be honest I am struggling with this on a more forward horse...I have to work at not blocking the energy going forward, while still having enough contact to get her to soften and bend...

Going back to moments in time, all these pics are time stamped within 2 minutes....my horse, obviously not me riding, and the first time that he has ridden her. These were the last few from the session

Her kind of default setting, like this she is hard to ride, lacks focus and is likely to scoot and spook









But ask for any contact, then she went straight to this second default......someone had ridden her in draw reins trying to 'improve' her headset, with understanding what was really needed









Finally he managed to get her to this, and there we stopped, 









Not collected, that one is a long way off for us, but just stopping her inverting. She is a constant balancing act, and great fun to try and sort out


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs

bsms said:


> What I see is people who learned "dressage" as the basis of all riding, and who will not admit that millions of horses are well ridden without it. And while I have no problem with people riding dressage, they seem to have problems with people who do not...:icon_rolleyes:
> 
> "_Contact is not about holding the horse in a hard unforgiving hand_"
> 
> The question is not "What is contact?", but "Is it really needed all the time?" Lots of western riders experience the answer to be NO, it is not needed continuously to control the horse.


BSMS, I am of both camps and respect both. I did only one summer of English riding as a youngster and honestly, did not like it. At the time I found it to be NOT enjoyable and not useful to me. 

Fast forward thirty years, lots of riding, many horses I did not own but rode. Then a first horse who turned into a disaster because of lack of time and effort on my part. 

A short break from ownership and along comes this old guy who has western horses that dance and look like they enjoy it at least as much as their rider......and he starts explaining to me all about how to train them to do this; he talks of softness, lightness, free movement and creating willingness. I want to know more. 

It was dressage, with bosals and spurs, a cowboy hat, more than a splash of traditional Iberian training methods mixed with a subtle hint of Native American philosophies of the horse as more than flesh and blood. 

So here I am now, five years later and I find myself straddling the river with one foot on each side and water flowing underneath. Never completely in one world or the other but understanding, respecting and using both depending upon the horse, rider and the specific situation. Always pursuing more softness, more lightness, more freedom of movement and partnership. 

I respect what I have learned and have found it useful in my riding and my interactions with my horses. I think both Oliver and Caspian have benefited from it not to mention, it has challenged me to be a better rider with not only a deeper understanding of the horse, but also awareness of how my actions or INACTIONS can make or break a situation for my horse. 

I also respect those who just want to ride a horse who isn't going to try to kill them. I was there for many a year perfectly happy to run through some fields or even around some barrels or poles on occasion and go home in one piece. I very much get that. 

That does not negate the fact though, that there is and can be, more to riding than simply that and therefore I must also respect those who seek that higher refinement of the horse as they are more than likely the types responsible for having provided me with the opportunity to ride all those horses over the years that did not dump me in said field and leave me for dead. In essence they provided the foundation upon which I can stand now to go forward on my own journey of the horse. 

One of the reasons I really like Tom Dorrance is that the man appears to have had no ego. It was always about the horse. The horse told him when he was doing it right by softness, lightness and freedom of movement and more than anything...willing _cooperation_ to move and join with the rider, which more than anything else is my personal pursuit. Therefore I value his philosophies above others. But since Tom was not above using whatever worked for the individual horse, neither can I be. 

If Oliver finds benefit in dressage training, then so do I. But I would never know unless I was first willing to give it a try. If he can find benefit in contact then it is worth a shot. If collection will benefit him then I owe it to him to have the skills needed to take that path when he finds he needs it. If he likes to jump, then I should give him the tools he needs to do it safely. 

I will never be a world champion in any discipline, that ship sailed years ago. What I wish for all of my horses (some of whom may outlive me) is a purposeful life, full of fairness, good care and companionship and I am willing to do whatever I can to give him that opportunity.


----------



## Skyseternalangel

And looking at your profile pic, Golden, she's working much more balanced and happy!


----------



## jaydee

'Control does not come from the bit it comes from the cues'
So you train your horse to respond to various cues from the legs, seat, body, hands...............
And then what?
Write those cues down on scraps of paper and attach them to balloons and set them free?
Of course you don't, a cue on its own is worthless.
And in Europe riding in contact and using collection 'as and when appropriate' is NOT called dressage, its just called riding
And if even a Western horse doesn't understand contact and how to react correctly to pressure on the bit then its not going to be much of a horse because the moment pressure is put on its bit its going to not know how to deal with it - and that's when you see all the tie downs to keep a horse from head flipping and the shanked bits that are not being used a refinement by an experienced rider on a well trained horse but as a band-aid on a horse that's never been properly trained.
Just because you see someone riding on a loose rein don't assume their horse hasn't also been trained to ride in contact


----------



## Golden Horse

Skyseternalangel said:


> And looking at your profile pic, Golden, she's working much more balanced and happy!


Yes she is, thank you Sky, she understands now that there is a middle way, and that is working through, while I attempt to keep off her mouth, but still ride in contact. We bought her to work at First, but she is going in the ring next month for 2 walk trot, and one Training level, because until she will reliably soften and bend, there is no way that we can even think about collection.

At this level, although we are riding dressage, I don't really see it as dressage, it is the foundation of any career I think, a horse who can start to 'carry itself' who can bend on a 20m circle, who can take the reins right down and free walk, oh yes, and can stop square. Nothing to do with collection!


----------



## Smilie

Skyseternalangel said:


> And looking at your profile pic, Golden, she's working much more balanced and happy!


Agree, and why I first mentioned to Golden that fact, of this picture, that is now her Avatar,versus the original Avatar!
Great improvement in way of going!


----------



## Smilie

BSMS, I find it kinda ironic, that you now state, 'bits don't control horses', as that was my agreument the entire time w, when you insisted going to a curb with Mia, was the solution!


----------



## Smilie

BSMS, I find it kinda ironic, that you now state, 'bits don't control horses', as that was my argument the entire time w, when you insisted going to a curb with Mia, was the solution!
Yes, best case scenario, bits create through correct training, a conditioned response, but, as in other things,, like a horse not being a 'believer ', through incorrect training, that a simple lead shank and halter controls him, you went tot he next level of using what it took to prove that assumption wrong
I am not arguing any longer, as to whether that is not correct in some cases, but the fact that you used that approach, kinda negates your true belief that bits don't control horses.
Going to a curb for control, is a bandaid, and remains so in my books. If things aren't right in a snaffle, they won't be really right in a curb.

Also, being a kid's horse, depends much on the kids! Some kids can outride adults, hands down! A horse that still spooks and spins, many parents would not consider a kid's horse!
But, now, we are getting back onto the topics of bits, and that one went round and round also, so I will leave it by saying, if a horse has the correct training, he should be able to be ridden any time, going back to a snaffle, just riding out, however, I do concede that there are events, done at speed, with the adrenaline way up, where a curb has a place, used for control
Giving to a bit, aleg ect,are all conditioned responses to cues, that we then can put together to actually ride a horse effectively. The lightness with which those cues can be applied, to get the desired response, comes with a higher degree of training
If you can get a flying change, by merely touching your horse with the opposite leg from the lead he is on, versus trying to use speed and direction change-that is a higher refinement of training and conditioning to cues


----------



## tinyliny

bsms, do you really think riding can be distilled down to just these two , contrary theories? no middle ground. I think it "profits you" to do this, because it backs up your personal experience. I would hate to have to chooose between your two worlds of horsemanship, as I would want some of each , not to be forced to occupy only one side.


(quoted from bsms)

It seems to me there are two contradictory theories on how to ride a horse. 

Theory A says the horse is just muscle and bone, and the RIDER creates impulsion, then uses his/her body and arms and shoulders to "hold the horse together", "prevent the energy from spilling out the front" and to "control the horse".

Theory B says the horse is a reasonable and rational animal, a thinking and living being. The horse is TRAINED to give a response to cues, and either learns bad things happen when it fails to do so, or good things happen when he does. The horse holds himself together, and learns to move in the way his rider wishes. The horse can learn to be confident, and can learn to trust a rider's judgment. The horse can, in fact, learn enough self-control and responsibility to be a well-mannered horse with a total newbie - because the HORSE IS ALIVE.

I subscribe to B. It seems many subscribe to A. And I see little hope of convincing either side to switch


----------



## Bondre

jaydee said:


> 'Control does not come from the bit it comes from the cues'
> So you train your horse to respond to various cues from the legs, seat, body, hands...............
> And then what?
> Write those cues down on scraps of paper and attach them to balloons and set them free?
> Of course you don't, a cue on its own is worthless.
> And in Europe riding in contact and using collection 'as and when appropriate' is NOT called dressage, its just called riding
> And if even a Western horse doesn't understand contact and how to react correctly to pressure on the bit then its not going to be much of a horse because the moment pressure is put on its bit its g​oing to not know how to deal with it - and that's when you see all the tie downs to keep a horse from head flipping and the shanked bits that are not being used a refinement by an experienced rider on a well trained horse but as a band-aid on a horse that's never been properly trained.
> Just because you see someone riding on a loose rein don't assume their horse hasn't also been trained to ride in contact



Sorry, but this is just the most biased post I have read in this whole thread. 

If someone else had written his very same words no-one would have taken exception to them.

"Control doesn't come from the bit. It comes from the training to respond to cues..."

Just what's wrong with that concept??

It's quite clear that a bit on it's own doesn't control a horse. What use is your bit if your horse decides to back up spontaneously? Control is achived through a whole series of cues, given by the rider's hands, legs and seat, which have acquired meaning for the horse thanks to its training. We all know that horses don't come with a default set of cues, or know how to respond to a bit either, until they are taught what use of legs/contact/seat etc means; ie: _the training to respond to cues_.

And knowing that we all know this, I cannot for the life of me see what is wrong with bsms' statement, and why the need to ridicule it as "another profound statement", and coming from a super mod at that....

What happened to freedom of speech and thought?


----------



## Golden Horse

Interesting to see that quoted...

Now lets see, 

Theory A, well depends on the horse, on many horses yes you have to 'create impulsion' because otherwise you would sit there for a very long time, in fact the only horse that you don't have to create something is a very badly trained horse who wanders off when you get on..to be it is ridiculous to overlook the riders role in 'creating energy' and I'm not sure why this is an argument, the asks for movement, therefore creates that movement......as so often it is simply arguing semantics. 

'"Then uses body arms and shoulders to hold that together" well depends what is being asked, at times you are using all of that, sometimes just the merest touch of the fingers, a tightening of pressure on the rein not a pull. If however you are approaching a fence, darn right you will be harnessing and holding all together using every part of your body, but that, as most other "holding all together" are moments in time. I don't think that anyone rides like that 100% of the time. In fact it is a nonsense to suggest that they do, because any full on 'holding together' is always followed by letting the horse stretch down and relax everything out......

Now option B well yes horses are trained to give a response, to react to our request to use energy, that is universal, yes every horse SHOULD be learning to hold itself together, and this seems to be where the major breakdown comes, JUST BECAUSE A PERSON IS RIDING IN CONTACT THEY ARE NOT ALWAYS HOLDING THE HORSE TOGETHER....it is a subtle dance, one that a lot of people do not obviously appreciate, often because they have never tried it, and are working on assumptions..

It is totally ridiculous to split the world into camps like this, when the truth is most people exist in both in moments of time. 

It seems that no matter how often Jaydee (I think it was) posts pics of dressage riders tooddling down the lane on a loose rein, some people believe that dressage horses are always piaffing and passaging their way through life...

Smilie, help me out here, I occurs to me to ask, A well trained WP horse, can you take them out and have them keep up with a group ride, can you just let them down and let them walk on out, will they do so, or is it different for them?


----------



## churumbeque

bsms said:


> I guess my problem with this is that it does not reflect what I see daily with my horses, including what happened with Mia.
> 
> Control does not come from the bit. It comes from the training to respond to cues, and the horse learning that it is safer when it listens to you than when it does not. Mia, and now Bandit, were and are at their most "controlled" when I give them slack. If they loose it - because I've pushed them into a situation beyond their training - then I may need to BRIEFLY take aggressive action to LIMIT their options.
> 
> The best single piece of advice I got with Mia came (IIRC) from gottatrot, who suggested a curb bit might help me keep Mia in place because the design of the bit meant her favorite bit evasion would not work. Three arena sessions later, I rode her out. She tried to bolt, stopped, and found out the scary thing was not so scary after all. Her next attempt at a bolt came about 3 months later when she dragged her hind leg against a cactus. With a hundred spines in her rear leg, she "bolted"...for about 30 feet. Then I got her stopped, dismounted, and removed all the spines. We then continued our ride, and she never bolted again.
> 
> The second best advice I got with Mia was this story, told by Tom Roberts:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> As I applied that advice to Mia, Mia's nervousness went way down. There is a reason why, at her new home, she is considered "a kid's horse". By the time Mia left last May, her biggest problem was me, and my memories of when things had not gone well. It has taken 9 months of riding with Bandit for me to realize how much inner tension I had while riding.
> 
> For her part, she needed a place where she could go run hard. She has now tried racing other horses for 4 miles, unlike here where there is not place to canter over 1/4 mile without damaging the horses' feet. She was integrated into a real herd by a stallion, and roamed with a herd loose on many square miles of land, instead of living in a corral.
> 
> But your analysis: "_the lack of proper contact was your problem with Mia_" is 180 out from what actually made her better. She did not need MORE contact, or CONTINUOUS contact, but *less contact and more trust*. And I know that was the answer because that is what worked. It is hard to argue with results.
> 
> Mia, then and now, will also sometimes jump sideways or do a 360 degree very hard spin, starting relaxed and then completely relaxed afterward. A horse who "spooks", then stops and looks back at her rider with puzzlement and no tension, may have a few wires not connected in her brain. In the open country where she now lives, the KIDS can laugh at that. When you ride next to 7' tall cholla cactus, as I do regularly, it is a bit more disconcerting.
> 
> Bandit has some big issue with how he moves, related to having raced with a very heavy rider and having been shod poorly. His feet are much better and he twists his front left leg less often, but learning how to move naturally instead of unnaturally will take a lot of time.
> 
> But contact is NOT the answer for him. His previous owner told me to just push him past things - just "make him go" - but that left a horse who was submissive but nervous. My approach was (and is) to let him tell me when he is scared, and then take the time to show him he had no reason to be scared - to include going past most "scary things" on a loose rein. The result is not a spookier horse, but a much more confident horse. He increasingly checks in with me, not because he is worried I'll whip him, but because I've been right a bunch of times in the past and he wants to know MY opinion - ie, TRUST.
> 
> Unlike a driver, I have my legs and seat to communicate. I also have my own horse, and am TRAINING him, using Tom Robert's rules of training:
> 
> *"This will profit you. This will profit you not."
> * *
> "Quiet Persistence"
> *​*
> And since I am VERY happy with what I am seeing, I'll continue.*
> 
> It seems to me there are two contradictory theories on how to ride a horse.
> 
> Theory A says the horse is just muscle and bone, and the RIDER creates impulsion, then uses his/her body and arms and shoulders to "hold the horse together", "prevent the energy from spilling out the front" and to "control the horse".
> 
> Theory B says the horse is a reasonable and rational animal, a thinking and living being. The horse is TRAINED to give a response to cues, and either learns bad things happen when it fails to do so, or good things happen when he does. The horse holds himself together, and learns to move in the way his rider wishes. The horse can learn to be confident, and can learn to trust a rider's judgment. The horse can, in fact, learn enough self-control and responsibility to be a well-mannered horse with a total newbie - because the HORSE IS ALIVE.
> 
> I subscribe to B. It seems many subscribe to A. And I see little hope of convincing either side to switch.
> 
> BTW - "You never seemed willing to look at another point of view."
> 
> If that were true, I'd still be riding bitless. I'd still be trying to dominate the horse. I would not be posting studies on how a horse moves because I would have known it all along.
> 
> What I see is people who learned "dressage" as the basis of all riding, and who will not admit that millions of horses are well ridden without it. And while I have no problem with people riding dressage, they seem to have problems with people who do not...:icon_rolleyes:
> 
> "_Contact is not about holding the horse in a hard unforgiving hand_"
> 
> The question is not "What is contact?", but "Is it really needed all the time?" Lots of western riders experience the answer to be NO, it is not needed continuously to control the horse.


With what you describe it never sounded like it was working. You got rid of the horse because it wasn't working. You have a reason for why you have so many things that are not working. just my take on what little I remember.


----------



## Golden Horse

Bondre said:


> What happened to freedom of speech and thought?


Nothing and Jaydee is entitled to her opinion as much as another person, she has consistently tried, and I think she has done a great job, of explaining her point of view here, but I feel her frustration as well.......


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs

Well, hopefully we can all keep our frustrations in check and have a productive discussion.


----------



## Smilie

Golden Horse said:


> Interesting to see that quoted...
> 
> Now lets see,
> 
> Theory A, well depends on the horse, on many horses yes you have to 'create impulsion' because otherwise you would sit there for a very long time, in fact the only horse that you don't have to create something is a very badly trained horse who wanders off when you get on..to be it is ridiculous to overlook the riders role in 'creating energy' and I'm not sure why this is an argument, the asks for movement, therefore creates that movement......as so often it is simply arguing semantics.
> 
> '"Then uses body arms and shoulders to hold that together" well depends what is being asked, at times you are using all of that, sometimes just the merest touch of the fingers, a tightening of pressure on the rein not a pull. If however you are approaching a fence, darn right you will be harnessing and holding all together using every part of your body, but that, as most other "holding all together" are moments in time. I don't think that anyone rides like that 100% of the time. In fact it is a nonsense to suggest that they do, because any full on 'holding together' is always followed by letting the horse stretch down and relax everything out......
> 
> Now option B well yes horses are trained to give a response, to react to our request to use energy, that is universal, yes every horse SHOULD be learning to hold itself together, and this seems to be where the major breakdown comes, JUST BECAUSE A PERSON IS RIDING IN CONTACT THEY ARE NOT ALWAYS HOLDING THE HORSE TOGETHER....it is a subtle dance, one that a lot of people do not obviously appreciate, often because they have never tried it, and are working on assumptions..
> 
> It is totally ridiculous to split the world into camps like this, when the truth is most people exist in both in moments of time.
> 
> It seems that no matter how often Jaydee (I think it was) posts pics of dressage riders tooddling down the lane on a loose rein, some people believe that dressage horses are always piaffing and passaging their way through life...
> 
> Smilie, help me out here, I occurs to me to ask, A well trained WP horse, can you take them out and have them keep up with a group ride, can you just let them down and let them walk on out, will they do so, or is it different for them?


Well, Golden, you might recall how often I tried to explain that show ring expectations of western pl have nothing to do with how that horse moves out either at liberty or riding down the road
Goodness knows, how often I have posted pictures of riding my show horses that I show in western pl,out on trails, just like any other horse
They know the cues , and have no problem understanding when they are asked to move like a pleasure horse, and when they just ride out like any other horse
Doesn't seem to get through, because I don't know how many times I heard remarks, even after explaining this fact, 'how can you ever get anywhere , on a western pl horse. Easy, as mine keep up very well even to gaited horses, they are not stupid and neither locked into that show ring way of going expectations
BSMS, while I'm all with you, far as bits not really controlling a horse, having afterall, posted to your many threads concerning Mia, when you went to a curb, that bits don't control a horse, that a horse can learn to run through any bit, soon as their pain threshold gets amped up, I find it kinda interesting that now you are coming back with the same words I formerly used in my arguments with you, far as going to a curb for control!
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a horse learning to move both with contact and without it-in fact, it makes a more versatile horse
As before, you don't need collection on a horse you don't intend to show, but every horse needs body control and a soft response to a bit
I like my horsey feet a bit in both worlds, able to go from one to the other and also anywhere inbetween!


----------



## jaydee

OK - So if the bit isn't there for any reason that would also mean that a hackamore isn't there for any reason so why do we even have a bridle on the horse?
Forgive me for getting more than a little frustrated but several of us have posted the same thing over and over again to try to help others understand why we feel that a horse needs to learn to accept contact in the right way to avoid becoming inverted and in response we get arguments that are purely semantic or hard to comprehend
Here is the accepted English method for asking a horse to halt - a series of cues ending with a light resistant hand - which is accomplished by putting light pressure on the bit as the horse steps into it. 
So you have a cue - pressure on the bit - but its the bit (or hackamore) that gives the control, if you remove the bit you remove the control


----------



## gottatrot

jaydee said:


> OK - So if the bit isn't there for any reason that would also mean that a hackamore isn't there for any reason so why do we even have a bridle on the horse?
> Forgive me for getting more than a little frustrated but several of us have posted the same thing over and over again to try to help others understand why we feel that a horse needs to learn to accept contact in the right way *to avoid becoming inverted* and in response we get arguments that are purely semantic or hard to comprehend


Well, I think this is going around in circles a bit now myself since no one said the bit wasn't there for any reason. The bit is there for cueing, but doesn't have to be there to create support for the horse's movement or to create a rounded back. And "to avoid becoming inverted," that was the original question about if that was a critical part of riding at all, and the meaning of that word. You believe this is a goal for riding, and that is an opinion you have every right to. 
Some WP horses can move out on the trail, some can't depending on their anatomy. It's not all about training, it's also about the horse's physical capabilities. I was once stuck behind one on a narrow trail and we were moving at about two miles per hour, which was apparently the horse's top speed at the walk according to the rider. This horse was shown WP, but the musculature was similar to the Impressive halter horses, rather inflexible. Possibly those muscles would have allowed the horse a quick sprint, but he could not cover ground at the walk or jog. 
I don't think anyone should get frustrated if others don't share their opinion, it's nice to hear your explanations but just because it makes sense to you it doesn't mean other ways of thinking are implausible.
I'm not offended that most have the bias of a trail ride as horses and riders relaxing, "let down," and not working properly. In our world nowadays the arena is a "let down" and relaxing day and the trail is where the horses learn to work, use their bodies gymnastically and face obstacles and technical problems. The horses learn quickly to pay attention; coming up on this they need to quickly respond as you decide: stay left and jump the log, flying lead change to the right, or quick transition to the trot for two strides around the log and then canter again, etc. Do that thirty times in a day and your horse will be responsive.








Thanks everyone, for contributing to the thread. Perhaps it has run its course?


----------



## bsms

Smilie said:


> BSMS, I find it kinda ironic, that you now state, 'bits don't control horses', as that was my agreument the entire time w, when you insisted going to a curb with Mia, was the solution!...posted to your many threads concerning Mia, when you went to a curb, that bits don't control a horse, that a horse can learn to run through any bit, soon as their pain threshold gets amped up, I find it kinda interesting that now you are coming back with the same words I formerly used in my arguments with you, far as going to a curb for control!


Maybe you needed to think about it a bit more. My point, as I've said to you before, is that bits often start out as a means of control, which then allows us to train the horse so they can become communication.

And the curb bit helped, not because of leverage, but because a horse cannot get self-release. It prevents a particular bit evasion - one which Mia learned because she had no interest in "constant contact".

And no, you never posted anything to me prior to my trading Mia for Bandit. I did not EVER use a curb bit to control via pain. And I have repeatedly argued that curb bits do NOT control via pain. Period. A twisted wire snaffle controls via pain, but a curb's advantage is that it ROTATES instead of SLIDES linearly. Someone who doesn't understand the concept of a rotating curb bit - and Smilie, for the record, I know you DO understand the concept - thinks curb = pain. Happily, gottatrot gave me some outstanding advice years ago, and she may have saved Mia from the auction block!

"_With what you describe it never sounded like it was working. You got rid of the horse because it wasn't working. You have a reason for why you have so many things that are not working. just my take on what little I remember._" 

Actually, it worked quite well. But Mia could NEVER run flat out here. The Sonoran Desert, particularly in the foothills, never allows a horse to safely run flat out. She also did and still does sometimes jumps sideways. And then seems puzzled - calm, but puzzled. In the open terrain of the Navajo reservation, that is fine. If one often rides between cholla cactus, it is a bit disconcerting.








​ 
Ride between those with a horse who sometimes jumps sideways, and maybe even the expert riders on HF might feel some tension.

But the KEY to getting her calmer was two-fold:

1 - Teach her that running away was not an option. And

2 - Teaching her to go past scary things on a slack rein, per Tom Roberts.

Those same principles, applied as a fresh start with Bandit, are getting me results I really like. NOT constant contact, and sure as heck not being afraid my horse will rip the reins out of my fingers (YGBSM!). It takes mutual trust.

Harry Whitney said:

"*Hanging between those reins is a thought...it is not too hard to send or lead or direct a thought*." ("A Horse's Thought" by Tom Moates)

At the risk of turning into Zen Rider, his statement - one I originally poo-poohed - has come to make sense. But one does not need ones shoulders and elbows to lead or direct a thought if the thought is between your reins. However, one DOES need elbows or shoulders if one believes the horse has no thought to direct...:think:


----------



## Smilie

gottatrot said:


> Well, I think this is going around in circles a bit now myself since no one said the bit wasn't there for any reason. The bit is there for cueing, but doesn't have to be there to create support for the horse's movement or to create a rounded back. And "to avoid becoming inverted," that was the original question about if that was a critical part of riding at all, and the meaning of that word. You believe this is a goal for riding, and that is an opinion you have every right to.
> Some WP horses can move out on the trail, some can't depending on their anatomy. It's not all about training, it's also about the horse's physical capabilities. I was once stuck behind one on a narrow trail and we were moving at about two miles per hour, which was apparently the horse's top speed at the walk according to the rider. This horse was shown WP, but the musculature was similar to the Impressive halter horses, rather inflexible. Possibly those muscles would have allowed the horse a quick sprint, but he could not cover ground at the walk or jog.
> I don't think anyone should get frustrated if others don't share their opinion, it's nice to hear your explanations but just because it makes sense to you it doesn't mean other ways of thinking are implausible.
> I'm not offended that most have the bias of a trail ride as horses and riders relaxing, "let down," and not working properly. In our world nowadays the arena is a "let down" and relaxing day and the trail is where the horses learn to work, use their bodies gymnastically and face obstacles and technical problems. The horses learn quickly to pay attention; coming up on this they need to quickly respond as you decide: stay left and jump the log, flying lead change to the right, or quick transition to the trot for two strides around the log and then canter again, etc. Do that thirty times in a day and your horse will be responsive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks everyone, for contributing to the thread. Perhaps it has run its course?


Well, the entire thread got 'expanded', where for some reason .collection in it;s various forms , became part of the topic-thus collection using contact, versus collection using just seat and legs
Many posts ago, I already posted that inverted, has nothing to do whether you ride collected (correctly) or on a loose rein, moving 'naturally.
Inverted, is man made, by incorrect riding and training. It includes a horse that has never been taught to give to a bit correctly, and resists by sticking head up, locking jaw, stiff neck, and by a rider that rides with strong contact , using way more hands then legs-the opposite of what you want
So, if the topic went sideways, look at some of the posts and tangents, that yes, have nothing to do with the original subject
Gotta trot, allow me to know abit more about horses bred to be western pl horses then you. Just because a horse is shown in western pl, does not amke him one that is actually bred to be one!
The very fact that you say the horse in your example, looked halter bred, might very well be true. Many people tried to show halter horses in western pl, plus many bred western pl horses to a halter horse, to try and get a'pretty western pl horse, and got neither
Read some training programs, like that of Doug Carpenter. Western pl training includes long trotting and counter cantering to build strength 
In fact, it is way easier to move a horse out, then to slow one down, and one spends a lot of time, teaching western pl horse to rate speed , so they don;t tend to 'motor', soon as given loose rein
I really gotta ask how many western pl horses you have trail ridden with, who they were trained by, how they were bred, and what show success they had.
I could say something stupid like I have ridden with many games horses and OTTBs, and they were all idiots on trail rides, but that is also not true, and depends on mind and training


----------



## Golden Horse

Smilie said:


> Well, Golden, you might recall how often I tried to explain that show ring expectations of western pl have nothing to do with how that horse moves out either at liberty or riding down the road
> Goodness knows, how often I have posted pictures of riding my show horses that I show in western pl,out on trails, just like any other horse
> They know the cues , and have no problem understanding when they are asked to move like a pleasure horse, and when they just ride out like any other horse
> Doesn't seem to get through, because I don't know how many times I heard remarks, even after explaining this fact, 'how can you ever get anywhere , on a western pl horse. Easy, as mine keep up very well even to gaited horses, they are not stupid and neither locked into that show ring way of going expectations
> !


 Sorry I missed it, and realize that I am as guilty of 'assuming' that maybe WP can't trail ride, as others believe that dressage horses only go in collection their whole life. Thank you for opening my eyes, this thread has made me realize that much...


----------



## Smilie

BSMS, we have been round and round snaffle versus curb.
No, correctly used, a curb certainly does not cause pain, nor is it used for control, but rather for finesse, on a horse, that learned all the basics in a snaffle, all the maneuvers he will ever need to know, working in that curb, and then he 'graduates' to that curb
Going to a curb for 'control' means the horse has holes in basic training. 
Yes, yes, any bit's severity is based on the hands on the reins, but fact remains, when those same hands are on a snaffle versus a curb, any rein pressure in the curb is multiplied. 
I think I also gave you a link, based on trail riding, where it is bluntly stated, whether you believe it or not, draw countless diagrams, that if your horse can't be ridden in a snaffle, he needs more training, and not a 'bigger bit'
It also states that at times, you compromise, having a trail horse 'safer for kids or amateurs, and thus go to a curb for that reason.
It is a compromise that can have justification, but never deceive your self that it is NOT a compromise
I love curbs, and have many different ones, but I always had a horse going correctly in a snaffle first, then "graduated' that horse to a curb


----------



## jaydee

gottatrot said:


> Well, I think this is going around in circles a bit now myself since no one said the bit wasn't there for any reason. The bit is there for cueing, but doesn't have to be there to create support for the horse's movement or to create a rounded back. And "to avoid becoming inverted," that was the original question about if that was a critical part of riding at all, and the meaning of that word. You believe this is a goal for riding, and that is an opinion you have every right to.
> 
> it doesn't mean other ways of thinking are implausible.
> I'm not offended that most have the bias of a trail ride as horses and riders relaxing, "let down," and not working properly.


1. Most of my riding and even schooling is done out hacking or on trails because horses are less bored doing it that way and when on trails they are allowed to relax and ride on a loose rein when the situation allows for that
2. I am not a 'dressage rider' Other than having to do a dressage test as part of one day eventing its never been my competing discipline, in fact my main loves were hunting and gymkhana. I'm just someone who knows that basic dressage training improves my horses


----------



## bsms

This is why I do not believe "experienced riders" just because of their experience:

"_Going to a curb for 'control' means the horse has holes in basic training. 
Yes, yes, any bit's severity is based on the hands on the reins, but fact remains, when those same hands are on a snaffle versus a curb, any rein pressure in the curb is multiplied. 
I think I also gave you a link, based on trail riding, where it is bluntly stated, whether you believe it or not, draw countless diagrams, that if your horse can't be ridden in a snaffle, he needs more training, and not a 'bigger bit'_"

I went to a curb with Mia because she had a holes - holes that had developed with a snaffle. BUT those holes disappeared and disappeared FAST when she was switched to a curb. Hmmm....if a horse has a problem with piece of tack A, and piece of tack B results in the problem going away, then why is it wrong to use tack B to fix the problem with A? 

She went from a horse who bolted a LOT, to a horse who stopped bolting, in 3 rides in an arena followed by 1 ride in the real world. Most people would think, "That's great!" But experienced riders are never happy for me or for Mia, and instead tell me I was wrong.

Indeed, almost every experienced rider tells me "_concerning Mia, when you went to a curb, that bits don't control a horse, that a horse can learn to run through any bit, soon as their pain threshold gets amped up_" - and they tell me that AFTER I watched it not happen! It is as though they expect me to believe them instead of what happened.

It was that incident that taught me that experienced riders can be both very insistent and utterly wrong.

"_when those same hands are on a snaffle versus a curb, any rein pressure in the curb is multiplied_"

True, yet irrelevant. Why? One, a curb bit requires a larger hand motion just to engage the curb - several inches of motion just to rotate the bit enough for it to start putting pressure in the horse's mouth. Yet if one rides a snaffle with contact, there is ALWAYS pressure in the mouth, and very uneven pressure: 








​ 
Look at what was measured using an experienced dressage rider. The normal pressure in the mouth of the horse, with the rider using 'light & even' contact varied between 1-6 lbs of pressure in continuous spikes, so the half-halt needed 8 lbs to get a reaction! The slack position, BTW, registered about 1 lb of pressure.

If Mia preferred a western curb to a snaffle - and she did - might one guess that she liked holding the bit stable in her mouth more than she did the constant spikes? If an experienced dressage rider gets continuous spikes of 1-6 lbs, what did an inexperienced rider like myself provide? Is it not possible that a nervous horse would be made more nervous by a noisy snaffle (and how else does one describe that) than a quiet curb?

The picture below may be a better way to calm a nervous horse than the graph above:








​ 
Leverage becomes irrelevant when you try to ride without ever taking the slack all the way out of the reins. And when you've watched your horse stop in her tracks at the start of a fear-bolt, in one stride, with the curb, then the nervous RIDER can be less nervous. Indeed, based on how it worked out, in what real sense - to the HORSE - is a western curb a "bigger bit"? Because from what I've seen, the HORSE cares more about what happens (or does not happen) in its mouth than what the people watching THINK is happening!

This is relevant to a discussion on "round vs inverted" because a great many experienced riders, and a great many experts, talk about the horse rounding its back - WITHOUT NOTICING THAT IT NEVER HAPPENS!

When I first thought about it, I "remembered" bucking horses rounding their backs. But then I went and looked at what happened:








​ 
No sag in that back, but not much rounding up either - and that horse is rounding up to the maximum it can! And then I saw the studies showing the maximum deflection in the spine when supported at either end and shoved up and down as far as the bone would allow was 2.5". And then there was this:"When I had the chance to talk with Dr. Hilary Clayton in January 2009 and asked her about how a horse's back shape changes under weight, her answer was a very quick and sure "It sags". So the idea of a horse "rounding up under the saddle" doesn't even seem to be a question in the minds of people who actually study biomechanics."

Yup, riding a horse does make his back extend...​Yet experienced riders say not only that it happens, but many say all horses need to be ridden in a way that rounds them - that it makes a better balanced and more responsive horse. Ask for evidence, and all one gets is "If YOUR butt had been on a horse as long as MY butt has..." - and no attempt to deal with what we've learned from science. OR what I've seen when riding my own horses.

On the negative side, an emphasis on "rounding" results in a rejection of natural movement or head carriage. A picture of a horse enjoying itself is bad movement, and would leave the horse uncontrolled. I'm told the rider needs to "hold the horse together" - as if horses have been exploding in pastures for centuries! I'm told the rider needs to prevent the energy from "falling out the front" - as if horses do not know how to prevent that on their own, without help from humans. I'm told the bit is critical to collection, that the Germans have a word for the horse "bouncing off the bit", so the energy will flow into the riders supple shoulders, thru her (or his) butt and be recycled by the horse - yet horses have collected themselves without riders or bits for thousands of years.

Later today, getting ready for work, I'll drag a razor blade across my face. My preferred double edge razor is considered a very aggressive one. Most describe it as being the closest thing to a straight razor as you can get in a safety razor. I realize many here never shave their face. But when you scrape a razor blade across your face, you hold the razor in your fingertips. Not your fists. Not your elbows. Not your "supple shoulders"! *You hold it as lightly in your fingertips as you can, because you would turn into a bloody piece of hamburger if you shaved your face with your fists, elbows and shoulders!* That is off-topic, yet relevant to anyone who is serious about riding with "lightness". If you need supple shoulders to hold your horse together, in what sense is that light? Why is it wrong to be as protective of the horse's mouth as I am of my face?

This will be my final post on this thread. *That will cheer some folks up!* But I think the evidence has been presented. Folks will have to decide for themselves.


----------



## churumbeque

It is not true that a curb requires more hand movement to engage vs a snaffle. That would depend on the chin strap/chain, length of the curb and port. A snaffle the chin strap does nothing. With a curb it can cause pressure quickly if tightened up. Pressure on the chin, tongue and bars of the mouth. length of cheek piece would also make a huge difference. This is pretty basic knowledge.
I think you are also kid informed about the amount of pressure. When I half halt it is maybe a few more ounces of pressure at most, not 2 pounds. At know time would I ever be using near the 6 pounds of pressure. No wonder you think contact is bad. You can have contact with very little pressure. If you have use so much pressure in the past I am sure that caused you many problems.


----------



## jaydee

I doubt very much that 8lb of pressure would have been used on a dressage horse especially if in a double bridle because that would bring a horse to a standstill but the half halt isn't actually anything to do with halting at all - its about focus, balance and the shortening of 1 stride *without* loss of impulsion so its all over in a matter of seconds


----------



## Sahara

bsms said:


> I went to a curb with Mia because she had a holes - holes that had developed with a snaffle. BUT those holes disappeared and disappeared FAST when she was switched to a curb. Hmmm....if a horse has a problem with piece of tack A, and piece of tack B results in the problem going away, then why is it wrong to use tack B to fix the problem with A?
> 
> .


 Just to clarify, the snaffle didn't cause Mia to bolt, but she was able to get away with it. The curb stopped her from bolting which is all well and good, better to be safe then sorry. But did the curb get rid of the reason as to why she needed to bolt in the first place? To me, it doesn't matter if you "fixed" a problem with tack. The problem is still there, it just isn't manifesting under the current conditions. Ideally, you should be able to train her to not bolt in which it wouldn't matter what you had in her mouth. I believe that is what people are referring to when they say she has holes. If you don't mind the holes then good for you.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs

I like Sahara's point, but would add that often people who might object going to a stronger bit to cover up holes in training or rider skill will also argue against the safety of riding out in a halter or bitless. I would be interested in hearing the logic behind that.


----------



## Smilie

churumbeque said:


> It is not true that a curb requires more hand movement to engage vs a snaffle. That would depend on the chin strap/chain, length of the curb and port. A snaffle the chin strap does nothing. With a curb it can cause pressure quickly if tightened up. Pressure on the chin, tongue and bars of the mouth. length of cheek piece would also make a huge difference. This is pretty basic knowledge.
> I think you are also kid informed about the amount of pressure. When I half halt it is maybe a few more ounces of pressure at most, not 2 pounds. At know time would I ever be using near the 6 pounds of pressure. No wonder you think contact is bad. You can have contact with very little pressure. If you have use so much pressure in the past I am sure that caused you many problems.


I don't know who this is addressed to, but yes, a curb adds finesse, as any signal is amplified, and the amount of signal time depends on several factors, including, but not limited to shank length, ratio of purchase to total shank length, adjustment of curb strap., angle of shanks, loose jawed or fixed.

A snaffle, used correctly, is recognized as the foundation in any good western training program, with that horse expected to know everything he will perform in a curb, in that snaffle first. One then goes on to a curb, because the horse is ready to be ridden one handed, on a loose rein, off of seat and legs mainly. That is accepted facts.
The curb, allows more finesse, lighter rein cues, able to be ridden one handed, as traditionally, that was expected of a western horse, when he was declared to be 'a bridle horse', leaving one hand free to rope, ect
It ideally is never gone to, because the horse runs through a snaffle, leaned to evade a snaffle etc
There are two main expectations, far as a trained western horse, regarding bits

- one, even after he is up in a curb, he can easily be ridden in a snaffle

- he is expected, by age 6 (show rules, or as a 'finished horse, to be aBLE TO BE RIDDEN ONE HANDED INA BIT DESIGNED TO BE USED THAT WAY-A CURB

Now, because of holes, serious problems that can't be completely un done, to to past bad training in a snaffle, making the horse 'safer' for a child, that horse is put in a curb, BUT that is not because a snaffle, used correctly, on a horse trained correctly, is a poor bit choice. Thousands upon thousands of well trained western horses are proof that this is not so
I can go back and ride any of my horses, up in a curb, using a snaffle
I am not judging anyone that "NEEDS' to go to a curb, to get their horse 'useable/safer, just don't try and convince me of facts, concerning a snaffle, it;s' place in a good training program, and the 'ideal reason for going to a curb


----------



## Smilie

Amen! to Sahera
Maybe that message will get through, where I have been unable to, but I have my doubts, having responded numerous times on this subject and Mia!


----------



## Smilie

Amen! to Sahara
Maybe that message will get through, where I have been unable to, but I have my doubts, having responded numerous times on this subject and Mia!


----------



## Smilie

Reiningcatsanddogs said:


> I like Sahara's point, but would add that often people who might object going to a stronger bit to cover up holes in training or rider skill will also argue against the safety of riding out in a halter or bitless. I would be interested in hearing the logic behind that.



To answer your question.
No, I have no problem with someone riding bittless, if that worked for them, with few caveats

All bittless isn't lumped into the same group, with mechanical hackamores not recognized for what they are

The reason for going bittless is not because the horse is said to not ;like bits;, have too sensitive a mouth, when in fact he was never given a chance, being bitted correctly, learning new pressure points

By just following the mindset that traditional saddles are evil, bits are evil, , ect, and without fully understanding principles involved, but following an NH mindset cult

I often used a bosal on my jr horses , used to start them in a sidepull ect
I prefer a snaffle to teach those basics, as I can get more done, far as creating finesse, and lightness, and admit to being more proficient training with one
I can also easily then ride a horse , started in a snaffle, in a bosal, but the reverse is not true.

If a horse can be ridden bittless-great, but If I hear he HAS to be ridden bittless, unless he has some mouth injury, past bad experience, ect, I consider that horse to have holes in training
A well trained horse should be able to be ridden bittless, but the reverse is also true. A well trained horse, ridden bittless, should also ride in abit


----------



## jaydee

Re. Sahara's point
There are many times when using a different bit or some gadget as part of a re-training process that breaks the cycle of habit or helps solve the 'horse does it because it can' situation as a sort of Band-Aid while you work on the real problem but mostly these things shouldn't be seen as the permanent solution but part of a bigger one that sometimes involves going right back to basics or addressing rider errors/ineffective riding
One UK Hunt Master has written on their website something like
'If you can't hold your horse then put it in a stronger bit that you can hold it in rather than running into the back of other horses'
I usually find that once a horse has figured it can run through one bit it will soon figure it can run through another one 
Its not uncommon to see horses compete or hunt in a stronger bit than the one they're hacked out in so they never get to figure out they can get away from the rider
When we went to try K prior to buying I could barely stop her in the thin twisted snaffle they had switched her too when the brakes were failing in a normal French link - huge leap from mild to severe, poor horse just did all she could think of to avoid the discomfort and went inverted on them. That drastic change of bit cost the sellers over $30K because it all but ruined a good horse. After a lot of schooling and hacking in an English Stubben hackamore and then a comfortable bit she's finally getting back to where she should be.


----------



## Smilie

Hi Jaydee

I think most of us are saying the same thing, far as 'ideal' and a fix, that the fix might be needed in a particular situation, with the 'fix' not really addressing the true problem, but at times, the choice made, when between a 'rock and a hard place'


----------



## thecolorcoal

I know this is an old thread but I couldn't help but make some observations.

Tinyliny and other mods, i hope this is not breaching of the TOC on HF.

What I am seeing, as I read, is we seem to be unable to step outside our realm of experience into another. bsms and his horses, gottatrot and her trail experience (and possible bad dressage experience), jaydee and her hunting and eventing experience, and smilie and her western riding and showing experience.

No one wants to believe how they ride harms their horse. That is a given. Anyone is going to defend themselves against the criticism that what they may be doing may in fact be damaging. There is NO right answer because no one will step into the middle of this circle and say "i ride inverted and it caused my horse to have a sore back. I admit I do not know how to ride with contact, so this is the best I can do." No one has to say that either, none of us will know if this is true. Likewise, on the other side, no one is going to outright admit and say "i trained with rollkur/contact/whatever you want to call it, and because of that my horse now has irreparable damage."

SOME horse can be ridden without "proper riding" (iN QUOTES FOR A REASON) without ANY lasting damage. NO HORSE, *RIDDEN CORRECTLY WITH CLASSICAL PRINCIPALS USED AT THEIR FULLEST*, is going to be harmed. Note i say CLASSICAL, not MODERN. Many of us dressage riders are trained in the MODERN style of riding. I was originally, but I moved to Classical and now I ride more Modern, but AWARENESS THAT IT IS MODERN is what has kept me from drinking the koolaid.

Have you all heard of the spanish riding school? How about Baucher (personally don't like)? Xenophon? 

There is a HUGE, HUGE, HUGE!!! divide between classical and what is now being referred to as "modern" or competitive dressage. Classical dressage is for EVERY horse. Modern dressage is for THE PERFECT HORSE. 

It is apples and oranges. People will vehemently disagree with me, but classical dressage comes from the Iberian school and modern dressage comes from the german school.

THESE THOUGHTS DEVELOPED BECAUSE OF THE HORSES THEY HAD.

If you have a hot arab, like Halla, the german school will NOT be helpful because it was designed for a slow, less reactive horse. Likewise, If you rode an oldenburg, the LIGHTNESS BEFORE IMPULSION school of thought will NOT be beneficial, because lightness requires a certain innate impulsion, and for an oldenburg with german bloodlines, that will have to be TRAINED into them as it is not innate, the way it is for an Andalusian or lustiano. For a slow horse with little go in their step (bsms I don't know your horse very well, but let's pick on cowboy), impulsion created by legs/cues/whatever you want to call it, is first and foremost, and lightness comes AFTER a forward is established.

The dressage pushed on this thread, from what I am reading and what I know about it (I know quite a bit, like Bsms i am a reader and I am very critical of "modern" dressage) can be categorized, if that is what we are doing, as the german school. The dressage bsms and gottatrot want to promote, particularly, I would file under the classical iberian school. They are preaching for lightness first (they are using lack of contact to describe this) before impulsion. THIS IS NOT WRONG. It is simply a DIFFERENT order of operation.

I like that no one is getting personal or striking out at people due to a different understanding. At the same time, I think what is going unsaid in this thread is that no one wants to say they are doing _harm to their horse_, or even fathom the possibility that they are! Everyone loves their horses, no one in this thread would ever, EVER do anything that could hurt them, and if they found out somewhere somehow down the line that their style of riding was hindering rather than helping, i am CERTAIN they would hup-to in a second.

This is what happened to me. It took a sprained ankle and a concussion to realize my style of riding was hindering my horse. But that is _my realm of experience_, and not every horse will TELL you they are in pain. But I believe that if it was *bad enough* to warrant a riding facelift, they would.

So, to summarize, I think gottatrot and bsms are arguing that sure, maybe they are not "classically correct" but their horses are no worse for wear? Do they need to ride "CORRECTLY" just because? Maybe their horses are benefiting in a different way?

Though, I must say, I do wish minds could be a bit more open in this thread on all sides. If we could be sponges and take in what everyone is saying, there would be less head banging. No one is accusing anyone of harming their horses: not the dressage riders and not the recreational or trail riders. I'm not implying this is happening, I am just noting what I see.

Myself, I admit to agreeing primarily with jaydee, but I see some of Gottatrot's points and I do understand what BSMS is saying when he talks about "trust > connection." yes, horses who are ridden in strong connections tend to have riders who do not fully trust them. I ride my horse in connection, NOT COLLECTION, out on the trail and I will full well admit I do not trust her yet on a loose rein. I envy those who can travel without connection - NOT COLLECTION - on the trail, as I hope to do someday.

classical dressage/iberian/french:









modern dressage/german/dutch:


----------



## thecolorcoal

In fact, I had a friend who was a western rider who always got her "connection" and "collection" confused. she assumed collection MEANT connection, full stop. Connection IS NOT collection. Collection is DELIBERATELY ASKED FOR, connection is just the result of steady, sympathetic hands and contact with the bit.

These are concepts you must "see to believe," in this case "feel to believe," as if you've never felt/experienced this style of riding, no book in the world is going to replicate the experience.

This cannot be quantified in numbers, calculated, assessed, tracked, graphed. It is like God. You cannot put God in a box and say you know God, because once you think you know everything you learn you know nothing. Off topic, but religious people (MOSTLY) have EXPERIENCED God. You cannot get an Atheist to share that experience with you, they simply do not understand and cannot comprehend. So is the experience of riding a collected horse in contact. It cannot be found in a book, but on the back of a horse.


----------



## Smilie

Disappearing posts again????/
Thus, to try and summarize as to what I had already posted-there is a huge difference between going down a trail in a relaxed /natural frame, and an inverted frame, or collected for that matter.

There are also many ways of riding horses, for the jobs they are expected to do, and believe it or not, not all require dressage as a basic training, although they need to be broke, move collected when asked, light to leg aids,. All horses need body control, .
I read a lot of horse info also, from all disciplines and even some from old masters, but I don't dwell on old masters, set their methods up like some Holy Grail of training, and think that training has either just stood still since then, or regressed
You also have to take someone like Xenophon in context of his days. Yes, he was enlighten, far as horsemanship, for his Era! He still advocated two bits should be used on ahrose, the first one to make him ;obedient' He was talking of a Hedgehog ( a bit with prongs that dug into the outside of a horse's face.)
Even his 'smooth bit', was not that smooth.
Now lets take classic dressage-yes, nice to watch upper level training, but it's basis was for function of those days-to ride a horse to war.
When those horses came to the New world, they got a different job- as horses used to drive and work cattle over vast distances.
While some of the classical dressage training remained as part of that foundation, it also evolved, to produce ahorse that was very response light, and agile, with a very light handle on him, including at speed.
Thus was born the Vaquero traditional training, to produce a Spade bit horse.
Working cowhorse training still follows the Vaquero tradition, in a bit of a more kinder method
Since i both show my horses and trail ride them, they do know when to move collected, and when to just move out down a trail. I can ask them , while trail riding, to move collected, do some straight line lead changes, ect, but I try not to, as trail riding should be relaxation.
Far as connection, that happens when a horse responds to your lightest cue, almost seems to know what cue you will ask for, before you even apply it, and responds to light invisible aids
There is a place for various ways of riding, and trail riding is not a place I ask a horse to move collected, but neither do I want him inverted, head stuck in the air, neck stiff, back hollow


----------



## Smilie

Golden Horse said:


> I have issues with some of this, mainly as others have said, we know the skeleton is fixed, but the muscles and ligaments that support it are not, and getting them into the best shape possible to carry the weight of a rider only makes good sense.
> 
> Second, I wish we could BURY the term collection, it is so misunderstood and misused as to make it mainly meaningless, outside of a select few. I wish we could took more about engagement, that is what we should be striving for, to have the horses body engaged and working, and yes part of that involves the neck, and getting the back lifted. What it doesn't involve is the head, and all to many people start with the head when they talk about collection.
> 
> 
> Embarrassing story, I am going through another fragile time with my riding, my confidence is on a leave of absence somewhere, I was worried last ride, because I thought she was about to buck, Coach was going "HUH" I explained that she just felt "up' under the saddle, well guess what, she was, she was engaged and up, rounded and working properly, (if only for a short while) and if just feels different.
> 
> If you haven't felt it, and the lightness it brings, then it is hard to explain, but feeling that difference, well it makes a difference, the horse is carrying itself lighter.
> 
> My worry here is that there are those who will take this at face value, and rush to justify their riding, saying "look I was right all along" and we would see ever more inverted horses running around.


Agree

You will feel like you are actually sitting higher. A horse rounds by tightening his abdominal muscles, and not through the spine itself
You can also have a false frame of collection, where the horse appears 'in frame', yet is heavy on his front end, not engaged


----------



## Smilie

thecolorcoal said:


> In fact, I had a friend who was a western rider who always got her "connection" and "collection" confused. she assumed collection MEANT connection, full stop. Connection IS NOT collection. Collection is DELIBERATELY ASKED FOR, connection is just the result of steady, sympathetic hands and contact with the bit.
> 
> These are concepts you must "see to believe," in this case "feel to believe," as if you've never felt/experienced this style of riding, no book in the world is going to replicate the experience.
> 
> This cannot be quantified in numbers, calculated, assessed, tracked, graphed. It is like God. You cannot put God in a box and say you know God, because once you think you know everything you learn you know nothing. Off topic, but religious people (MOSTLY) have EXPERIENCED God. You cannot get an Atheist to share that experience with you, they simply do not understand and cannot comprehend. So is the experience of riding a collected horse in contact. It cannot be found in a book, but on the back of a horse.


You can also ride a collected horse without contact, believe it or not, and if you have not experienced that, then that is also an experience that awaits you!
This horse has a lot of lift and collection, in order to execute those flying changes, without speeding up, loosing frame, and he is on a loose rein


----------



## Smilie

A horse has to be engaged in back, in order to perform, but the frame itself, varies, depending on task, speed, type of movements. In order to execute a sliding stop, the horse has to stay light in front, bring his hocks well under him, keep his shoulders up.
Just having a horse move in a collected frame, as desired in rail type classes, is not going to get a cow turned on the fence or run a reining a pattern
Different strokes for different folks (jobs) What they all have in common, is that they are engaged, light in the hands, not dumped on the front end, because they are engaged, able to change directions quickly, at speed


----------



## thecolorcoal

I must ask, @Smilie, because I am an ignorant fool: why do western horses canter at a four-beat lope? The AQHA video above seems to show a horse on the forehand. I know nothing, I don't want to assume anything: can you clarify a bit what is happening in these videos? It seems the riders are riding mainly off their seat. I'm finding I understand and recognize more of the riding in video 2 than video one, but would like to understand more of what is going on? I think there's huge misconceptions about the AQHA world that I still may have and need disputing.


----------



## Smilie

Nope, a four beat lope is man made, and horses are penalized for it, at any better show.
Some western pl horses four beat at the lope, because when horse is asked to lope slow, the degree of difficulty goes up, and horses that lack the training, or ability, will four beat
Neither of the hroses I posted are four beating, nor on their forehand!
The first video shows a horse performing a western riding a pattern, executing flying changes, on a loose rein, with cadence and without changing topline.
That takes a great deal of lift and engagement and ability.
Be careful of not just assuming any hrose able to lope slow, is four beating. Count the beats and footfalls.
Do you know when a horse four beats?
First a of all, lets go into the strides of a lope or canter, as the beats are the same. Either way, it is a three beat gait, with those beats counted, when the foot (feet) making that beat is on the ground
First beat= outside hind leg
second beat, inside hind and outside front, hitting the ground at the same time
Final beat lead front leg

When a horse is slowed beyond his ability to keep a three beat lope, that second beat falls apart into two beats

Some good judging clinics will help you maybe learn to evaluate this. Any horse can perform a three beat lope or canter, moving on, as that is how they move naturally, but it takes ability , training and strength, to perform a true slow lope, yet keep a three beat lope
A horse on his forehand, would not be able to execute those flying changes, and I can assure you that a reiner is far from on his front end. How do you think he would perform a sliding stop, on his front end?
A horse that stops, on his front end, jams those front feet into the ground, and believe me, you will know it, if you ever stop a horse from speed and he stops that way!
In fact, if you are wondering if your horse is cantering or loping on his front end, ask him to stop. A horse moving correctly, will stay soft in your hands, you will feel that back end come under him. A horse stopping , loping around on his front end, will be leaning on that bit, and come to a jaring front end stop
I can certainly find some bad examples, of horses four beating, but I would not be posting them as examples of engagement or correct movement!


----------



## thecolorcoal

amazing response, @Smilie, i am so interested on learning what I can of western. It is incredible misunderstood in the English world. mostly because there are assumptions and judgments made that are thought to have been witnessed. The movement required seems different than the movement required of a dressage horse, so we must judge aqha against their own standards.

I'm fascinated. Thanks for your kind and non-defensive response. I'm going to watch these videos more closely. In essence, I have no idea what I am seeing and what I am looking for. I'm going to try, though, because I hate being ignorant and I want to understand this misunderstood part of the horse world.


----------



## Smilie

To answer your question, Video one is a western riding pattern, with that horse doing flying changes, at midway between those cones, on a loose rein, keeping topline and cadence. It certainly is a three beat lope!
The second video is a free style reining video, which is done to music, and wearing a costume. There is not designated pattern, but the hrose must do all elements of a reining pattern- run a fast and slow circle, lead changes, spins, sliding stop, roll backs
In a regular reining pattern, there are no trotting parts


----------



## thecolorcoal

How does one know if the back is lifted and engaged? (sorry, i know we've popped that myth but old habits die hard) It is hard to see from under the western skirt. Is there somewhere else I need to look? @Smilie

Can you post a video showing a comparison to a QH not lifted/engaged in a western class?


----------



## Smilie

Yes, each disciplne, must be judged by its; own standards. For instance, a western horse is expected to reach the point where he can be ridden through all maneuvers , as a senior horse (5 and over) on a loose rein and one handed
Freestyle reining is an exception, from pointed reining( NRHA) classes, in that the rider can use two hands on the reins
Light contact is desired in dressage but is penalized in western performance events, as that horse is expected to work off of the indirect rein, and in a curb, which acts l as a 'signal bit. In other words, on a well trained western horse, he should respond when he first feels the up take of those reins, before bit contact is made
In other words, the horse is first trained, using contact, but also in a manner that works to eventual self carriage off of seat and legs alone
I don't know if you have even seen this tackless free style reining video , with Stacy Westfall, but it kinda shows the idea that once a horse is truly trained, using a bit, the horse will be able to run a pattern totally with nothing.


----------



## thecolorcoal

that's an awesome video! I must ask, if stacy's ride is the goal, why ride with bits in the first place? I've always been curious about this.


----------



## Smilie

thecolorcoal said:


> How does one know if the back is lifted and engaged? (sorry, i know we've popped that myth but old habits die hard) It is hard to see from under the western skirt. Is there somewhere else I need to look? @Smilie
> 
> Can you post a video showing a comparison to a QH not lifted/engaged in a western class?


You have the idea, that every horse, moving with engagement, regardless of activity or speed, is going to look like a horse in an equitation type on the flat, far as that frame of collection and that is simply not so.
Dos a three day event horse, have the same frame when jumping, as he does when doing a dressage test ? What about a horse play polo? He certainly is engaged, using his back end, doing those quick turns, but be is not going to be moving in the frame of a horse doing a dressage a pattern-would not work!
This is my son, turning a cow on the fence. Certainly engaged in back, but if the hrose was moving in a dressage frame , that cow would be long gone

What is common in all good training programs, is a horse that is very light to the aids, engages his hind end when asked, gives in the poll and the face with a very light ask,and from there on, the horse moves as he needs to, depending on discipline,speed, ect


----------



## thecolorcoal

Definitely! I didn't mean to be disrespectful, I'm just trying to learn  Thanks for the picture!


----------



## Smilie

thecolorcoal said:


> that's an awesome video! I must ask, if stacy's ride is the goal, why ride with bits in the first place? I've always been curious about this.


 It is not really the goal, to ride bitt less, and Stacy trains her horses in the 'traditional way, rides in regular reining classes with regular tack
All that brildeless demos show, is a horse, trained to the degree, that the bridle can be dropped, with the horse still performing off of the other two cues left )seat and legs)
There is no way I know of that you can train a horse with noting on his head from the word go. All it shows, is a horse that has become so light, tot he bit, that it can be completely dropped


----------



## Smilie

thecolorcoal said:


> Definitely! I didn't mean to be disrespectful, I'm just trying to learn  Thanks for the picture!


No worries, I know you are just asking for insight, and not bashing, and that is not a problem with me!


----------



## thecolorcoal

That's so interesting Smilie. Maybe you need to tell these "tack is evil" people that! xD Very cool. Bosals/Hackamores are allowed in the show ring or no?


----------



## bsms

Smilie said:


> ...There is no way I know of that you can train a horse with noting on his head from the word go...


A woman psychologist (IIRC) in the 1950s tried teaching her horses bridleless riding from the start. She used a sidepull for safety but tried to rely totally on training her horses, from first ride on, using her hands by the horse's neck. Pushing on hte left of the neck meant go right. Tugging on the mane or stroking the neck backwards meant slow down.



> ...Ridden by neck-aids, the horse is a free individual. It cannot be forced. It can not be controlled, but it can and does have to be guided. It has to have everything explained to it, and its cooperation has then to be won over. If it is asked to do anything absurd, it will merely say, "This fool rider does not know what he is talking about," and go its own way. It is hopeless to try riding by neck-aids until one has learnt the horse's language...
> 
> ...As soon as a person is prepared to follow his horse, his seat will come automatically. His only problem then is the eternal one of the educationalist and the politician - that of getting what he wants out of his subject. This is an art, not a technique; it is a skill, not a science.
> 
> Adventures Unbridled - Moyra Williams 1960









​ 
She managed to do show jumping, ride the hounds and take solo trips riding 10-20 miles around Oxford. As she gained confidence, she tried those without reins at all. I used to live a dozen miles north of Oxford. That would have been a sight to see - someone rolling along a bridle path riding a horse without reins!

It is also worth noting that after her horses died, she returned to riding with a bit. And she is the only person I've heard about who rode without reins in open countryside with cars, other horses, etc. Foxhunting without reins...It's a good book. But I have no desire to try it myself!


----------



## Smilie

Well, John Lyons used to do clinics, on his stallion, Bright Zip, with nothing on his head, including when he worked around mares.
Just because something can be done, does not mean it should be done.
Most bridleless demos, are done in some controlled area, on a horse that is so well trained, using a bit, , then riding on a loose rein, with just an 'invisible bit barrier, then to the point the even conditioned physical barrier (bit) is removed
The problem with those demos, esp like the ones Parelli used to do, where he has people in his clinic jumping bridleless, on horses not really broke, just ridden hard that weekend, in a clinic setting, those people then go home and think it is the ultimate form of horsemanship, try it and get hurt.
There are people that will walk a tight rope, across some canyon, no safely net, ditto for 'free climbing, but that does not mean it should be done.
You can probably drive a car, most times, without brakes, but when you need them, sure nice to have them there!
While I might jump on my horse, in a riding arena, with no bridle, I don't ride the horse out that way. I ride with a bit, on loose reins, and make no excuse for wanting that bit to be there for 'just in case.'
I don't ride with a helmet, so I guess we all are free to assume any risk we feel comfortable with


----------



## sarahfromsc

I also think it takes a very special horse, and a very special rider to be able to handle fox-hunting sans bridle. And the combination is a million to one. So, I don’t think it is revelent to us normal folks with normal horses with normal skills.


----------



## Golden Horse

sarahfromsc said:


> I also think it takes a very special horse, and a very special rider to be able to handle fox-hunting sans bridle. And the combination is a million to one. So, I don’t think it is revelent to us normal folks with normal horses with normal skills.


Lol, we used to bit up even the quiet plodding school horses for hunting, they found it tremendously exciting! The whole atmosphere, and running in a herd, most horses amp up a few gears.


----------



## gottatrot

Since this thread was resurrected, I do have some information to add for those who read it in the future.

Talking about swaybacks, it occurred to me that it is interesting horses with lordosis (swayback) are usually pain free and able to be ridden and worked athletically, while horses with kyphosis (roach back) are usually unsound.
Then I found this interesting article:
Get rid of the boxes



> When overextension has occurred at one or more joints, the spine is unstable. Stability is then tentatively recreated bending the thoracolumbar column structure around the stronger muscles group, which are the back muscles situated above the vertebral bodies. Stability is then recreated through the development of sway back, (lordosis).
> 
> ...if abdominal muscles had the capacity to flex the back muscles, the stability of the unstable thoracic spine would be recreated around the abdominal muscles and the result would be kyphosis, or ”roached back,” instead of sway back.


If a horse's spine becomes unstable, the body stabilizes it with a swayed back rather than an arched back. For horses, a sway is more stable than an arch. Perhaps this is why when horses brace against a poorly fitted saddle or pain, they drop their back. They are stabilizing the spine. Yet we work so hard on getting the back "round."



> Riders think in terms of postural alignment when in fact, “round back” is a metaphor describing the feeling of vertical forces. Our ancestors interpreted the perception of vertical forces as a shape of the horse thoracolumbar spine and the misinterpretation lead to training technique trying to create a shape, “round back”, which is reality, does not exist.


I think this is important and enlightening. Many people on this forum have said a lifted back or round back must be true, _because they have felt it. _ I have felt it too. But what we are feeling is an increase in vertical force. Collection puts more of the force under the horse's body, pushing upward. Do we feel the back lift under us on a standing horse? No. It is on a moving horse, because what we feel is the force coming up underneath us.



> It is interesting to observe the difference between the interpretations of riders, and the view of scientists who are aware of the muscles’ structure of function. Riders, who like to think in terms of muscle shortening and stretching, think about abdominal muscles shortening and flexing the thoracolumbar spine, (concentric contraction.) By contrast, pathologists, who know firsthand that abdominal muscles don’t have the capacity to overcome the mass and power of the back muscles, think in terms of resisting elongation, (isometric or eccentric contraction.)


Resisting elongation creates more upward force. This is the feeling of "roundness" or collection. 



> ...belief that amplitude of movements, lightness and elasticity can be achieved through stretching and relaxation. As humans, we associate ease with relaxation, the meaning of which is effortlessness. The problem is that relaxation also means lack of muscle tone and we like to think that less muscle tone would lead the horse to ease, lightness and elasticity.





> Stretching and relaxation are theories that appeal to our fantasies but are not even close from the real functioning of the horse’s muscular system. In fact, release and stretching are more likely creating instability than elasticity. Instability is counteracted by protective reflex contraction. By contrast, elasticity is the outcome of proper tone and frequency between muscle cells and connective tissues.





> Tuning the muscles is the basis of the equestrian art. It is an art of subtlety situated between relaxation and contraction. Bad training techniques do not identify the source of protective reflex contractions. They try releasing the contraction through stretching and relaxation, furthering instability. People who want to keep their head in the box always argue that “there is a way to do it right.” There is no way to do right a technique or concept that is fundamentally wrong. The antidote of contraction is coordination, which include creating appropriated muscle tone.





> Abdominal muscles do not have the capacity to overcome the mass and power of the back muscles. Rectus abdominis and forelegs extrinsic muscles participate in the flexion of the thoracolumbar spine but they are not capable to create it. Longitudinal flexion of the thoracolumbar spine, or more exactly, creation of vertical forces, is the task of the main back muscles that are situated above the vertebral bodies. *Their coordination is created by the rider’s back.* Collection is therefore much more the task of the rider’s back than the combined action of the hands and legs.


So many instructors have us focusing on what our hands and legs are doing rather than keeping our torsos balanced and coordinated with the movement of the horse, staying with his motion rather than fighting against it.


----------



## gottatrot

What is happening with Valegro during piaffe and passage?
Is the rider feeling lifted and light because he is rounding up his back under her, or is it because he is resisting elongation and pushing her up with increased vertical forces using the release of energy from the muscles and tendons in his legs?

Is she recycling the energy from the bit through his hind end, or has she taught him how to use the energy in his legs to create more upward force than forward motion?


----------



## thecolorcoal

gottatrot said:


> What is happening with Valegro during piaffe and passage?
> Is the rider feeling lifted and light because he is rounding up his back under her, or is it because he is resisting elongation and pushing her up with increased vertical forces using the release of energy from the muscles and tendons in his legs?
> 
> Is she recycling the energy from the bit through his hind end, or has she taught him how to use the energy in his legs to create more upward force than forward motion?


One could argue that. Then let me post you this:






apples and oranges.
valegro is a horse that can win competition. no SRS will ever be able to win the FEI sport as we know. then again, valegro can't do what these SRS horses can.


----------



## gottatrot

I'd say the difference is that angulation and length of tendons/limbs makes one horse able to generate enough power in the limbs for suspension. 
Competitive dressage rewards suspension above almost anything else. Which interestingly leads to perfect scores for four beat canters in the pirouette if the horse is a top tier horse, but penalties for a four beat canter for "lesser" horses. 
Degradation of gaits is something we've seen in many subjective horse sports. It's usually justified at some point, even if the sport goes away from it later.
http://www.centaurbiomechanics.co.uk/centaurbiomechanics-co-uk/_img/Horse%20and%20Hound%20Canter%20Article.pdf

My DH thinks that what is being rewarded will inevitably lead to horses built like competitive German Shepherds.


----------



## thecolorcoal

gottatrot said:


> My DH thinks that what is being rewarded will inevitably lead to horses built like competitive German Shepherds.


I've read this too.

I think the danger, though, through some of this criticism and questioning is still welfare-based. I wouldn't be willing to ride my horse hollow if you gave me a million bucks. Stable spine or not, it causes her pain. If I can find a way to ride her that does not cause her pain and discomfort while carrying me around, I'd rather go for that.


----------



## gottatrot

thecolorcoal said:


> I wouldn't be willing to ride my horse hollow if you gave me a million bucks. Stable spine or not, it causes her pain. If I can find a way to ride her that does not cause her pain and discomfort while carrying me around, I'd rather go for that.


I think we've always had this backwards. 
We think we are causing pain because we ride a horse "hollow" which in the context of this thread means with a braced back. But you can't ride a horse and make him brace his back, unless you are doing something to cause him to brace (or pain makes him unable to be ridden without bracing). So the pain is not _because_ of his posture, but the posture because of the discomfort or pain.

Ride your horse so she doesn't have to brace, but that means you must discover what is causing the bracing. Putting the head and neck up does not mean "braced," as we learned on this thread. Putting the head and neck down does not mean "not braced." 
If your horse is bracing when the head and neck are up, then that means you are removing discomfort when you put the head and neck down and put the horse more on the forehand. If that is the case, maybe something is bothering the hind end. Or maybe the way the bit contacts the mouth or the way you use your hands when the head is up is bothering the horse. Maybe the saddle rubs the shoulders when the head is up. 

Let's say a horse is being ridden into bit contact when the head is up, but when the head is down the reins are long and looser. The horse may not be bracing when the head is down simply because the rider is not pulling on the bit.

In order to have a horse that is not bracing we must be using tack that fits appropriately and the horse is OK with, be teaching the horse using methods that they don't resist, and remove other sources of pain and discomfort from their bodies.


----------



## trailhorserider

thecolorcoal said:


> I've read this too.
> 
> I think the danger, though, through some of this criticism and questioning is still welfare-based. I wouldn't be willing to ride my horse hollow if you gave me a million bucks. Stable spine or not, it causes her pain. If I can find a way to ride her that does not cause her pain and discomfort while carrying me around, I'd rather go for that.


How do you know riding her hollow causes her pain? Is there something particular about her physically that it would cause her pain to ride her hollow or are you just assuming it causes her pain because that's what you've been taught?

On the subject of Valegro vs. Spanish Riding School, my opinion is that anything super competitive (like dressage) rewards extremes. Valegro has an extreme amount of suspension to his gait. That is not normal or average, but humans really like it, so that's what wins in competition. If another horse came along even more extreme than Valegro, than that would raise the bar even higher for what is rewarded in the show ring.

I don't think the Spanish Riding School works on the same principles. I don't know this for a fact, but I suspect they take their well bred horses of average talent and train them and their riders to work together to the best of their abilities. It's all about communication and training and getting the best trained horse and rider possible. Not about getting the most extreme moving horse possible. For some reason, whenever competition is involved, things always go to extremes.

Another thought is.........horses that are shown are trained for the show ring. Maybe the Spanish Riding School horses are trained in the tradition that they could actually be used in battle......back when horses were used in battle. In other words, they are looking for functional training, not a horse that is trained just to be the most pretty moving.


----------



## trailhorserider

I've pondered about collection a fair amount. I've even suggested on another thread that perhaps the HORSE knows how best to carry himself and that we are arrogant as a species to think we know what's better for the horse than the horse does himself (that didn't go over well!) We are smarter than a horse, true, but the horse knows what's comfortable for him. If we are not in the horse's body, how can we assume how the horse feels best carrying a rider?

Collection is great. It feels great, it looks pretty. But I'm not convinced that it isn't for the benefit of the rider more than the horse. Also, sometimes collection occurs naturally when riding.....like the horse has a lot of energy and you are trying to contain it. You might accidentally achieve some really nice collection that way. Heck, aren't most jigging horses collected? So how did it get to be something that a horse does on his own to something we think we must achieve or the horse falls apart?

I've pondered this myself as I have a youngish horse (age 7) and he is half Missouri Foxtrotter. He will sometimes foxtrot in the round pen so he naturally has it in him. But under saddle he would prefer to trot out like a Quarter Horse (the other half of his breeding). But I noticed if I lift the reins to raise his head and ride in light contact (essentially hollowing him out) I can get him to foxtrot under saddle. I ride western so normally I ride on a loose rein. 

So my conundrum is do I just keep on riding on a loose rein and let him trot out at the speed he does naturally or do I slow him down and raise his head a bit (hollowing his back most likely) and develop that nice foxtrot? I'm not sure I'm convinced hollow is going hurt him, but as I don't know for sure I am hesitant to work on his gait. 

There was some interesting food for thought earlier in this thread, about how the spine really doesn't lift much anyway and maybe collection doesn't have much to do with the back at all.......it's more about shifting weight to the rear and getting more lift in the front end. If that is actually the case, maybe we are all worrying over nothing!

Is there actually any proof that hollow is bad? What about laterally gaited horses, like TWH's. Do they fall apart with age from traveling hollow? I've never heard of it, but then I'm not in Walking Horse country and the ones I have known have been trail horses, not the more hollow moving show horses. Do we actually know hollow does damage to the horse or is that just something we assume?


----------



## bsms

This drawing is from Jean-Claude Racinet. I have no idea if I posted it somewhere earlier on this thread. But it works well as a simplified diagram of collection, one that does not require rejecting the horse's physiology:










In collection, the horse's rump (and thus hind legs) comes more underneath him. The back is not rigid, but neither does it curve up. But it does lift at the front - done both by bouncing off the front legs (not the bit), and by lifting with the muscles in the shoulder (which is why dressage horses tend to have more muscular shoulders).

Contrary to popular opinion - and contrary to what Racinet taught as well - collection does NOT make the horse more maneuverable. I learned to ride on a spooky mare, and she could turn, jump sideways, leap forward, spin - all with a violence that would nearly tear me out of the saddle. But she could MOVE, with incredible speed and power, without collecting first!

Nor does collection make the horse more comfortable. A physiologist, with instruments to measure muscle tension and impact forces, knows more about what the horse is doing than the rider does. The rider knows how the combination of stride length, foot pattern, suspension, lift, etc FEELS - to the human. But the rider has no way of knowing what the horse is doing or feeling. The physiologist does - via sensors. A study I read a few weeks ago mentioned the horse tensing muscles in its front legs to minimize pressures - and what rider can feel that? What rider can feel how hard the horse's feet hit the ground? Or at what angle? If I carried you on my back, which of us would know more about how I feel?

The goal of collection is not making the horse feel more comfortable, but the rider. If horses enjoyed collection, it would be hard to get them to STOP collecting. And yes, when a horse has energy to burn, it will "collect" on its own volition - for a short time. And humans may jump up and down for joy, but we don't do it long and we do it even less with a heavy pack on our back! Horses do collect for the pleasure of showing off their power and burning off excess energy - even Bandit does it, at times. But no horse does it for a 3 hour trail ride. Because it is harder for the horse, not easier. It means more work for the horse, not less.

What feels "light" to us is "heavy" to the horse. The horse works harder so we can work less.

When a horse turns "straight", supposedly flexing its body and with the rear legs following the same track as the front legs, it is very easy for the rider to ride. When a horse turns like this, driving forward with the rear legs while shifting its front with lateral motion, it is much harder to stay on:










But one is a very efficient way to make a tight turn, and the other is not. Get on all fours and try it yourself. Or consider a spooking horse:










A horse who feels the NEED to turn fast will not turn "straight". That is why my horses can turn 180 degrees on a 6' wide trail (or smaller) with a speed and power that nearly rips me from the saddle - and they do so without collection. Horses KNOW how to move. We teach them to move in a way that is easy for us. And the two do not match.

Here is another example. "_The stability of the rider in the Y-direction was significantly highest in the two-point seat, followed by the rising trot and the sitting trot, respectively. In the X-direction, there was no significant difference between the three positions. The significantly highest load on the horse’s back was at the sitting trot (2112 N), followed by the rising trot (2056 N) and the two-point seat (1688 N). The rider was most stable in the two-point seat while transferring the lowest load on the horse’s back. The rising trot was found to be more stable and less stressful for the horse’s back compared to the sitting trot._" - A comparison of forces acting on the horse?s back and the stability of the rider?s seat in different positions at the trot - ScienceDirect

Sitting trot 2112, two point 1688. 20% reduction in force in two point. Ever watch someone using two point while collecting their horse? It is possible for a horse to collect in two point, but that isn't how humans teach it. After all, what is the pleasure in a horse lifting its back if the rider isn't even sitting on it? But a 200 lb rider can become a 160 lb rider just by switching to two point.



> "The increase in your metabolism is directly proportional to the increase in the weight," Wickler explains. "So if you add 10 percent of your body weight, your costs go up 10 percent." Each additional pound added to the load produces a corresponding increase in the metabolic effort required to move that load--and that's over level ground. "If the horse is asked to trot uphill, metabolism increases. For a modest grade, metabolism increases by 2.5 times," Wickler adds."
> 
> "*In short, explains Wickler, carrying a load causes a horse to shorten his stride, leave his feet on the ground longer and increase the distance his body travels (the "step length") with each stride. All of these gait adjustments work together to reduce the forces placed on the legs with each step.*" - Link no longer works


That doesn't make collection "wrong". I ask a horse to trot or canter when my horse would just as soon walk. I do so for my pleasure. My horse is often willing to give it - including a sitting trot. Collection is not evil, cruel or wrong.

But it isn't easier on the horse. It's easier on the rider. Nothing wrong with that, but we ought to understand what it is we are asking of our horse. And what it costs our horses to give it.


----------



## trailhorserider

BSMS, thank you for the in-depth reply! So what I've been suspecting is kind of what you are saying in a nutshell.........that collection is for the rider, not the horse.

So how did people come to believe (and still do) that their horse will be physically ruined if they don't teach it collection and "how to use itself properly?" 

That seems to be a common theme among english riders but I have a hard time believing it.......because the horse should know how it's most comfortable to carry itself with a rider. And I don't think I've ever met a horse that was ruined by lack of collection. Atrophied backs from poor saddles and lack of feed, yes, but I don't think I've ever met a horse who was ridden constantly without collection (like a dude string horse for example) that seemed to break down because of it.

So if that's just not the case, I wonder why this myth prevails?


----------



## bsms

trailhorserider said:


> ...Do we actually know hollow does damage to the horse or is that just something we assume?


I'll offer Bandit as an example. He was used for relay races, covering 10+ mile legs. His owner/rider was a big guy. I'd guess at least 220, and a 35# saddle (looked like an older roping saddle). Vet's estimate of Bandit's weight when he arrived was 790 lbs. So...255/800 = 32%. He was also trained in part by a guy who weighed (according to the owner) "at least 265 in his socks". 10-15 mile training runs. 290/800 = 36%. Maybe more - folks don't ride in their socks.

When Bandit arrived, he would brace his back like an I-beam. Very rigid. Not at all fun to ride. He still reverts to it sometimes, but he mostly knows I weigh less and we don't trot/canter/gallop long, and he MOSTLY gives a nice jog or lope now. I don't race and I don't need or enjoy top speed.

Did a few years of racing with heavy loads harm his back? Interesting question, and I cannot give a good answer. What I can say is this:

I've seen Bandit with his former owner, and Bandit seems to like the guy. And Bandit was their fastest horse. They traded him for Mia because Mia had excellent lines and they wanted to improve their horses with a very good brood mare. But they all agreed that Bandit was used on the final leg because if he COULD win, he WOULD win. I find that hard to reconcile with a horse being in pain while ridden.

Did it harm his back? Don't know, but it certainly did not cause his back to sag! Every saddle I own has a little too much "rock" for Bandit. His back is uncommonly flat. Maybe bracing hard protected his back?

I believe that if a horse needs to brace his back to hold his rider's weight, the rider weighs too much. That may be OK for an out of shape horse, using short rides to strengthen the back. But long term, if a horse needs to brace his back hard, then something is wrong. Fix it.

As speed increases, a horse will firm up its back more in order to transmit the power from the hind end forward to move the front, but there is still a difference between a braced back and a firm one. I think "round" and "hollow" are near meaningless terms. I prefer to think "supple" and "engaged".

FWIW, I ride Bandit at 25% of Bandit's weight, and I think I'm at the upper limit for him. I've seriously considered selling him to a lighter trail rider. Mia and Trooper both had/have ample reserves of power in their back. Bandit doesn't. I really dislike what was done to Bandit. But I don't have any evidence that it damaged him. Two different standards.

I have no idea why people teach that collection makes it easier for a horse to carry a rider. It seems every human ought to know that it is easier to carry a load using flat strides than high-stepping ones. When I carry 80 lb sacks of feed on my shoulder, I don't move with extra "suspension". There is no "spring" in MY step when carrying weights! I guess a horse who moves with spring in his step LOOKS like it is effortless, just as a ballerina works very hard to make her dancing look easy.

Bandit waiting impatiently for the other two horses to join us. There is no way this horse should have been ridden by someone who outweighs me by 100 lbs, let alone trained for racing distances. But did it damage him?








​


----------



## gottatrot

trailhorserider said:


> BSMS, thank you for the in-depth reply! So what I've been suspecting is kind of what you are saying in a nutshell.........that collection is for the rider, not the horse.
> 
> So how did people come to believe (and still do) that their horse will be physically ruined if they don't teach it collection and "how to use itself properly?"
> 
> So if that's just not the case, I wonder why this myth prevails?


This was my entire point when starting this thread. I wanted to bounce my thoughts off others to find out if I was thinking about this subject correctly or if I was missing some things. But those ideas about using the horse "correctly" are so prevalent even among western riders. Most people I ride with believe that a horse must not carry his head and neck high - even when built that way - for a long period of time or his back will be damaged.

Just like the more modern version of hoof care with less emphasis on shoes for every horse, the modern version of making sure saddles fit better, and the modern version of horse nutrition with lower NSC, I believe this information needs to be spread because it more accurate and will lead to a better understanding and better riding. Which will be better for the horses. 

If collection is more of an athletic maneuver that is harder on a horse, maybe when people understand this they will stop trying to have newly started, weaker horses and less athletic horses move that way. 

In my mind what many people currently do would be similar to saying "jumping makes all horses move better," so taking the horses with crooked legs, bad hooves and long, weak backs and trying to get them all jumping. We understand that jumping is for stronger, more athletic horses. We don't seem to understand that collection is for stronger, more athletic horses and is harder on the body. Instead, most people I know try to force horses into collection as an early step to get the horse's back stronger or to get the horse to "use their body properly." 

Instead of thinking this is a goal for every horse, I believe it should be used (if the rider wants), only for horses that have already come through a lot of training and have already created a strong, balanced and athletic body. Even strong, well balanced horses can develop physical problems from dressage, just as they can from jumping, reining, barrel racing, and other athletic disciplines. It does not make dressage wrong to do, but you should choose a horse that has the right build for strenuous activity.


----------



## tinyliny

when you carry 80 lb sacks of feed on your back, if you do not have your core engaged, and keep an upright posture so that the load is over your center of gravity (for the speed you are moving), and you step in a balanced manner, you will risk back injury. 


"Prancing" has no place, but, if, and only if, you ARE aligned correctly, and your core is engaged, you could prance if your heart so dictated. 

if your core was loose, your back muscles pulled tight (the equivalant of a tense hollowed horse), you'd have a heck of a time adding 'prancing' to the mixture.

this makes me want to see you prance under an 80 lb sack of feed. any chance you'd oblige?



(major ribbing going on here)


----------



## Smilie

I thought the post was inverted/hollowed out and collection.
There is a third way a horse moves you know, and that is in a natural frame, as riding down a trail
To me, an /inverted/hollowed out horse, is one who braces with his head up, , which in turn makes the hrose hollow out his back. Moving that way, the horse also can't engaged behind, thus short strides.
We all know what collected is by now, putting a horse in frame, for show ring type maneuvers, and on the flat, in rail events.head level being dependent on conformation, but with face on the vertical, or slightly ahead, driving up from behind
Even in show ring maneuvers, once you add speed, sudden turns, like taking a cow down the fence,the horse is sure engaged behind still, but the head and neck are what they need to be
You don't have horses jumping fences either, in a dressage like collected form!
Then, there is a horse, carrying a rider,going along at the speed asked for, on a loose rein. No one I know, rides a horse in a collected show ring frame, riding out, yet that horse is carrying the rider,not for an hour or so, but often all day, over rough terrain. If he was going along hollowed out, sure would break down.


----------



## Smilie

We have some horses that we only trail rode, like hubby's hunting horses. They know zero about collection-never needed it. BUT, they are soft in the face, stride out, pick their way over all kinds of terrain, and are perfectly fine.
They are moving neither collected nor hollowed out They are moving in a natural frame, with their head left completely alone, letting the horse carry it where his conformation dictates.
Even when talking of collection, it has nothing to do with the level of that head carriage. That head carriage as part of collection, is dependent on how that neck ties in.
Arabians and Morgans, due to conformation, have a higher head carriage in their rail classes Stock horses, bred to be shown in rail events, have a natural level topline to begin with, where it is comfortable for them to carry their head and neck, because they are built that way.
On the other hand, a horse that goes along tense, head higher then is natural for him, will be hollowed out


----------



## Smilie

First pic, my son riding a green 4 year old on a trail, in just a natural frame

Second pic, Charlie crossing a river, head where it needs to be

Third pic, a World Champion working cowhorse, out of my old reining mare.
Engaged behind, head where it needs to be, to turn that cowhorse, versus held anywhere, 'in frame'


----------



## gottatrot

Smilie said:


> On the other hand, a horse that goes along tense, head higher then is natural for him, will be hollowed out


Or a horse that goes along tense with head lowered, which is why I'd rather use "braced" or "tense" rather than the terms "hollow" vs "round."
We should stop thinking about the head and neck, and think about the horse and how he is moving. We've come to think of "hollow" as relating to the horse's topline appearing concave. But "hollow" really just means braced back muscles, and that can happen even if the outline of the horse is curved over the top.









@tinyliny, you are funny. But seriously, you'd also have a hard time prancing with that load of grain if you tried rounding over your back and leaning forward too. The only way to really carry it is to put the weight down through your spine and keep it close to your center of gravity. Balance is key.


----------



## Zexious

I've mentioned this in other threads; I think people in the horse industry will sometimes use technically (or anatomically, in this case) incorrect language in an effort to paint a desired image for educational purposes.


----------



## bsms

What I object to goes beyond trying to get a point across by using imagery. Here is an example of teaching I object to:






She teaches that "incorrect riding" damages the horse. And anyone who doesn't teach the horse to 'round' its back is causing the horse pain and damage. She "proves this" by tickling a stationary horse and taking X-rays of the back. But a MOVING horse cannot lift the back by contracting its tummy muscles. The tummy muscles of a moving horse contract when the horse is extending - both to limit the extension and to control the descending weight of the horse's gut.

She hollows her back while lifting her head, and then says lifting the head forces the back to hollow. 








​ 
Of course, I can bend over with a rounded back & lift my head without hollowing my back, or hollow my back and hang my head, and do so for the same reason the horse can - because the vast majority of that motion is done in the neck and immediately next to the neck.

But without what she says is a minimum of two years of training for the horse, without putting the horse "on the bit" and riding with constant contact, she says we damage the horse's back. I don't care how she rides her horse, provided her horse doesn't mind. I object to being told Bandit suffers if I let him look where he is going, or let him decide how to use himself while out on a trail.

Bandit carries his head high when he canters with me and without me. He has been used harder than I think ANY horse should be used, but his canter is turning into a relaxed, flowing lope. With his head high. Higher than Trooper, and much higher than Cowboy. 

In the arena, I'll often stop him, give all the slack my reins can give, and give him a chance to eat. Sometimes he eats. Sometimes he keeps his head up, and shifts his weight, and I say OK, and we go to a canter. Because he wants to canter more than he wants to eat. I'm stiff, awkward and ungainly as a rider, but Bandit is happy to go. Not collected. Not strung out. But in @Smilie's "natural frame" - natural for Bandit.

I continue to be bewildered by the idea that WE know more about what makes a horse comfortable than the HORSE knows.


----------



## gottatrot

I just got the book "Falling for Fallacies" by Racinet for Christmas that was recommended by @bsms. It was a bit expensive but I'm learning a lot from it. It is a book about dressage by someone who loves dressage and mastered it. I haven't read the parts yet where he talks about how to do lateral work. 

The book talks a lot about anatomy and physiology, and how the horse's body works. One thing he says is that the rider shouldn't turn the outside shoulder in when turning around a bend, so I have to figure out the "why" of that one with more reading.

Some highlights: 
He explains clearly how we are trying to eliminate the effect of the rider's weight on the horse. 
First he explains that it doesn't affect the horse as much as we think, and that even though we think we are sitting on the lowest point of the topline behind the withers, this is actually the strongest point of the back. This part of the back is only the lowest due to the height of the spinous processes, but is actually the part of the spine with the least curve and the most stable part of the spine inside the horse. 

Long and low is the least effective way of having the horse adapt to our weight. Our weight very slightly lowers the horse's withers. When the horse puts the head and neck low, this makes the withers drop more. It also lengthens the back muscles, which anatomically would cause them to sag, if horses didn't have two thick ligaments that go along the back and act to suspend the spine. 

The back muscles are stronger when shortened. He also explains how the back muscles attach at various points all along the spine and rib cage, so essentially the back muscles never all tighten or relax at once.
The author also explains how the neck and back muscles do not tie in together, but are completely unrelated with points of origin that connect to different body parts. So the horse moves all of these muscles independently rather than affecting the back muscles with the movement of the neck. 

I really like how the author explains that the horse has muscles that make him go, and muscles that make him stop.  Collection is teaching the horse to engage the muscles that make him stop. The more those muscles are strengthened and engaged, the more you have collection. 

The visuals in the book are very good. It is helping me a lot to think of a horse bending by thinking about how the back muscles are attached to various parts of the spine and ribs, and actually rotate the spinous processes to the side toward where the horse is turning, which flattens the back. I've read this before, but it just finally is sinking in. 
Anyway, recommend the book for those who want to learn more about how horses' bodies work in the context of dressage. Again, the book is pro-dressage with an emphasis on classical/French but mostly on biomechanics.


----------



## Smilie

Lets face it, a hrose was never designed to carry a rider in the first place.
If a horse stays sound under work, is low maintenance, not needing endless chiro adjustments,then don't fix what isn't broken.
Also, need to look at the entire picture-a horse with a weak long back, poor bone, major leg faults, ect, ect, is not going to stay sound, no matter how you ride him.
Form to function,is just as important< JMO, but is often over looked, because we now have all the intervention to keep horses going, that in the past would have been culled.
I don't think people like Tschiffley read endless theory books, yet finished epic rides
I get using correct bio dynamics, saddles that fit, but I also believe in the KISS principle


----------



## tinyliny

I'm having a bit of trouble visualizing the not bringing in the outside shoulder . . but if I had a visual I might understand that better.

All I can say, is that he may be right or wrong, or a bit of each, but every new voice is just a voice with an opinion. Take what you like and leave the rest.


----------



## gottatrot

Smilie said:


> I don't think people like Tschiffley read endless theory books, yet finished epic rides
> I get using correct bio dynamics, saddles that fit, but I also believe in the KISS principle


Sure, but sometimes understanding a concept can make everything more simple.

Take what can help you, and makes sense to you, as @tinyliny says. 

The reasoning behind the rider not moving the outside shoulder in is actually pretty interesting. Apparently when horses bend around a curve, they don't actually move the inside shoulder back the way we do. So if we attempt to mirror their body with ours, we are not managing it. Because horses don't have a collarbone and have their shoulders suspended on a sling, when they go around a curve the inside shoulder moves forward. In order to stay with the horse's body we should actually move our outside shoulder back.

So I tried this today on Rascal, and immediately it was easier to make a smaller yet rounder circle. It is very counter intuitive, because you feel like you need to turn your body as you look around the corner. It's strange, I want to try it some more.


----------



## bsms

Can't speak to dressage-style turns, but at a canter, the inside leg stretches out more.


















​
The goal in some schools of thought is that the horse curves its body to meet the curve we want them to follow. But horses don't bend like that, and they adjust their footfall to create a pattern that gives us the feel we are looking for.

Page 31 of Philippe Karl's Twisted Truths of Modern Dressage has drawings taken from photos made with an overhead camera of a trained dressage horse turning. Another book, a much older one (Riding), has extensive pictures of a regular horse moving, including a number of overhead shots.

Since a horse cannot curve its body, it looks more like a shoebox being asked to turn. The horse angles the shoebox toward the left when going right. We see the bend in the neck and body at the withers, creating an optical illusion of a curving horse. But what the horse is doing moves the inside shoulder forward.

Again, can't speak about a trained dressage horse other than by pictures. A big part of what both Racinet and Karl write about is trying to make it easier for the horse to respond well. It is easier to train the horse if we work with what he can do, than try for what he cannot.



> We can forget any dogmatic prejudice we may have and try to stick to the facts as taught by the horse, the most impartial of all masters.
> 
> The degree of freedom of the dorso-lumbar segment of the horse is extremely limited. This is one of the reasons that make it possible to ride. If the horse had a cat's spine, it would be very flexible, it would jump much higher...but it would be impossible to ride. *Whatever the rider does, he cannot ask for more than nature can give.* - pg 81,Twisted Truths, Philippe Karl


----------



## tinyliny

I see. When you said outside shoulder I didn't realize you were talking abou t the RIDERS outside shoulder.


----------



## Smilie

For me it is quite simple, far as having a horse stay 'correct', without worrying which rein to lift, which one to use as support, ect. You just train ahrose so that horse learns to guide between your legs and the reins, staying evenly between them, moving off either, when required, either for a maneuver or correction.
Your job is to stay in balance with the horse


----------



## Smilie

gottatrot said:


> Sure, but sometimes understanding a concept can make everything more simple.
> 
> Take what can help you, and makes sense to you, as @tinyliny says.
> 
> The reasoning behind the rider not moving the outside shoulder in is actually pretty interesting. Apparently when horses bend around a curve, they don't actually move the inside shoulder back the way we do. So if we attempt to mirror their body with ours, we are not managing it. Because horses don't have a collarbone and have their shoulders suspended on a sling, when they go around a curve the inside shoulder moves forward. In order to stay with the horse's body we should actually move our outside shoulder back.
> 
> So I tried this today on Rascal, and immediately it was easier to make a smaller yet rounder circle. It is very counter intuitive, because you feel like you need to turn your body as you look around the corner. It's strange, I want to try it some more.


You just need to stay in balance with the horse, the horse has to keep inside shoulder up, to prevent falling in, and stay out of the horse's way.
When you are riding one handed, you keep that rein hand where it needs to be,


----------



## Smilie

So, are you then going to move that right shoulder back?riding one handed, say to the left, riding with your left hand? Switch hands riding the other way????
What the true problem is, if you can't ride a small circle, with the horse staying balanced, your horse does not truly guide. The horse is used to being 'babysat'
Here is a test, you can do it just at a trot first
Set up a pylon in a freshly groomed spot, so you can see your tracks.
Ride a circle around it, evenly spaced all the way from that pylon, all the way around. give your horse a loose rein. When he drifts either in or out, DO NOT correct with reins, used your legs. See as to how less often you need to correct, as you keep going around, staying in those same tracks.
I have no problem riding any size circle on a broke horse, as that horse has learned to guide.
If you are riding with contact, two handed, and put that outside shoulder back, then you are also putting more pressure on that outside rein, thus more or less keeping inside shoulder up by an indirect method, versus having the horse not lean on inside rein. Anyway, that is the concept I get

Now, check shoulder control, to see if the hrose is keeping that inside shoulder up. Instead of riding a circle, ride a square, first at the walk and trot, then at the lope. In order to make those corners, esp at the lope, the horse has to move those shoulders, take a cross over step or two at the walk and trot
Guide, body control, balance works for me!


----------



## tinyliny

Mary Wanlass talks about that position, with the outside shoulder kept back, as the "lunge" position. She likens it to the position of a fencer who is making a lunge forward; the hand with the epee goes forwad. that the leading shoulder in the canter, and the outside hand stays back. the rider even advances the inside hip slightly, especially when the horse takes the last stride in the canter sequence, where the leading leg strikes the ground and the horse is the MOST stretched out with leading (inside) shoulder farther advanced.

This is for the canter. I don't know how or if it applies to turns or walk or trot.


----------



## Smilie

I guess we just have to agree that different factors, apply, whether you are riding one handed, or with two hands on the reins, reins loose or on contact, at speed, ect.
Just using an example, like running a circle with a reiner, on a loose rein, where the cue for speed, is the rider leaning forward sightly, rein hand run up the neck.

Yes, the rider's inside hip is slightly advanced, but that is due to the beats in a lope or canter, with those three beats not being even, thus just allowing you to go with the movement of the horse, creates that scenario. In a trot, or jog for instance, there is a regular two beat diagonal gait , with a distinct 'one two, one , two, you can feel and count. feel the beats of a lope or canter, and when that front lead leg, extends to max, your hip goes slightly with it, as that final beat in that three beat stride is distinct.

By putting outside shoulder back slightly riding with two hands and contact,you are also using that outside rein as a support in that turn, so \different strokes for different folks' (disciplines) apply


----------



## bsms

To be honest, I doubt MY horse cares about my shoulder position, provided I stay balanced overall. Maybe it is my western saddle, or maybe he's just not that interested in me, or maybe he's just happy anytime I briefly manage to be balanced at all. Maybe he is more interested in his surroundings, or paying attention to the stones that exist even in our little arena, or maybe I look around enough that he isn't that sensitive to my seat. Maybe it is using one hand on a solid-shank curb with no moving parts.

"_In 1931 my second book, JUMPING THE HORSE, was published; and among the reviews there was one uncomplimentary one which appeared in Polo. In part it read: ". . . in brief, it presents this thesis; don't try to play tennis the way Tilden does it, because you cannot; don't pay any attention to Bobby Jones because you couldn't possibly hit a ball the way he does. Or, to come right down to it, don't bother to try to go over obstacles the way Major Harry Chamberlin does, because you never will be able to anyway; just leave the reins loose enough so that the horse will do the work, without interference from you."

There was the answer to my problem. Less than one per cent of my pupils may have the riding genius of Major Harry Chamberlin, and very few of them will ever devote as many hours a day, and as many years of such days to riding and thinking about riding as he did; a few of them may be professionals but the majority will be bankers and lawyers and business men, and their wives and daughters who, in their turn, will marry doctors and lawyers. 

Of course it is foolish to try to teach them to ride the way men who devote their lives to riding do. For most of my pupils riding is merely a relaxation and *I just have to make them ride efficiently and without abusing their horses on the trails*, in the hunting field, in the horse shows etc. *What was said in JUMPING THE HORSE was perhaps too simple for Polo, but was too complicated for hundreds of my pupils, young and old, fat and lean, brave and frightened.* This is how my work lost its abstract aspects and acquired the tendency to adjust sound riding ideas to contemporary life._" - VS Littauer, Common Sense Horsemanship

I appreciate that approach. I'm fascinated by the mechanics of riding, but I'm so ungainly that *Primum non nocere* ("First, do no harm") is a constant challenge. I can aspire to it, but I don't achieve it. Maybe "_Whatever the rider does, he cannot ask for more than nature can give_" applies to me as a rider, in addition to how I work my horse. The complexities that might make a good rider a great one would require me to first become a good rider...:evil:


----------



## Tallia

bsms said:


> Since a horse cannot curve its body, it looks more like a shoebox being asked to turn. The horse angles the shoebox toward the left when going right. We see the bend in the neck and body at the withers, creating an optical illusion of a curving horse. But what the horse is doing moves the inside shoulder forward.



Sorta wondering how that works. A horse can't bent their body? It's all an "optical illusion"?

Can you explain this picture then? This horse is quite obviously bent thru his back for the turn.


----------



## gottatrot

@Smilie, I assume the goal for all of us is not to correct at all, and I don't want the horse to be ridden around a circle being corrected either by the reins or the legs. I don't think it matters which one you use, as long as the horse understands the cue. I'm trying to get away from the idea of the aids "causing" an action, and thinking of them instead as being a cue that the horse either understands or doesn't.

My goal is that the horse will follow my weight only. But if your balance over your seat is affecting the horse, then understanding how the horse's balance is around the circle is important. I was taught to turn my upper body around the circle at the angle I wanted the circle to be, following the horse. But if the horse's body doesn't do that, then by turning my shoulders in around the angle I am changing my weight so that it doesn't match the horse's body position anymore. That's why I think it can be important to understand what the horse's shoulders are doing around the turn. 

@Talia, I don't see much bend in the back at all. I see a lot of bend in the neck and in the hindquarters

I notice in the photo that the rider is matching the angle of his shoulders with the horse's neck, but not the shoulders. He's not riding the neck.


----------



## Tallia

That rider is facing the cow they are working, as he rightly should. If they were riding the rail or the trail, it would be different. 

How on earth do you not see bend? The shoulders and hips are pointed different directions. If there were no bend in the spine, the back of the saddle would not be off to the side like it is. 

How anyone can look at any semi athletic horse and compare their body to a shoe box is beyond me. :/


----------



## bsms

Tallia said:


> ...This horse is quite obviously bent thru his back for the turn.


I disagree. I'm guessing for the position of the spine near the front. Used the palm of his hand since I would put mine on my horse's withers, but he might be different...and I don't cut. He's holding the horn with the other, and the base of the horn ought to be close to the spine.








​ 
Here is another person's attempt to show the spine in a curving horse:








​ 
This shows SOME bend is possible, but not very much. And while the spine can flex some, it has the horse's total body to deal with - and overhead photos just don't show significant bending under the rider.

I don't think Harry Boldt was trying to curve the horse in this picture, but it was the only one I could find online and it illustrates some of the problem. The bulge on the inside may indicate the horse is bending a little...but that is a LOT of horse to bend, trying or not:










https://www.amazon.com/Dressage-Horse-Dressurpferd-English-German/dp/3885427605

But I think it also shows why we as riders believe the horse does bend around our leg.

PS - Your rectangle isn't matched up to the horse's hips.

PSS - That horse is also at max performance, and not trying to move forward. It is like using this photo to show a horse rounding its back:








​
While the horse HAS removed the sag in its back, the effort it is making mostly makes my point - if that is the very best that can be done, it sure isn't much reward for the effort. ​


----------



## Tallia

kinda miraculous that a horse can manage to put several inches of their body off to one side and keep their spine arrow straight.

The shoulders and hips don't move independently from the spine they are attached to. 

Drawing a straight line between the 2 points doesn't even make sense. Just because a straight line is drawn between 2 points doesn't mean that those 2 points arent on an arc.


----------



## Tallia

disproved by the fact that your line is already some distance from the center of the spine even just a few inches forward of the hip. :/


----------



## Tallia

bsms said:


> PSS - That horse is also at max performance, and not trying to move forward.]



Irrelavent since what I'm commenting on is your declaration that a horse CANT Bend their spine or curve their body. So, whether they are at peak performance or not doesn't matter because it just shows that youre wrong and horses CAN curve their spine. :/

If they didn't need to bend them, they'd be solid like a board.


----------



## Smilie

gottatrot said:


> @Smilie, I assume the goal for all of us is not to correct at all, and I don't want the horse to be ridden around a circle being corrected either by the reins or the legs. I don't think it matters which one you use, as long as the horse understands the cue. I'm trying to get away from the idea of the aids "causing" an action, and thinking of them instead as being a cue that the horse either understands or doesn't.
> 
> You miss my point. The eventual goal, as in a reining circle for instance, is for the horse to seek that circle, stay correct and on track, all the way around, without bulges ect., WITHOUT needing either rein or leg correction
> 
> The correction, with legs, WHILE TRAINING, and on a loose rein, is working to the point you need neither of them, to run that correct circle, when it counts. In other words, to get a horse to that point, it is better to correct with legs and leave the head and mouth alone,in order to reach that final goal, make the hrose seek that correct circle, versus being held on it'
> 
> We also don't counter canter horses in any show patterns, yet it is an important strength building exercise, and teaches obedience to legs, versus a horse associating leads and lead changes with direction
> 
> Yes, in the end, you want to use neither correction with reins of legs, YOU WANT that horse to have learned to guide by staying evenly between reins and legs,which are at neutral. That is what creates a horse known as 'looking out through the bridle', or a bridle horse.
> I said, use that exercise as a test-try it, find your horse;s holes, by asking him to , okay, just trot at first, a circle, on a loose rein and no leg pressure
> 
> Then feel free to just correct any drift in or out, using just your own body


----------



## Smilie

Tallia said:


> Irrelavent since what I'm commenting on is your declaration that a horse CANT Bend their spine or curve their body. So, whether they are at peak performance or not doesn't matter because it just shows that youre wrong and horses CAN curve their spine. :/
> 
> If they didn't need to bend them, they'd be solid like a board.


Agree, and why one reining trainer told me, working on getting a horse soft in his entire body, 'you can't ride a board.'
When a horse bends his ribs around your leg, that back follows!


----------



## Smilie

gottatrot said:


> @Smilie, I assume the goal for all of us is not to correct at all, and I don't want the horse to be ridden around a circle being corrected either by the reins or the legs. I don't think it matters which one you use, as long as the horse understands the cue. I'm trying to get away from the idea of the aids "causing" an action, and thinking of them instead as being a cue that the horse either understands or doesn't.
> 
> My goal is that the horse will follow my weight only. But if your balance over your seat is affecting the horse, then understanding how the horse's balance is around the circle is important. I was taught to turn my upper body around the circle at the angle I wanted the circle to be, following the horse. But if the horse's body doesn't do that, then by turning my shoulders in around the angle I am changing my weight so that it doesn't match the horse's body position anymore. That's why I think it can be important to understand what the horse's shoulders are doing around the turn.
> 
> @Talia, I don't see much bend in the back at all. I see a lot of bend in the neck and in the hindquarters
> 
> I notice in the photo that the rider is matching the angle of his shoulders with the horse's neck, but not the shoulders. He's not riding the neck.


Perhaps, this link might shed some light, and where the following paragraph is taken from

'The sideways curvature of the horse around the rider's inside leg is called the BEND. A correctly bend horse flexes on the circle. His spine follows the curve of the circle from the poll to the tail.

Most of the time, this bend should be moderate, but above all, regular.

The difficulty is related to the horse's anatomy. 
The neck, from the poll to the withers, is very flexible. The ribcage is rather rigid. As for the lower back, it bends rather easily.
These particularities explain why horses are very often bent too much from the poll to withers, or why they so easily put their hindquarters too far inside. It is just as tricky to have a straight horse than to have one perfectly bent!

Clumsy or inexperienced riders, untimely or hard aids, lack of flexibility in the horse, or difficulty for the very young horse to carry a rider, trigger physical and mental resistance, which causes the horse to fight back (defend himself).

Refusal to bend one way is a hindrance or a defense! It is almost always a lack of balance'
(not even a western link, LOL! )

Lateral bend of the horse


----------



## Smilie

'Lateral bending
left-bent-or-right-bentAlmost every horse bends naturally more easily to one side than to the other. The lateral bending in the body is a result of the natural movement of the spine, the muscles, and the use of the front and hind legs.

The body is bent from neck to tail, and can be bent to the left or to the right'
Lateral bend of the horse - Straightness Training


----------



## bsms

I obviously disagree with your perception. I don't think your yellow line comes close to being near the spine. I drew a straight line and tried to see how the sides of the horse deviated from that straight line - and I don't see much deviation.

The photo was not taken to demonstrate anatomy, but it is one of the few photos I've been able to find of a horse turning very aggressively from near overhead. And the inside of the horse in the turn looks to me like it is pretty even with my straight line - unlike your oval with a line. The horse gets narrower toward the front, but it looks to me like a smooth line angling in from the rear hip of the horse to the rider's knee. I think the picture clearly shows the horse bending AT THE WITHERS, not along the back.

If it bends - and one of the pictures I posted in post #369 shows a slight bend - it isn't bending very much. Maybe someday someone will put a camera directly overhead a barrel and show barrel racers "bending" around the barrel, but what I see in an image search indicates horses LEAN when making a hard turn rather than BEND.

And @Smilie, it is Philippe Karl's point that horses, contrary to the dressage manual, cannot bend laterally underneath the rider, and that we are wrong if we try to make the horse follow our visual illusions than make our goals match what the horse is capable of doing. I am well aware many trainers say the horse can bend in a curve, but I see no evidence of it. I see no evidence of it in the picture I posted, either. We cannot SEE what is under the saddle pad, but the horse's sides match my straight line until it gets to the withers.

From the picture in the link you provided, enlarged - a good picture BTW:








​
That shows a very slight bend, most of which starts near the front end of where the saddle would be.


----------



## bsms

I'll add that when a horse really wants to turn, they do not turn "straight". They lean, pushing forward with the hind legs straight thru the spine, and then shove their front end over sideways with their front legs.








​ 
Turning "straight" makes for a comfortable turn - for the rider. But the horse knows better, and so would humans if they would get on all fours and try turning "straight". The goal of historic dressage (or WP) is not a maneuverable horse, but a comfortable one to ride.

It depends on your goals. I want the horse to be free to move under saddle like they move without a rider:


















​


> Portia, untutored and untaught, had developed for herself a way of turning very similar to that of the American cow-ponies. At my signal, down would go her nose, her front feet would jam into the ground, and she would swivel round on a pivot. Frequently the action was so sudden and so complete that I had difficulty in keeping up with her. Often the momentum carried by my body was so great that had it not been for the knee-pads on my Toptani saddle, I am sure I would have sailed into space. When turning like this, Portia never showed the slightest tendency to slip...not only without losing speed but without loss of balance, As soon as I got used to turning on the edge of a precipice (as this felt like) I quite enjoyed it. - Adventures Unbridled - Moyra Williams 1960, Page 144


 I agree with her, but I gather a lot of folks don't enjoy "_turning on the edge of a precipice_". But mechanically, it is how horses want to turn.

Riding philosophy. It depends on what you want. But even when turning straight, I think the horse's back remains largely "straight". Philippe Karl's "Twisted truths" discusses it at length, with photos.


----------



## bsms

I'll post these two videos, although what I see in them may be affected by my own beliefs about what happens. But as I watch these horses trying to turn, I think I see a LITTLE lateral flexing, but not much - although the horses are trying to get turned around hard. Before there is much bend to the back, the horse shifts its rear to straighten himself out.

But I admit my prejudices may affect my vision, and folks need to ride how they believe works. I can't pretend to be impartial:


----------



## Smilie

okay, lets use another analogy, from another link, and lets also separate a horse pivoting, doing a rollback or a spin, from a horse riding a circle, as I;m quite sure, where Trottin is getting her info from, is not in any reining turn around, or a cutting horse staying with a cow, but rather just riding a circle or a corner, without the horse dropping that inside shoulder, or popping hip out
There is no [pivot foot, okay, just the horse keeping the correct bend in that circle.
Back to the analogy=think more of a banana. The horse can bend his neck very well, and the back end on his spine, thus able to move hip in. Quite right that the middle of the spine does not bend like we think of bending.
BUT when riding a circle, if you keep that inside shoulder from falling in (western we do taht with inside rein up against the neck if needed, English uses that outside supporting rein, then by using inside leg, again,if needed, the ribs are pushed out, which in turn has hips in, thus the horse continues to drive up correctly, versus popping out of lead behind, leaning in, dropping inside shoulder

Now, if you want to talk of a reining type turn around, rollback, then of course, the horse works off his back end, and in a spin, moves shoulders over, by crossing over in front, reaching sideways with those front legs
In a roll back, those front feet are swung around in one step, with horse planted on his rear
A cutting horse has to get down in front, while having back legs engaged,allowing the horse to sweep from side to side.
Neither of those maneuvers have anything to do with having that alignment, riding corners or circles.
Nor is your own shoulder back going to do anything, except perhaps, tighten the rein on the outside,English, to prevent the hrose from turning too much off the inside rein, thus dropping shoulder
Tell you what, ride deep into the corner of an arena, at the lope, and see what happens if you just use that inside rein, allowing the horse to push his ribs into that turn.

Anyway, here is what I mean about instilling guide, where I just keep my horse evenly between the reins, and am sure not putting that outside shoulder back, esp , riding one handed!. We are also not talking of having a horse bend along his entire spine, like a bow, but having that slight correct bend (more like a banana

https://horseandrider.com/training/perfect-circles-24887


----------



## Smilie

Far as that outside rein, to keep shoulder up, here is a good example, western, two handed, and what I saw, far as Trottin saying to put the human outside shoulder back, as that has the effect on the rein mentioned, I would think


----------



## gottatrot

Tallia said:


> kinda miraculous that a horse can manage to put several inches of their body off to one side and keep their spine arrow straight.
> 
> The shoulders and hips don't move independently from the spine they are attached to.


The spine is not "arrow straight," it just can only curve a slight amount laterally.

Maybe this is the problem with your perception: Horses' shoulders are not attached to the spine. They are a "sling" that moves independently from the back. 



> There is no joint or bony attachment of the forelimb to the rest of the skeleton. Instead, the chest cavity is held in a sling of muscles and ligaments rather like the two pillars of a suspension bridge. This allows greater freedom of movement. Unlike us, the horse has no collar bone. Concussion is absorbed by soft tissue which would otherwise be absorbed by the spine.


The Horse's Shoulder Blade



Tallia said:


> How on earth do you not see bend? The shoulders and hips are pointed different directions. If there were no bend in the spine, the back of the saddle would not be off to the side like it is.


The spine bends laterally just a little. It can bend a lot more laterally than it can vertically.
If the neck was bent in this graphic, it would give the impression that the horse was curved quite a lot.
If you look at the bar graph on the bottom, you can see that the horse can bend the most at the pelvis and neck. So the horse's shoulders and neck move quite a lot, and the hip area can flex more than all the rest of the spine (see the last green bar). This creates the visual of an extreme curve, even though the back is barely curved.


----------



## Smilie

As per other posts, that explains to what is meant in a bend in a hrose, versus a human, as when riding a circle , or into corners
Far as collection, the abdominal muscles tighten, the shoulders are up, and the back end is engaged
I don't see how putting your own shoulder back does anything, other then pull that outside rein back slightly, thus help keep that inside should up during that turn, as per video above


----------



## gottatrot

Smilie said:


> I don't see how putting your own shoulder back does anything, other then pull that outside rein back slightly, thus help keep that inside should up during that turn, as per video above


When I ride, I'm trying to balance my core above the horse's movement. The best balance is when the angles of our shoulders, torso and hips/pelvis all match so our weight is coming down through our spine. 
We try to have a following seat, and to match the horse's body movement with our own weight and body angles, correct?

I assume when I move my shoulder that my reins are independent of that fact - meaning that I shorten and loosen the reins constantly in order to have the amount of looseness or contact that I want, so when I say to move the shoulder back I'm not meaning to shorten the rein. I believe rein contact should be something we decide independent of our body which includes our torso and shoulders. So no, I'm not talking about what to do with the reins when I mention moving the rider's outside shoulder back around the curve.

So for example, in this photo let's assume that the curve from the ears to the tail is the bend the rider wants the horse on. The rider's shoulders are turned at the angle of that bend, as if he were walking around that bend himself and turning his shoulders to the angle. That is how I was taught. But the rider's lower body is following much more closely the bend of the horse's body which is following its shoulders, and we can see from the top red line that the inside shoulder is forward (meaning inside of the horse's bend rather than the arena).

So if the rider wants his balance coming down through his spine and core onto the horse to better match what the horse is doing, he would not turn his shoulders in, but would instead get rid of that twist in his spine and turn his shoulders out to match the actual angle of the horse.


----------



## TXhorseman

The problem with trying to assess what happens to a horse’s body in a turn is that the discussion usually revolves around just one aspect of what is happening. In reality, many things are or may be happening when a horse turns while traveling forward. Let’s consider various factors.

The horse’s spine bends. This bend may not be even throughout the length of the spine. As pointed out by many, the horse’s neck – from withers to poll – is much more flexible than the rest of the spine. This can be seen easily by observation. This fact often causes confusion when riders try working on lateral flexion with their horses. Some concentrate simply on bending the neck.

Others try to develop more flexion from the withers to the dock. The fact that such flexion occurs can be felt by a sensitive rider who can feel if a horse is stiffer when turning one direction or the other. It may also be heard in the interruption of the rhythm of the footfalls when a horse changes from a straight line to a turn. But lateral flexion is still only one aspect causing what the rider feels and hears. While the lateral bend of the spine – as well as vertical bend – may be considered slight, any bend is significant when compared to complete rigidity.

Another aspect involved in turning is leaning or canting. Leaning is easily witnessed when observing barrel racing. Leaning is closely related to how a horse uses its legs on either side when turning although this also involves other aspects of how a horse uses its anatomy. 

Yet another thing to consider is that a horse’s spine can rotate – think of what happens (or happened) when a human dances the twist. 

These aspects and others may all be involved when a horse turns. Providing visual images of what is desired may often aid understanding even when not completely accurate. To discuss a single aspect when discussing turning may be helpful but it is important to remember that it is only one of many things happening.

While a horse may naturally turn in a certain way on its own, that doesn’t mean that its methods cannot be improved. This is the same reason professional athletes depend on knowledgeable trainers to improve their performance.


----------



## Golden Horse

Thank you @TXhorseman for your common sense view on this, especially the last paragraph, which this phone does not seem to want to quote.


----------



## TXhorseman

Sometimes phones seem to have a mind of their own. Don't you wish you could train them?


----------



## Golden Horse

TXhorsemavn said:


> Sometimes phones seem to have a mind of their own. Don't you wish you could train them?


Worse still when mine is in critical melt down, so have been lent one trained by someone else!


----------



## gottatrot

TXhorseman said:


> ...Others try to develop more flexion from the withers to the dock. The fact that such flexion occurs can be felt by a sensitive rider who can feel if a horse is stiffer when turning one direction or the other. It may also be heard in the interruption of the rhythm of the footfalls when a horse changes from a straight line to a turn.


Yes, and I'm glad you say from the withers to the dock, because that includes the shoulders. The shoulders are the most common culprit for stiffness when turning one direction or the other. They also are commonly asymmetrical due to many factors, one of which is that horses often have one hoof wider and lower than the other, which can make one shoulder bear more weight and get larger. Larger muscles can be less flexible, so can inhibit the horse from turning as well in one direction. 



TXhorseman said:


> ...But lateral flexion is still only one aspect causing what the rider feels and hears. While the lateral bend of the spine – as well as vertical bend – may be considered slight, any bend is significant when compared to complete rigidity.
> 
> Another aspect involved in turning is leaning or canting. Leaning is easily witnessed when observing barrel racing. Leaning is closely related to how a horse uses its legs on either side when turning although this also involves other aspects of how a horse uses its anatomy.
> 
> Yet another thing to consider is that a horse’s spine can rotate – think of what happens (or happened) when a human dances the twist.


Yes, and apparently when the horse's spine actually bends, it tends to rotate inward because of the pull of the various muscles on the spinous processes. 



TXhorseman said:


> ...While a horse may naturally turn in a certain way on its own, that doesn’t mean that its methods cannot be improved. This is the same reason professional athletes depend on knowledgeable trainers to improve their performance.


Yes. Knowledgeable being key, since if we don't understand how a horse's body moves naturally, it is much more difficult to make conscious positive changes. I would agree that with some horses especially, they may have developed stiffness or poor movement from body issues and we can improve on these by assisting them with pain and teaching them that the improper ways they have been taught to move under saddle are not the best.


----------



## bsms

TXhorseman said:


> ...While a horse may naturally turn in a certain way on its own, that doesn’t mean that its methods cannot be improved. This is the same reason professional athletes depend on knowledgeable trainers to improve their performance.


If the way a human teaches results in better performance, then that would be correct. But if it degrades performance, then the human teaching is wrong. A horse turns BETTER when it leans. Better as in making a tighter turn at a faster speed with less effort. *If mechanical efficiency is the goal, then horses should lean into a turn*. The rider's task is then to learn how to allow the horse to lean without interfering with its balance.

*If a comfortable ride is the goal - and it is an acceptable goal - then turning "straight" is better*. For the rider. It truly makes for a more pleasant way to turn. And I see no evidence that it harms the horse, other than forcing him to turn slower and learn a different foot pattern. So there is NOTHING wrong, IMHO, with teaching the horse to turn "straight". 

But Philippe Karl says overhead photos of a trained dressage horse show the horse is NOT bending its body laterally. And that if you understand that, you can use it to help you help your horse do what he CAN do. 

It isn't just the mobility of the spine. Where we sit, the spine has ribs that reach around and join in the sternum. Between the ribs, there is muscle tissue. But none of the muscles between the ribs contract to bring ribs closer together. Thus the horse has no means to decrease the spacing of his ribs on the inside of the turn other than thru outward force - using the legs to shape his body. Those leg forces aren't enough to bend the horse thru the ribcage - a "box" made of bones.

"Round" is a much more harmful concept. People became upset when I called it the Slinky Theory, but how else to describe it? You squeeze the horse at both ends (_"This of course requires that the horse is well contained between the pushing aids and restraining aids, because this relatively high basic tension which is necessary for collection can only be obtained in this way..." - Balance in Movement, The Seat of the Rider by Susanne von Dietze, page 120_). Contained between the driving aids and the restraining aids, the horse is supposed to round up between them - but a horse bucking violently can only remove the sag caused by the rider, not "round up". The only way to round up a horse's spine is to first break it!

But if one accepts that there is no "circle of energy", and that instead of containing the horse, one needs to allow the horse to express motion - using energy to lift the withers - then one has no need to trap the horse. You don't need him to be "well contained" - "closed in between the driving reins and restraining aids". Instead, you ask him to power forward, and then divert his movement into lifting at the front.

That is something horses can and will do on their own. Bandit does it, either from worry about something ahead or when he is feeling energetic but doesn't want to leave the other horses behind. So he lifts. USES energy. The challenge of dressage, as VS Littauer put it, is to get the horse to act that way at command, instead of only doing it when he feels like it.

It is much easier to teach a horse to do what it can do, than to teach it to pretend to do something it cannot. The result may not be extreme enough to win at high level competitive dressage, but average riders with average horses should not train to imitate genius or careful breeding. If I taught Bandit Western Pleasure, he would never win. If I had that goal, it would be important that I teach him Western Pleasure appropriate for HIS build, and not try to imitate what horses bred for it can do.

When I was young, running coaches wanted runners to increase their stride length. That was the easiest and fastest way to run faster. I was never going to be very fast, so I dropped the competition and just ran for fun - and have done so for 40+ years. Many competitive runners, listening to expert coaches, ended up unable to run by their 30s or 40s. The coaches pushed their bodies too hard and they paid the price.

My oldest daughter tried gymnastics. It took 6 months of listening to coaches to break her down. That ended her gymnastics, and her body recovered - from what coaches told her.

If that happens with humans, who can talk and say how it feels in their knees, then what happens when human coaches train silent horses?


----------



## Smilie

Sorry, just skimmed this morning, as it is about 30 below C and I must go out.
Good points by THorseman.
Far as shoulder control, making sure they follow the rest of the body, Trottin, you are preaching to the choir, as anyone who has ridden in events like reining, knows exactly the importance of shoulder control, or those who have ever ridden horses with no shoulder control, that run off in the opposite direction to where their head is cranked
I don't worry about any artificial attempt of positioning my body, as it becomes just natural, learned muscle response, same as for the hrose, in order to ride correctly, stay with the horse, not interfere with his movement
The basic principle of teaching horses to move away from pressure,, and then esp that release, also applies to riding.
Thus, for instance, I never think, 'now what leg do I use to turn in any direction', but rather, what body part is out in that turn, so the hrose;s shoulders are't following that nose, nor does his entire body have that correct alignment
A horse should turn off of the slight rein signal alone. You only tip nose slightly into turn, to indicate direction, and on a well trained hrose, the rest of the body should follow in correct alignment
Therefore, when turning left, for instance, if the shoulders are not following, I would use outside leg (rt ), slightly ahead of the cinch. If the horse was turning like a board, hanging ribs in, versus bending around my legs, I would use inside leg at the cinch. In both cases , it is not the direction, but the yielding to pressure that apply.
I think, that often beginning riders are taught to ride in an ABC sort of manner, versus learning to feel the horse, learning very good feel themselves, thus knowing when to hold and drive, when to release, and when some part of the hrose is out of aleignment, while they themselves learn to stay out of the way of the horse, when he is correct, letting him do his join, riding in harmony with that horse, versus against it

Also, once again, it is important, JMO, to recognize the middle ground where many hroses are ridden, for their job they do.
In other words, they are ridden neither in collected frame, nor hollowed out, but in a natural frame.


----------



## Golden Horse

bsms said:


> "Round" is a much more harmful concept. People became upset when I called it the Slinky Theory, but how else to describe it? You squeeze the horse at both ends (_"This of course requires that the horse is well contained between the pushing aids and restraining aids, because this relatively high basic tension which is necessary for collection can only be obtained in this way..." - Balance in Movement, The Seat of the Rider by Susanne von Dietze, page 120_). Contained between the driving aids and the restraining aids, the horse is supposed to round up between them - but a horse bucking violently can only remove the sag caused by the rider, not "round up". The only way to round up a horse's spine is to first break it!
> 
> But if one accepts that there is no "circle of energy", and that instead of containing the horse, one needs to allow the horse to express motion - using energy to lift the withers - then one has no need to trap the horse. You don't need him to be "well contained" - "closed in between the driving reins and restraining aids". Instead, you ask him to power forward, and then divert his movement into lifting at the front



You see I just see someone who cannot grasp the idea and concept of energy, as someone who has never had the chance or the training to experience it, so has dismissed it as not existing.

I’m in my 60th year, have ridden on and off for 55 of those years, and it is only in the last 3 months that I start to REALLY understand what this feels like....the request to start ‘storing energy’ is hard work for both horse and rider, well it is for this rider, to be able to use your body to do less to create more, is damm hard. For Fergie to understand and start doing as I ask is hard physically and mentally, as she understands, and as her body develops, then she finds it easier.

Thing is there is no forcing, jamming, no hardness at all, it is softly asking her to work in a different way, the way that she can lift into a Lope from a walk now, rather than falling into it is just beautiful to feel.

Does every horse need to do this? Heck no, can every horse do it? Maybe not, but a lot can.




bsms said:


> If that happens with humans, who can talk and say how it feels in their knees, then what happens when human coaches train silent horses?


Good human coaches are in tune with both their horses and students, and accept that every living being struggles with some elements of fitnesss. Maybe i’m lucky, but I often hear my trainer saying “you have to accept that he will never be able to move like that” we certainly accept that both Fergie and I have limitations, and we work to accommodate those.


----------



## sarahfromsc

gottatrot said:


> When I ride, I'm trying to balance my core above the horse's movement. The best balance is when the angles of our shoulders, torso and hips/pelvis all match so our weight is coming down through our spine.
> We try to have a following seat, and to match the horse's body movement with our own weight and body angles, correct?
> 
> I assume when I move my shoulder that my reins are independent of that fact - meaning that I shorten and loosen the reins constantly in order to have the amount of looseness or contact that I want, so when I say to move the shoulder back I'm not meaning to shorten the rein. I believe rein contact should be something we decide independent of our body which includes our torso and shoulders. So no, I'm not talking about what to do with the reins when I mention moving the rider's outside shoulder back around the curve.
> 
> So for example, in this photo let's assume that the curve from the ears to the tail is the bend the rider wants the horse on. The rider's shoulders are turned at the angle of that bend, as if he were walking around that bend himself and turning his shoulders to the angle. That is how I was taught. But the rider's lower body is following much more closely the bend of the horse's body which is following its shoulders, and we can see from the top red line that the inside shoulder is forward (meaning inside of the horse's bend rather than the arena).
> 
> So if the rider wants his balance coming down through his spine and core onto the horse to better match what the horse is doing, he would not turn his shoulders in, but would instead get rid of that twist in his spine and turn his shoulders out to match the actual angle of the horse.


This is not a good example of bending, or not. The rider is not asking for a bend in this particular picture.


----------



## tinyliny

is that Renvers? the opposite of shoulder in? 

the horse's front is off the wall, but the bend is concave on the right side, whereas in shoulder in, he'd also have the front end off the wall, but the bend would be on the left side (concave on the left) ever so slightly.

please correct me if I"m wrong. I never did fully understand those dressage movements. I think I was stuck on led yield!


----------



## gottatrot

tinyliny said:


> is that Renvers? the opposite of shoulder in?
> 
> the horse's front is off the wall, but the bend is concave on the right side, whereas in shoulder in, he'd also have the front end off the wall, but the bend would be on the left side (concave on the left) ever so slightly.
> 
> please correct me if I"m wrong. I never did fully understand those dressage movements. I think I was stuck on led yield!


Yes, it is Renvers, which is a movement where the rider asks for bend. It is a lateral movement and I believe this rider is doing it on four tracks.


----------



## sarahfromsc

Very technically speaking, travers (haunches in) and renvers (haunches out) are only used when working within an arena with walls/rails. When in the open the movements are know as haunches right or haunches left. 

Without walls or rails what would be considered ‘in’ and what would be ‘out’? Thinking in this way helps when workin on lateral work on the trail.

Also, if memory serves me right, the horse has to be on the diagonal as well to be considered a travers or renvers.

It the bottom line is the horse needs bend through the body to accomplish these movements.

Concerning the picture, how do y’all see the riders legs? What is he asking with his legs? What do y’all see in the horse’s rib cage?


----------



## gottatrot

Here's a picture of a horse doing renvers without a rider for clarity. Same thing happens to the horse's body as in the picture of the horse and rider posted earlier.

Inside shoulder is forward, spine rotates outward slightly (part of bending for horses is that the spine rotates - ideally outward because inward flattens the back more according to one source I've read). Barrel bulges a little more on the inside behind the rider's leg. The rider does not feel that part because the shoulder is forward more on the inside of the bend. It feels like your leg is closer to the horse and farther forward (which it is). The outside leg is farther back, so it feels like the barrel bulges out more even though the inside of the barrel is relatively more bulgy behind where your leg is.
So it looks to me like the rider has his inside leg (inside of the bend, not the arena) at the girth and farther forward. His outside leg is farther back, which would be a normal way to cue for bend.


----------



## Golden Horse

So what is this horse doing, and is it displaying any bend?


----------



## updownrider

bsms said:


> If the way a human teaches results in better performance, then that would be correct. But if it degrades performance, then the human teaching is wrong. A horse turns BETTER when it leans. Better as in making a tighter turn at a faster speed with less effort. *If mechanical efficiency is the goal, then horses should lean into a turn*. The rider's task is then to learn how to allow the horse to lean without interfering with its balance.
> 
> *If a comfortable ride is the goal - and it is an acceptable goal - then turning "straight" is better*. For the rider. It truly makes for a more pleasant way to turn. And I see no evidence that it harms the horse, other than forcing him to turn slower and learn a different foot pattern. So there is NOTHING wrong, IMHO, with teaching the horse to turn "straight".
> 
> But Philippe Karl says overhead photos of a trained dressage horse show the horse is NOT bending its body laterally. And that if you understand that, you can use it to help you help your horse do what he CAN do.
> 
> It isn't just the mobility of the spine. Where we sit, the spine has ribs that reach around and join in the sternum. Between the ribs, there is muscle tissue. But none of the muscles between the ribs contract to bring ribs closer together. Thus the horse has no means to decrease the spacing of his ribs on the inside of the turn other than thru outward force - using the legs to shape his body. Those leg forces aren't enough to bend the horse thru the ribcage - a "box" made of bones.
> 
> "Round" is a much more harmful concept. People became upset when I called it the Slinky Theory, but how else to describe it? You squeeze the horse at both ends (_"This of course requires that the horse is well contained between the pushing aids and restraining aids, because this relatively high basic tension which is necessary for collection can only be obtained in this way..." - Balance in Movement, The Seat of the Rider by Susanne von Dietze, page 120_). Contained between the driving aids and the restraining aids, the horse is supposed to round up between them - but a horse bucking violently can only remove the sag caused by the rider, not "round up". The only way to round up a horse's spine is to first break it!
> 
> But if one accepts that there is no "circle of energy", and that instead of containing the horse, one needs to allow the horse to express motion - using energy to lift the withers - then one has no need to trap the horse. You don't need him to be "well contained" - "closed in between the driving reins and restraining aids". Instead, you ask him to power forward, and then divert his movement into lifting at the front.
> 
> That is something horses can and will do on their own. Bandit does it, either from worry about something ahead or when he is feeling energetic but doesn't want to leave the other horses behind. So he lifts. USES energy. The challenge of dressage, as VS Littauer put it, is to get the horse to act that way at command, instead of only doing it when he feels like it.
> 
> It is much easier to teach a horse to do what it can do, than to teach it to pretend to do something it cannot. The result may not be extreme enough to win at high level competitive dressage, but average riders with average horses should not train to imitate genius or careful breeding. If I taught Bandit Western Pleasure, he would never win. If I had that goal, it would be important that I teach him Western Pleasure appropriate for HIS build, and not try to imitate what horses bred for it can do.
> 
> When I was young, running coaches wanted runners to increase their stride length. That was the easiest and fastest way to run faster. I was never going to be very fast, so I dropped the competition and just ran for fun - and have done so for 40+ years. Many competitive runners, listening to expert coaches, ended up unable to run by their 30s or 40s. The coaches pushed their bodies too hard and they paid the price.
> 
> My oldest daughter tried gymnastics. It took 6 months of listening to coaches to break her down. That ended her gymnastics, and her body recovered - from what coaches told her.
> 
> If that happens with humans, who can talk and say how it feels in their knees, then what happens when human coaches train silent horses?


I debated with myself whether to post this video or not because I don’t want to get into a debate for many reasons. Anyway, there is no literal circle of energy with flashes of lightening following a horse. But I think this video demonstrates how the same dressage flatwork benefits a show jumper develop the energy needed to jump the technical courses built today. These courses are not the courses of Littauer’s day. 


https://video.eurosport.com/equestr...mastering-show-jumping_vid1018422/video.shtml


----------



## gottatrot

Golden Horse said:


> So what is this horse doing, and is it displaying any bend?
> View attachment 949853


It looks like that horse is going around a circle to the left. The horse's spine is rotating inward, which is not as good, so he might have some type of musculoskeletal issue/balance problem that could use some help. Other than that, I'd say he shows the usual amount of bend (not much) through the barrel.

@updownrider, great video. So why would a horse so "inverted" as in the video not develop a weak back and poor bascule if indeed a strong back required that "rounded" topline?


----------



## TXhorseman

sarahfromsc said:


> Without walls or rails what would be considered ‘in’ and what would be ‘out’?


Many times, people refer to the "inside" of the horse as the side away from the wall or rail and the "outside" as the side closest to the wall or the rail. However, "inside" may also refer to the "concave" side of the horse's bend with "outside" referring to the "convex" side.This can become confusing when reading various books and articles. For full understand, one must consider the context in which the term is used. When using these terms, one should -- at least initially -- define how they are being used.


----------



## updownrider

And this is why I almost didn’t post the video. The horse is not inverted or hollow. A horse must raise his head before a jump.


----------



## updownrider

https://practicalhorsemanmag.com/health-archive/horse-jumps-30014

Maybe this explanation helps


----------



## gottatrot

updownrider said:


> And this is why I almost didn’t post the video. The horse is not inverted or hollow. A horse must raise his head before a jump.


Exactly. Also when he is cantering before the jumps, his neck is raised high and the muscles on the underside even bulge. None of this is detrimental, as is often popularly believed. It helps him use his impulsion to propel himself over the jump athletically. Makes for a stronger back, not a weak one.


----------



## bsms

updownrider said:


> ...These courses are not the courses of Littauer’s day...


Littauer made the same point over 50 years ago, and he always argued that what an expert rider can and maybe SHOULD do with a well bred horse differed from what the average rider on a typical recreational horse should do. Good video, bookmarked for future reference. However, the video did a great job of making my point:








​ 
Or perhaps I should say, it illustrates what Jean Claude Racinet taught. It is missing an arrow at the front feet, showing the horse takes shorter front steps, bracing a little against the forward motion, like a pole vaulter. This increases the peak impact on the front legs, but positions the horse more on its haunches.

The neck raises and comes back, although the head is NOT placed in a vertical position. Critically, as Racinet explains, the haunches come under with a flexing of the pelvis, placing the hind legs well under the horse. The result is a LIFTING of the withers, NOT a "rounding" of the back.

In a record-breaking performance, Valegro does not round his back. But he is tucking his pelvis, bringing his legs under him, & lifting at the withers:








​ 
Those of us who are backyard riders of mongrel horses aren't ever going to look like that, nor do we have any need to do so. The AVERAGE rider on the AVERAGE horse can certainly shoot for a horse whose back is supple and engaged. Depending on the horse's breeding, the horse may lift his head.

Bandit was ridden hard. Raced for 10-15 miles with as much as 300 lbs on his 800 lbs body. His sire is an unregistered Arabian. His mother is a mustang. He is never going to be "collected" because we don't need it for what we do. But when he isn't too excited, his canter is very easy and fun to ride. We don't lift his head, we follow his head when he lifts it. And lifting his head does NOT hollow his back, make him stiff, awkward, or unpleasant to ride.

If I followed Susanne von Dietze's advice in Balance in Movement, The Seat of the Rider and tried to have Bandit "_well contained between the pushing aids and restraining aids, because this relatively high basic tension *which is necessary for collection can only be obtained in this way*_", I'd have tension all right! Her advice is based on the idea of shoving the ends together to round the horse up between them - which would be tense, but would also be totally unlike the movement shown in the video.

I read "The Classical Seat" by Sylvia Loch a couple of days ago, and once again got a bunch of drivel about how ONLY the classical seat allows a horse to move balanced. She attacked the Forward Seat as unbalanced and unsafe to ride, and I suspect her head would explode if she ever saw me riding Bandit between cactus.

I have no objection at all to someone working on classical dressage to have fun with their horse. I do object to being told that a horse who gives a smooth, rolling, utterly enjoyable and easy-riding canter is unbalanced, stiff and hollow - all because his head is up and looking forward.


----------



## updownrider

Bsms- did you read the article I posted?


----------



## Smilie

I think this thread has gone way hay wire, talking various athletic movements, requirements into account, far as body, head position and trying to apply them to the basic explanation as to when not, an upper level hrose,, using body as required, far as head back position to argue the point, but the recognition, by the average rider, as to when his horse is moving engaged, or collected or just natural, to moving inverted.
Inverted movement comes through resistance, and not any athletic movement asked for.
It has nothing to do with a horse raising his head, before a jump, gathering himself for that jump
It has everything to do, with a horse, just riding on the flat, raising his head above what is even normal and comfortable for him, with neck stiff, to the point it developes inverted underside muscling with time, mouth not giving, poll not giving, hocks then left out behind the horse, weight dropped onto the front end, back hollowed


----------



## updownrider

Smilie said:


> I think this thread has gone way hay wire, talking various athletic movements, requirements into account, far as body, head position and trying to apply them to the basic explanation as to when not, an upper level hrose,, using body as required, far as head back position to argue the point, but the recognition, by the average rider, as to when his horse is moving engaged, or collected or just natural, to moving inverted.
> Inverted movement comes through resistance, and not any athletic movement asked for.
> It has nothing to do with a horse raising his head, before a jump, gathering himself for that jump
> It has everything to do, with a horse, just riding on the flat, raising his head above what is even normal and comfortable for him, with neck stiff, to the point it developes inverted underside muscling with time, mouth not giving, poll not giving, hocks then left out behind the horse, weight dropped onto the front end, back hollowed


The video demonstrates impulsion, a necessity to create energy. Energy has been discussed on this thread. The explanation that a horse raises his head before he jumps became necessary because of a comment. I’m surprised you are objecting to a little side discussion. It happens in threads for clarity. 
Clarification does not mean haywire.


----------



## sarahfromsc

TXhorseman said:


> Many times, people refer to the "inside" of the horse as the side away from the wall or rail and the "outside" as the side closest to the wall or the rail. However, "inside" may also refer to the "concave" side of the horse's bend with "outside" referring to the "convex" side.This can become confusing when reading various books and articles. For full understand, one must consider the context in which the term is used. When using these terms, one should -- at least initially -- define how they are being used.


My first foray into dressage was when I was 50 and no arena. Maybe due to my age, not understanding terminology, and being out in an open field with no rail, walls, and only the letters a c,b,and e on posts stuck in the ground, and being primarily a ‘under educated’ trail rider, my instructor taught me haunches left and right. Once I began to understand what was being asked of me and what I was asking my green horse, we switch to inside/outside in relation to the bend. 

I still prefer, and understand, haunches left/right....lolol..old dog and all that.


----------



## gottatrot

updownrider said:


> https://practicalhorsemanmag.com/health-archive/horse-jumps-30014
> 
> Maybe this explanation helps


The article was good. It talks about "rounding the back" but then clarifies that what is meant is the coiling under of the pelvis and mainly the bending of the lumbosacral joint. It also talks about the front end as being critical for the first explosive power over the jump.
It does use the imagery of coiling a spring, but describes the energy as coming from the muscles, tendons and ligaments rather than from a circle involving the rider and bit. 



> All of the levers in his body (the bones) need to be constructed and connected in such a way that he can most effectively convert his forward momentum and muscle shortening into upward momentum.





> Although the hind legs furnish the main power on takeoff, the forelegs are more significant at this moment than many people realize. The horse uses them similar to the way a pole-vaulter uses the pole. In the last approach stride, he lowers his withers and rotates his scapula (shoulder bone) backward under the flap of the saddle, extending his front legs in front of his body, preparing to plant them on the ground the way the pole-vaulter plants the pole in the box.





> As both front feet are grounded, he lowers his head and bends his shoulder, elbow and fetlock joints, essentially shortening his front legs and bringing his body closer to the ground, storing elastic energy for the jump.





> As the front legs leave the ground, the loaded muscles, tendons and ligaments release their stored energy, much the way a stretched rubber band snaps back into place when it is released. The faster and more powerfully a horse loads his front legs, the greater the vertical slam off the ground on takeoff. He coordinates the release of the elastic rebound with the muscle contractions that straighten his front legs, extending his shoulder, elbow and fetlock joints.





> As the horse’s front legs are pushing off, his back is flexing like a bow (particularly the lumbosacral joint, which connects the loin to the croup), allowing his hind legs to sweep forward under the body.


Even though that common imagery is used (bow), the article clarifies that the bend is at the joint, where the horse actually can bend significantly and bring the hindquarters under the body



> The gluteal (croup) muscles and hamstring group (biceps femoris, semitendinosus and semimembranosus) are the powerhouses creating this propulsion. In fact, the biceps femoris muscles, which run down the backs of the hind legs, originating at the pelvis and attaching across the stifle joints, do the majority of the work in straightening the hind legs. These muscles are especially well developed in a top jumper.





> Interestingly, it’s easier to improve a horse’s front-end technique than his hindend technique.


 @Smilie: 
You say that it may be fine for the head and neck position to be raised and the horse may be doing athletic maneuvers and using the back well rather than the horse being stiff and braced against the rider. You as an experienced horse person can see the difference.

However, it is obvious from the many people posting on the forum worried about their horses carrying their neck high that the average rider is wrongly concerned about how the head and neck position affect the back. Many people believe head and neck posture are key to having the horse moving properly.

This concern in general horse society is in my opinion far overblown and emphasized. 

I believe horses that move awkwardly with their necks abnormally high are compensating for issues with the riding, tack or elsewhere in their body. *The posture is not the source of a problem*, it is a symptom. People don't need to worry about riding their horse with their heads and necks too high. They are focusing on a reaction from a horse rather than working on the real issues. 

As when jumping, horses raise the neck so they can see and get their bodies into position. For the average rider, a horse raising the neck abnormally high is reacting to try to find a way to use his body despite whatever else is going on with the tack, rider or environment.


----------



## sarahfromsc

I consider myself a backyard rider. My horse may not be a mongrel, but I do aspire to be better than a ‘backyard rider’. And there are many of us ‘backyard riders’ that want more from ourselves, our horses. I want my horse carrying me in a way that will make his body last longer. My goal is to still be riding the little grey Arab well into my 70’s and he in his 30’s. If I let him run around all discombobulated down the trail he will be broken down and worn out before he is 30.

And I now have a grade spotted saddle. His natural way of going? Head up, bulging on the bottom side of his neck, and hollowed back, gaiting as fast as he can, with a gaped mouth or chomping the bit. The troglodyte that broke him in did him no favors. He is literally being taught from scratch how to go better. And hopefully, despite 8 years of being ridden in the true backyard way, his body will hold out. Hell, it will take me until I am 70 to get him right.....lolololol


----------



## tinyliny

@*bsms* 

you object to the term 'rounding ' the back, but you do say that what is happening is that the horse tucks under the pelvis, and lifts the withers (which happens by virtue of the shoulder blades going DOWN, to push the withers UP).

In a sense, that IS a 'rounding' of the back. it curves the hind end under, and the front end under (the shoulderblades), so there is a feeling of the middle of the back lifting. Also, if the horse steps under himself more, and shortens the steps in front, affecting a compression of his stance (that darn 'slinky' theory),
his stifles, when reaching forward, tend to 'lift' the barrel upward and cause it to roll to the other side. the barrel feels fatter. this rolling of the barrel, caused by the 'knee/stifle' of the horse coming foward and lifting the barrel a little bit, is what you feel that makes your hip raise and fall with each walking stride of the hind legs, right , left, right , left.

It may not be the spine that curves, but the horse feels shorter and 'fatter' in the barrel, thus 'rounder'


I cannot see this as a 'harmful' term to use, as you say. it's based on how the rider FEELS the horse under her.

Also, it really cannot be achieveed without using some kind of restraint in front. either the rider askes the hrose to restrain forward motion with the use of a bit , as you said, by having more short, but hard steps in front, and lifting the withers, OR, the rider asks the hrose to do this with some other signal, and the horse carries this out on his own.

And, I know you will say the horse does not raise his 'withers', but he does, by virtue of dropping the shoulder blades, it brings the withers up through them. and that requires tightening the horses pectoral muscles, and other chest muscles.


----------



## bsms

"In a sense, that IS a 'rounding' of the back....And, I know you will say the horse does not raise his 'withers', but he does" - @tinyliny

I've repeated said the horse DOES raise it withers, using the thoracic sling of muscle. And I've repeatedly said that the lifting gives the FEEL of rounding, only without rounding. And I've tried to be clear that the harm in "round" comes from how it logically would be achieved, using a book approved by the USDF to make the point. 

Worse is when western sports adopt "round" with even less idea of what is going on. This is NOT good balance and proper movement of a horse:








​ 
"_I want my horse carrying me in a way that will make his body last longer....If I let him run around all discombobulated down the trail he will be broken down and worn out before he is 30._" - @sarahfromsc

Evidence? In what sense does increasing the peak impact on the horse's front legs improve his longevity? In what sense does asking him/her to move more in the vertical - understanding that what goes up must come down - protect the back? Since a sitting trot creates the highest impacts on the horse's back, in what sense does doing a sitting trot, and asking the horse for vertical motion, decrease the impact of riding?

If I asked you to carry a 50 lb pack, would you last longer using flat strides, or trying to spring around with impulsion?



> "The increase in your metabolism is directly proportional to the increase in the weight," Wickler explains. "So if you add 10 percent of your body weight, your costs go up 10 percent." Each additional pound added to the load produces a corresponding increase in the metabolic effort required to move that load--and that's over level ground. "If the horse is asked to trot uphill, metabolism increases. For a modest grade, metabolism increases by 2.5 times," Wickler adds."
> 
> "In short, explains Wickler, "*carrying a load causes a horse to shorten his stride, leave his feet on the ground longer and increase the distance his body travels (the "step length") with each stride. All of these gait adjustments work together to reduce the forces placed on the legs with each step*."
> 
> How Much Weight Can Your Horse Safely Carry?


That is how humans do it, too. We understand WE do it, but then refuse to admit it works the same for a horse. We don't need to teach proper movement to the horse, particularly when we obviously don't even know what the horse is doing.

Besides, a horse allowed freedom will NOT "_run around all discombobulated down the trail"_. He'll quickly figure out how to move down the trail with the least total impact on his body. I've yet to see a trail horse who needed to be "held together" lest he "fall apart". They might be a bit off-balance at first, but they WILL figure it out. Only THEY figure it out using their total body - how it affects their back, their legs, their feet, their vision, their energy. Because ONLY THE HORSE knows how his legs, feet and back really feel. Give him some freedom, and he'll take care of himself. Listen to him, and he'll let you know when something is too much. And unlike a lot of human judges, the horse knows.

Now, if someone wants to train in dressage for fun, and their horse comes to enjoy it as well, then have at it! But it is NOT "proper" in the sense of being applicable to all riding.


----------



## tinyliny

if you carry a 50 pound pack and you slouch, hollow out your lower back and flop along, smacking your feet hard on the ground, it IS harder on your body.
If you have the muscular development to hold your core lightly engaged, strength enough in your quads and knees to land with some spring, you abosrb the impact. This requires engagement of back, abdomnen, leg muscles. INstead of flopping along. Once you are stronger, you walk this way without thinking of it.


I've ridden horses on the trail that ARE so lackadaisical about how they move that you can hear their feet SLAMMING, flopping, clopping loudly on the ground, hard. 

YOu pick up some contact, you ask them to slow in front, and work the hind a bit harder and lift the base of the neck /withers, you will hear the difference in how they are landing. and, of course, YOU will feel it, too.

Usually horses move this way when they are racing at a flat trot and it literally feels as if they MUST move faster to keep from falling onm their own faces. It's not comfortable for the rider. I don't suppose the horse cares, since it probably is the easiest way for him to get home . But, the impact is harder, so if that has anything to do with longevity. I know I don't like riding that kind of slamming trot.

On the other hand, I agree that there is no need to have a hrose moving in a a frame, or collected when doing 95% of your trail riding. However, having the practiced, trained ability to ask your horse to slow, to compress, to contain some of that energy at your command , is a valuable tool , on top of just plain being a ton of fun!

oh, and I'd like to add . .. .you said it makes a hrose tense, saying that Bandit would hate it and become tense. Not all horses feel that way. They may feel engaged, they may have the kind of tension that is more like anticipating, as they are waiting for you to let them change, to reward their harder work, or to do what ever comes after you have collected them a bit. But, it's not a truth that it makes all hroses as tense as Bandit is. Horses that learn this collection is momentary will learn to cooperate and give more when asked, knowing that freedom is right around the corner. It all depends on teh rider and the training.


----------



## sarahfromsc

@bsms where in my post did I state I want my horse to travel on the forehand? Where in my post did I state I sit the trot? I do not want my horse traveling on the fore....pulling himself along....I want him pushing himself with his big booty down the trail. You now, that circle of energy being generated from the booty to the front. And I never sit the trot on the trail. Never. Even when doin a long trot workout. Where did I state I wanted him to spring along? He does that when he is discombobulated and that is what I want to avoid. When he is springy he looks like a griaffe with a sway back. And if I let him travel that way, the underside of his neck would have a bulge the size of Texas, and a back that aches like mine, and his offset, back behind the knee knees wouldn’t last to long either.

If I wore a well balanced, well packed 50 pound pack, walked aligned, used my WHOLE body correctly, I could do it even at my advanced age. If I wore a pack that was heavier on one side (as some riders ride), should straps that were not fitted correctly, walked with my shoulders rolled forward and my tuckus out, or leading with my pelvis, and plopping my feet down without using my core and other muscles correctly? I wouldnt do it and I would buck that **** pack right off.


----------



## bsms

sarahfromsc said:


> @*bsms* where in my post did I state I want my horse to travel on the forehand? Where in my post did I state I sit the trot?...


I didn't say you wanted your horse on the forehand. But when a horse lifts at the withers, it results in higher peak pressures on the front legs. A horse who is 'rounding' the back increases the pressure on his legs, and does not transfer any significant weight to his rear legs. And this thread is about rounding versus inverting, and if that is a meaningful or helpful way of thinking. From the first post on this thread:



gottatrot said:


> I’d like to discuss horse movement, specifically what really happens with a "round back" vs what is commonly believed. Also I’d like to talk about the idea of a horse moving “inverted” or “hollow” and how that affects the horse.
> 
> I’ve always been taught that the best way for horses to move and carry the weight of a rider is with a rounded back. I’ve read many critiques of horses moving with their necks raised and nose out, and it's pretty commonly believed that these horses' backs are hollow and they are not using their bodies effectively....


There is a false dilemma taught, that horses either "round" or "invert". While no one wants an inverted horse, with a hard, stiff, rigid back, there IS a middle ground. One horses will seek on their own. One easy to feel. Does the horse move smoothly, with a supple, easy-riding back? Does the horse roll along with smooth, easy strides? That can happen in a horse with a raised head, or not. And a horse with a lowered head can be strung out, heavy on the fore, or not.

My son has been on a horse 12 times in his life. He had no trouble telling if little Cowboy is bracing, with choppy strides, or rolling along fluidly. He knows his riding sometimes CAUSES the bracing, and his goal is to free up Cowboy so Cowboy can move fluidly. 10 minutes into his first ride, he told me riding a horse is like a dance because his horse was moving far more than he ever imagined, and he needed to figure out how to move with him.

What people do in various sports is up to them, provided they don't decide everyone else needs to imitate them. But EVERY rider SHOULD pay attention to how his horse moves. Is it fluid and balanced, or stiff and choppy? And as a rider, are we in "fluid balance" with our horse, as VS Littauer described it? That is the common ground of good riding.


----------



## TXhorseman

sarahfromsc said:


> My first foray into dressage was when I was 50 and no arena. Maybe due to my age, not understanding terminology, and being out in an open field with no rail, walls, and only the letters a c,b,and e on posts stuck in the ground, and being primarily a ‘under educated’ trail rider, my instructor taught me haunches left and right. Once I began to understand what was being asked of me and what I was asking my green horse, we switch to inside/outside in relation to the bend.
> 
> I still prefer, and understand, haunches left/right....lolol..old dog and all that.


It is important to remember that the use of fhe terms inside and outside when describing the relation to the bend are used in many more cases than when describing the haunches-in and haunches-out.


----------



## gottatrot

tinyliny said:


> if you carry a 50 pound pack and you slouch, hollow out your lower back and flop along, smacking your feet hard on the ground, it IS harder on your body.
> If you have the muscular development to hold your core lightly engaged, strength enough in your quads and knees to land with some spring, you abosrb the impact. This requires engagement of back, abdomnen, leg muscles. INstead of flopping along. Once you are stronger, you walk this way without thinking of it.
> 
> I've ridden horses on the trail that ARE so lackadaisical about how they move that you can hear their feet SLAMMING, flopping, clopping loudly on the ground, hard.
> 
> YOu pick up some contact, you ask them to slow in front, and work the hind a bit harder and lift the base of the neck /withers, you will hear the difference in how they are landing. and, of course, YOU will feel it, too.


A lot of times what we do to horses is take them, out of shape, throw that 50 lb pack on but it flops around and digs into the shoulder blades. 

If a person was moving poorly, we'd think perhaps this load was too heavy for this stage of fitness or it didn't fit right. 
Maybe we'd only have them hike a mile or two the first few times. 

Many people don't think about the physiological horse getting fit, but rather start out with long, exhausting work. If we treated the person like we treat many horses, we'd see that the person was moving poorly, so we'd try to strap the person into the right shape, perhaps trying to prevent the slouching by pulling the spine forward with a strap connecting the back of the neck to the belly. It would probably be more helpful to the person if we made sure the pack was well balanced and not poking him or flopping on his back, started his workouts slowly and gently, and encouraged him whenever he was moving better. 

If someone has already taught a horse that riding is painful and he must brace and move poorly, he needs to be restarted/retaught as surely as if he was running through a snaffle bit in an arena.

What you are talking about, using light contact to help the horse learn to lift the base of the neck, to use his hind end instead of dumping on the forehand (the opposite of pulling a horse's head down and lowering the base of the neck and withers), is retraining a horse to use his body better. A horse that does not have body issues and has not been used poorly will figure this out just as easily through gradually increasing work that causes him to use his body athletically - all on his own. A horse that has been used poorly or has a crooked body may need more assistance.



tinyliny said:


> Horses that learn this collection is momentary will learn to cooperate and give more when asked, knowing that freedom is right around the corner. It all depends on the rider and the training.


Definitely, and this goes along with all proper training and horsemanship. Timing, release, and gradually increasing fitness rather than working a horse with part of the body held unnaturally long enough for fatigue.

I think people (myself included) tend to make a couple of errors. One is that we don't consider enough how a horse is a biological creature and think about how muscles, tendons, bones, joints, etc work with a complexity similar to our own. The other day when I was running I was trying to feel how my own back muscles were moving, and one thing was for sure: no part of my back was ever relaxing or extending, stretching or flexing completely for more than a moment or two. 

Another mistake I think we make is comparing our own anatomy too much to a horse's. We need to use the similarities we have to empathize (if we are sore after a workout, so might a horse be, if we can pull a muscle or strain something, so might a horse). But also, we can't compare our own bodies too much to a horse's. We are made to stand upright, and horses are meant to stand on four legs and suspend the great weight of their internal organs over their back and four legs. Their muscles don't all contract or stretch over their backs at once when they are in motion anymore than ours do. But they also do not have flexible spines like ours. We can't compare our spine with its lumbar curve to theirs with an arch in the lumbar area. We have a collarbone, they do not. 

This video is pretty neat.


----------



## tinyliny

That horse looks a bit like he's laboring. But it shows how much the neck moves up and down at speed.


----------



## gottatrot

I found another really great link, hope it will be helpful to people.

https://converted.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Practical-anatomy-equine-muscles-2016.pdf

This discussion is helping me learn a lot of new things. One thing that is helpful with this particular chart is that it tells about the muscle origin and insertion.



> In summary, skeletal muscles are attached to bones on each end by tendons. The origin is the fixed attachment, while the insertion moves with contraction. The action, or particular movement of a muscle, can be described relative to the joint or the body part moved.
> (from this non-horse link) https://study.com/academy/lesson/muscle-origin-and-insertion-definition-and-actions.html


This is helpful when thinking about what the muscles do. The muscle will move toward the point of origin. 

For example: in the chart, the Sternocephalicus muscle runs along the underside of the neck. It originates in the sternum, and inserts in the back of the jaw. So when that muscle contracts it can only lower the head, never raise it.

If it is overdeveloped, it cannot be from the action of raising the neck, but rather from the action of trying to lower it. Perhaps this is why it gets overdeveloped on a horse used in a tie down. The horse is leaning against the tie down, flexing the upper neck muscles that raise the neck. This means that in order to pull the neck down, the horse must over use the Sternocephalicus muscle to overcome those strong/overused Splenius and Semispinalis capitis (not on the chart) muscles that raise the neck. 

It is the same with horses always fed in high feeders - they must overuse their upper neck muscles to raise the neck. But this makes the neck lowering muscle on the underside of the neck get overdeveloped as well. 

The Brachiocephalicus is another muscle on the underside of the neck. It originates from behind the ear and inserts in the lower shoulder. So when it contracts it brings the shoulder forward and pulls the head sideways.

I've always thought of the muscles on the underside of the neck as helping to lift the neck, but neither muscle actually does that.

I can see one aesthetically positive reason for all of the long and low work done in dressage. Using the neck lowering muscle quite a lot will mean that the opposite thing would happen to the upper neck muscles. If the lowering muscles are used more than would be usual in a moving horse, then the raising muscles would become over-developed due to having to overcome the extra strong muscle on the underside of the neck. This would lead to the upper neck muscles getting more developed and looking more pronounced. This is a desirable look in dressage.

Actually, I think my musings above about the neck muscles are off base. The part about the origin and insertion are correct, but my smart DH who understands anatomy and physiology reports to me that each muscle would need to be developed separately rather than being affected only by opposing each other. So the lower neck muscle must be worked on its own in a lowering action (against a bit?) to over develop rather than simply working against the upper neck muscles. And vice versa.


----------



## updownrider

tinyliny said:


> That horse looks a bit like he's laboring. But it shows how much the neck moves up and down at speed.


If I’m not mistaken, the horse is counter cantering (cantering on the wrong lead) on a small circle. It does look awkward. 

Correct me if I’m wrong.


----------



## Golden Horse

sarahfromsc said:


> @bsms where in my post did I state I want my horse to travel on the forehand? Where in my post did I state I sit the trot? I do not want my horse traveling on the fore....pulling himself along....I want him pushing himself with his big booty down the trail. You now, that circle of energy being generated from the booty to the front. And I never sit the trot on the trail. Never. Even when doin a long trot workout. Where did I state I wanted him to spring along? He does that when he is discombobulated and that is what I want to avoid. When he is springy he looks like a griaffe with a sway back. And if I let him travel that way, the underside of his neck would have a bulge the size of Texas, and a back that aches like mine, and his offset, back behind the knee knees wouldn’t last to long either.
> 
> If I wore a well balanced, well packed 50 pound pack, walked aligned, used my WHOLE body correctly, I could do it even at my advanced age. If I wore a pack that was heavier on one side (as some riders ride), should straps that were not fitted correctly, walked with my shoulders rolled forward and my tuckus out, or leading with my pelvis, and plopping my feet down without using my core and other muscles correctly? I wouldnt do it and I would buck that **** pack right off.


So much common sense here.

One of the highlights of last year, having a group lesson and being told the fattest rider, with the least ‘trained’ horse were the one going lightest. We were in the arena with a load of lighter built horses, but a Fergie was noticeably the only one not sending up huge clouds of dust, her soup plate feet were being lifted as she stepped up and under.


----------



## sarahfromsc

TXhorseman said:


> It is important to remember that the use of fhe terms inside and outside when describing the relation to the bend are used in many more cases than when describing the haunches-in and haunches-out.


I understand much more now than years ago.

I have only been taking formal, lessons for 10 years. Out of those 10 years, probably consistently riding WELL for eight. The other 45 plus years were ride anything and hang on type of rides. Maybe that is why as a OLD backyard rider, I aspire for more knowledge. I am a thirsty old woman for knowledge. And book learning is great to an extent, but getting the feel, feeling the feel is the real teacher.

I understand at my age I have a loooooooooooooong way to go and so little time left to get there @TXhorseman, but I am going to keep at it!


----------



## sarahfromsc

@bsms: I didn't say you wanted your horse on the forehand. But when a horse lifts at the withers, it results in higher peak pressures on the front legs. A horse who is 'rounding' the back increases the pressure on his legs, and does not transfer any significant weight to his rear legs. And this thread is about rounding versus inverting, and if that is a meaningful or helpful way of thinking. From the first post on this thread:

How is a horse increasing pressure on his front legs by driving with his backend correctly?

What the devil do you think the hind end is doing when the horse lifts his withers? 

I don’t need my horse doing piaffes or pirouettes down the trail (besides, I don’t have many years left to even get to that stage of dressage), which is what I think you picture us doing, but I do want him driving with his hind instead of pulling with his front.


----------



## TXhorseman

We are all -- or should be -- constantly learning sarahfromsc. In his book "Dancing with Horses", Klaus Ferdinand Hempfling tells of an old caballero whose entire life had been devoted to horses. Every who saw him ride was moved by his riding ability. On his death bed at 96 years of age, tears came to his eyes and he said, "It is such a misfortune that I must die just now." His nephew replied: "Why? This time comes for every man, and you have had a long, rich, blessed life." The old man replied: "Yes, you are right, but it was only about a week ago that I first realized what it means to truly ride a horse."


----------



## Smilie

gottatrot said:


> I found another really great link, hope it will be helpful to people.
> 
> https://converted.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Practical-anatomy-equine-muscles-2016.pdf
> 
> This discussion is helping me learn a lot of new things. One thing that is helpful with this particular chart is that it tells about the muscle origin and insertion.
> 
> 
> 
> This is helpful when thinking about what the muscles do. The muscle will move toward the point of origin.
> 
> For example: in the chart, the Sternocephalicus muscle runs along the underside of the neck. It originates in the sternum, and inserts in the back of the jaw. So when that muscle contracts it can only lower the head, never raise it.
> 
> If it is overdeveloped, it cannot be from the action of raising the neck, but rather from the action of trying to lower it. Perhaps this is why it gets overdeveloped on a horse used in a tie down. The horse is leaning against the tie down, flexing the upper neck muscles that raise the neck. This means that in order to pull the neck down, the horse must over use the Sternocephalicus muscle to overcome those strong/overused Splenius and Semispinalis capitis (not on the chart) muscles that raise the neck.
> 
> It is the same with horses always fed in high feeders - they must overuse their upper neck muscles to raise the neck. But this makes the neck lowering muscle on the underside of the neck get overdeveloped as well.
> 
> The Brachiocephalicus is another muscle on the underside of the neck. It originates from behind the ear and inserts in the lower shoulder. So when it contracts it brings the shoulder forward and pulls the head sideways.
> 
> I've always thought of the muscles on the underside of the neck as helping to lift the neck, but neither muscle actually does that.
> 
> I can see one aesthetically positive reason for all of the long and low work done in dressage. Using the neck lowering muscle quite a lot will mean that the opposite thing would happen to the upper neck muscles. If the lowering muscles are used more than would be usual in a moving horse, then the raising muscles would become over-developed due to having to overcome the extra strong muscle on the underside of the neck. This would lead to the upper neck muscles getting more developed and looking more pronounced. This is a desirable look in dressage.
> 
> 
> Actually, I think my musings above about the neck muscles are off base. The part about the origin and insertion are correct, but my smart DH who understands anatomy and physiology reports to me that each muscle would need to be developed separately rather than being affected only by opposing each other. So the lower neck muscle must be worked on its own in a lowering action (against a bit?) to over develop rather than simply working against the upper neck muscles. And vice versa.



That picture for me is awful, with the horse behind the vertical Sorry, did not read the entire thread.You can;t take horses apart piece by piece and dissect everything, as there is the total harmony, picture and feel , and no diagrams will get you that The horse himself remains the best teacher, and there is no short cut to developing that feel and timing, knowing when you are one with the horse, and that the horse is moving at his ultimate best.


----------



## updownrider

Who said that is a desirable look in Dressage? The horse isn’t tracking up, in my opinion. That is a terrible example.


----------



## tinyliny

the under neck muscle only become over developed if it is contracting , il.e. pulling AGAINST resistance. That would be the rein/bit, and, it only really bulges out if the horse has his head up high, with the poll brought back toward the rider, so that the neck forms a bit of a "C" shape. When a horse is giraffing, and the rider meets that with a backward pull, and the two of them stay in that stalemate position, the hrose is not only pulling the neck downward, but also forewards.

the horse in that photo of the dressage rider, over rounded at the neck, has more than ideal amount of neck muscles developed around the 3rd vertebrae of the neck because he is pulling his head back into the neck. the Ideal is that the horse lift the whole neck, from the base, so that the poll is the highest position, and the face of the horse basically just 'fall' downward into a more natural angle. 

Of course, in a total state of relaxation, it wouldn't likely be on the vertical, but rather the nose tipped somewhat ahead.

However, that photo might not be posted as an example of the ideal. Also, it might just be a moment inm time, where the hrose curled under in a bit of resistance. who knows.


----------



## sarahfromsc

updownrider said:


> Who said that is a desirable look in Dressage? The horse isn’t tracking up, in my opinion. That is a terrible example.


I am very happy to see I wasn’t the only thinking that.


----------



## gottatrot

gottatrot said:


> This would lead to the* upper neck muscles getting more developed and looking more pronounced*. This is a desirable look in dressage.


This is the quote, meaning the *neck muscles* getting more pronounced is a desirable look in dressage (not that the overall horse and posture posted presented a desirable look in dressage). Sorry for the confusion. I suppose I should have posted a pic of a horse in a desirable position AND with overdeveloped neck muscles to illustrate. 
Here you go:








@Smilie, I agree that horses are the best teachers. However, I would rather combine feel and experience with knowledge, which is helpful for improving in many areas of life.



> *Tinyliny:*
> the under neck muscle only become over developed if it is contracting , il.e. pulling AGAINST resistance. That would be the rein/bit, and, it only really bulges out if the horse has his head up high, with the poll brought back toward the rider, so that the neck forms a bit of a "C" shape. When a horse is giraffing, and the rider meets that with a backward pull, and the two of them stay in that stalemate position, the hrose is not only pulling the neck downward, but also forewards.


That under neck muscle could overdevelop also if the horse was pulling against resistance in any position if the horse was flexing the muscle to lower the neck. But I think you are right, it would develop much more from a higher position, since the lower and farther the head was from the body, the more gravity would assist the horse in getting the head down.



> *Tinyliny:*
> the Ideal is that the horse lift the whole neck, from the base, so that the poll is the highest position, and the face of the horse basically just 'fall' downward into a more natural angle.
> 
> Of course, in a total state of relaxation, it wouldn't likely be on the vertical, but rather the nose tipped somewhat ahead.


It was interesting to read about some experimenting the author (Racinet) was doing in the book I'm reading. He said if a horse lifts the neck, it raises the withers. If the horse lowers the neck, it lowers the withers. But if the horse raises the withers, it lowers the head - so basically if you are lifting the withers from the base of the neck, the head will fall down naturally (as you said). And I agree, if you are not pulling on the bit, the nose will not normally tuck in.


----------



## bsms

sarahfromsc said:


> How is a horse increasing pressure on his front legs by driving with his backend correctly?
> 
> What the devil do you think the hind end is doing when the horse lifts his withers?...
> 
> ...but I do want him driving with his hind instead of pulling with his front...


The horse is increasing peak pressures on the front leg by taking shorter strides, turning forward thrust into upward thrust. Horses can lift their withers while standing still, if they wish. In motion, they combine that with both directing thrust from the hind legs more upwards (I suspect, although I've seen no empirical studies showing it) and by using the front legs to vault the front end higher.

They do NOT raise the withers by shifting significant weight onto the hind legs unless forward motion has ceased. I believe the data for those assertions was posted earlier in this thread.

That is why the peak impact forces on a collected horse's front legs are higher, not lower. And probably why horses taught collection have more shoulder muscles - because they use those muscles to get the feel the rider wants.

My horses figure out for themselves that their hind legs are better for thrust than their front legs. Maybe it is the hills. Bandit was ridden harder than I think any horse ever should be, and he arrived knowing all about using his hind legs for thrust.

FWIW, my horses generally look where they are going. Depends on speed, trail conditions, and how tired they are and how interested. A genuine problem with wanting a horse's head to be vertical is what it means for their vision. Not a factor in a level, smooth arena, but pretty important where I live. Important to them, even when we are going down a smooth paved road:








​


----------



## Smilie

updownrider said:


> Who said that is a desirable look in Dressage? The horse isn’t tracking up, in my opinion. That is a terrible example.


Took it from Trotin's post. Maybe I read it wrong, and not meant to be a good example? Will re read.


----------



## Smilie

This is Skys Blue Boy, and I like that total look, far as a horse moving on the flat. tracking up, even strides, relaxed topline , face slightly ahead of the vertical








Yes, when the whithers are lifted, the head comes down all on it;s own, for what is correct for that horse;s conformation- not running martingales, side reins or other paraphernalia needed


I agree Trottin, that knowledge goes hand in hand with experience, but I don't see where this thread is intended to go.

No, you don't want a horse to move inverted, or hollowed out, But neither do you want him to move in a collected frame all all times-certainly not trail riding, nor is the 'rail' or on the flat frame desired in all activities-certainly not in those ridden at speed, with sudden direction turns
How well do you think a working cowhorse could turn a cow, at speed, on the fence with any sort of head set-that horse needs freedom , to stay with the cow, balance in fast maneuvers that include quick stops and direction change. The horse is certainly, engaged behind, but is not going to look like a dressage horse riding a pattern.


----------



## Smilie

this is a pretty nice example of fence work, in working cowhorse.
The horse has to control the cow at the short end, then turn it on the fence, long side, once in each direction, then circle to cow in both directions

The 'classic collection form is not going to work here. That cow would be long gone. The horse is also neither inverted nor working on his front end.
You have to allow that everyone does not aim to ride the rail, or an equitation type pattern


----------



## gottatrot

^^^^^^
That horse is moving beautifully, athletically. Yet I know so many people that would observe any horse walking around an arena or down the trail in the posture the horse is at 1:39 - 1:49 in the video, and feel anxiety about it. If it was their own horse, they would feel they needed to start making the horse lower the head, curve the neck over. Otherwise, in their mind they might be creating a weak back. 

Observing this same horse moving that way in another setting, they wouldn't notice the lovely, balanced musculature, the ability of the horse to turn and stop on a dime, how well he tracks up, or rocks back over the hindquarters. Instead, they would focus on the raised neck position, the pushed forward nose, and would think the horse was somehow lacking in training or carrying himself improperly. It wouldn't be until seeing the horse actually working a cow that they might think perhaps the horse did have some training, and still they would have difficulty reconciling the horse's posture under saddle with his athletic ability. They would feel that somehow he was overcoming the detrimental effects of moving with the head and neck raised rather than understanding that moving in such a way causes no detrimental effects at all. 

I'm glad this will no longer be a worry for me in my riding, and that I won't feel the need to try to get horses to round their necks or tuck their heads in any longer. 

For me the point of this thread is discussion, learning, education. It's not about reaching a "point," but rather about discussing things that might help some of us learn new things.


----------



## updownrider

Smilie said:


> Took it from Trotin's post. Maybe I read it wrong, and not meant to be a good example? Will re read.


Smilie- please go back and read the original post with the photo, your comment, then mine after yours. I was not replying to you. I actually agreed with you.


----------



## Golden Horse

sarahfromsc said:


> I understand much more now than years ago.
> 
> I have only been taking formal, lessons for 10 years. Out of those 10 years, probably consistently riding WELL for eight. The other 45 plus years were ride anything and hang on type of rides. Maybe that is why as a OLD backyard rider, I aspire for more knowledge. I am a thirsty old woman for knowledge. And book learning is great to an extent, but getting the feel, feeling the feel is the real teacher.
> 
> I understand at my age I have a loooooooooooooong way to go and so little time left to get there @TXhorseman, but I am going to keep at it!


Isn’t it exciting, even at an advanced age to REALLY start to understand and feel these things. Again I regret not discovering these things earlier.


----------



## Smilie

updownrider said:


> Smilie- please go back and read the original post with the photo, your comment, then mine after yours. I was not replying to you. I actually agreed with you.


Thanks, I did reach that conclusion, after rereading


----------



## sarahfromsc

bsms said:


> The horse is increasing peak pressures on the front leg by taking shorter strides, turning forward thrust into upward thrust. Horses can lift their withers while standing still, if they wish. In motion, they combine that with both directing thrust from the hind legs more upwards (I suspect, although I've seen no empirical studies showing it) and by using the front legs to vault the front end higher.
> 
> They do NOT raise the withers by shifting significant weight onto the hind legs unless forward motion has ceased. I believe the data for those assertions was posted earlier in this thread.
> 
> That is why the peak impact forces on a collected horse's front legs are higher, not lower. And probably why horses taught collection have more shoulder muscles - because they use those muscles to get the feel the rider wants.
> 
> My horses figure out for themselves that their hind legs are better for thrust than their front legs. Maybe it is the hills. Bandit was ridden harder than I think any horse ever should be, and he arrived knowing all about using his hind legs for thrust.
> 
> FWIW, my horses generally look where they are going. Depends on speed, trail conditions, and how tired they are and how interested. A genuine problem with wanting a horse's head to be vertical is what it means for their vision. Not a factor in a level, smooth arena, but pretty important where I live. Important to them, even when we are going down a smooth paved road:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​


How does having a horse tracking up and using their HIND-end shorten the strides and put pressure on the front limbs?

I dont ride a horse’s front end, I ride his back end. Then I dont have to worry about the head and neck and arch and and where the nose is. I do t have to worry about his shoulders and withers. It all works out when riding the hind end.

When I ride the hind end, I don’t have a horse dragging his toes. I don’t have a horse strung out, I don’t have horse riding downward, but riding upward and forward, not heavy on the forehand and not heavy in my hands. He is easy to maneuver around obstacles on the trail, or doing some dressage in the arena, popping some small jumps, or doing a little cow sorting. He is light and his front end is free to move easily and quickly.

Hard contact? Don’t need it when his tuckus is engaged correctly.

Y’all are thinking to much about the front half of the horse and not enough in the back half of the horse.


----------



## bsms

sarahfromsc said:


> How does having a horse tracking up and using their HIND-end shorten the strides and put pressure on the front limbs?...


The horse "using his back end" generates thrust, mostly forward. The front legs then DECELERATE the forward thrust, and convert it into vertical thrust. This then lifts the horse at the withers. When the hind legs generate thrust, it has to go somewhere. The lifting of the withers needs a mechanism.



bsms said:


> *Effect of head and neck position on vertical ground reaction forces and interlimb coordination in the dressage horse ridden at walk and trot on a treadmill - Equine vet. J., Suppl. 36 (2006) 387-392*​
> Vertical ground reaction force and time parameters of each limb were *measured in 7 high level dressage horses* while being ridden at walk and trot on an instrumented treadmill in 6 predetermined HNPs:
> 
> *HNP 1 - free, unrestrained with loose reins*;
> HNP2 - neck raised, bridge of the nose in front of the vertical;
> *HNP3 - neck raised, bridge of the nose behind the vertical*;
> HNP4 - neck lowered and flexed, bridge of the nose considerably behind the vertical;
> *HNPS - neck extremely elevated and bridge of the nose considerably in front of the vertical*;
> HNP6 - neck and head extended forward and downward. Positions were judged by a qualified dressage judge.
> 
> *Results: At the walk, stride duration and overreach distance increased in HNP1, but decreased in HNP3 and HNP5.*
> 
> Stride impulse was shifted to the forehand in HNP1 and HNP6, but shifted to the hindquarters in HNP5.
> 
> At the trot, stride duration increased in HNP4 and HNP5. Overreach distance was shorter in HNP4. Stride impulse shifted to the hindquarters in HNP5.
> 
> *In HNP1 peak forces decreased in the forelimbs; in HNP5 peak forces increased in fore- and hindlimbs.*
> 
> Conclusions: HNP5 had the biggest impact on limb timing and load distribution and behaved inversely to HNP1 and HNP6. *Shortening of forelimb stance duration in HNP5 increased peak forces although the percentage of stride impulse carried by the forelimbs decreased.*
> 
> Discussion: At the walk, regardless of the statistical significance, virtually all changes of force and temporal parameters showed a concurrent direction in HNP1 and HNP6, and a concurrently opposite direction in HNP3 and HNPS.
> 
> Vertical impulse was redistributed from the hindlimbs to the forelimbs in HNP1 and HNP6 and in the opposite direction in HNP5 (Table 2). This appears to correspond to the extended neck in HNP1 and HNP6 where the centre of mass (COM) of the neckhead segment is shifted cranially [forward]; whereas the shortened and elevated neck in HNP5 shifts the COM of the neck-head segment caudally [rear].
> 
> In HNP1 and HNP6, the general forward-downward motion is characterized by longer SL [stridelength]. *Both these positions represent the horizontal type of motion a horse assumes of its own free will moving forward in the most efficient way...*
> 
> ...HNP3, and more clearly HNP5, showed a clear intervention of the rider's action on the horse's movement patterns. *The general idea behind raising the neck and head is to create a greater degree of elevation by redirecting the horizontal movement towards a more vertical direction.* Accordingly, we observed a shift in weight to the hindquarters and a shortening of SL and OR.
> 
> Increased s.d. of SD and OR suggested that the horses were moving inconsistently. During the trial, it was obvious that the horses had difficulties coping with these HNPs, especially with HNP5. Further evidence of this phenomenon is the significantly reduced range of movement and symmetry of movement of the thoracolumbar back, seen in simultaneous kinematic measurements (Gomez Alvarez et ai. 2006)...
> 
> ...*Although the impulse redistributions between the forehand and the hindquarters seen in HNP1, HNP6 and HNP5 were statistically significant,  it should be noted that these load shifts were small (between 1-1.8%). Similarly small shifts in load to the hindquarters «1.8%) are reported by Roepstorff et al. (2002)*...
> 
> ...At the ridden walk 58.3--60.1% of the weight was carried by the forehand. This indicates that despite raising the head and neck to extremely high positions, the riders were not able to recreate the weight distribution between forehand and hindquarters of the freely moving, unridden horse. The biggest shift of weight and, therefore, of the centre of mass towards the hindquarters was observed in HNP5 at the walk as well as at the trot.
> 
> However, it must be emphasized that when the higher peak forces in the forelimbs and restricted movements of the limbs and back induced by HNP5 are taken into account, this position can not be recommended. It is believed that working the horse with a high elevated neck and the back in extension definitely contributes to degenerative pathologies of the back (Johnston et al. 2002)...
> 
> ...At the walk, HNP4 showed surprisingly few differences to the reference position HNP2. Reviewing the video sequences showed that although all horses had the bridge of the nose considerably behind the vertical, two of the seven horses carried their necks higher than in the heavily debated 'rollkur' position. Generally, it seems that the height of the neck influences the movement more than the flexion at the poll. Therefore, HNP4 in these horses would not very differ biomechanically from HNP2...
> 
> ...*Collection may, therefore, be a reflection of an increased vertical impulse of the body that indicates a more impulsive gait*. The decreased StD promotes a faster build-up of force, increased FZpeak and results in prolonged SpD. *Perhaps the perceived shift in weight due to a reorientation in movement direction towards the vertical as is indicated by the concomitant increased loading of the fore- and hindlimb*. We therefore suggest that the impulse shift to the hindlimb is a compensatory mechanism. *To achieve the redirection of the resultant force vector acting on the centre of gravity of the horse into a more vertical direction, the body has to increase stiffness*. This reasoning is supported by the decrease in range of movement of the whole thoracic back (TIO-T17) in HNP5 (Gomez Alvarez etal. 2006).
> 
> In conclusion, no impressive shifts in load distribution between forehand and hindquarters caused by changing the HNP were observed. However, in the unrestrained position and in the position with the neck and head extended forward, load was shifted at the walk towards the forelimbs, whereas in the extremely elevated position load was shifted to the hindquarters at walk and trot. *A shift of impulse from the forehand to the hindquarters is not necessarily associated with a reduction of FZpeak in the forelimbs.* In a movement pattern where forelimb StD decreases, as observed in HNP5, higher peak forces are to be expected. The experiment demonstrated that an extremely high neck affects functionality much more than an extremely low neck.





sarahfromsc said:


> ...When I ride the hind end, I don’t have a horse dragging his toes. I don’t have a horse strung out, I don’t have horse riding downward, but riding upward and forward, not heavy on the forehand and not heavy in my hands....
> 
> Y’all are thinking to much about the front half of the horse and not enough in the back half of the horse.


Actually, horses being ridden in a natural frame are not "_dragging...toes_", "_strung out_", "_riding downward_", "_heavy on the forehand_" or "_heavy in my hands_". Take a look at the video @Smilie posted. 

It is pretty odd to be accused of worrying too much about the horse's front end, when the point of this thread is that the horse's front end - where he carries his head and neck - does NOT determine anything about the quality of the movement!


----------



## tinyliny

we are just having some fun thinking into the small details of how horses move. jsut saying "I ride the back end" is vague. you might know what that means or feels like, but just that statement by itself would not be enough to teach someone how to ride that way. 

And, bsms does have a point in that in order for the horse to shift toward the back, to compact his motion and bring it more vertical, he must slow the front IN RELATION to the rear. . However, JUST slowing the front will likely just dump the hrose on the front end. Slowing the front, and adding impulsion to the rear is what helps the horse come up in front, and get that lightness you speak of.


----------



## bsms

For reference:


----------



## evilamc

> Actually, horses being ridden in a natural frame are not "dragging...toes", "strung out", "riding downward", "heavy on the forehand" or "heavy in my hands". Take a look at the video @Smilie posted.
> 
> It is pretty odd to be accused of worrying too much about the horse's front end, when the point of this thread is that the horse's front end - where he carries his head and neck - does NOT determine anything about the quality of the movement!


You're confusing natural frame with being inverted. No one is saying natural frame is BAD if the horse is doing it like described above and in the pic. Thats a relaxed horse not tense in the back not inverted. In the pic you posted, while gaiting along my horses are usually in 1 or 6 position. Their noses tipped out, not tucked in, I push them on BUT ride with loose rein and I can feel the muscles working under me. I ride bareback a lot and when not bareback, treeless saddles...so I can really feel those muscles working! If they raise their heads UP UP UP and that ugly neck...I can literally feel the muscles lower under me, they get bouncy...strung out...very uncomfortable to ride. To fix? I give them a reminder with the reins then a squeeze forward and they lower their heads and I feel their back change. Riding bareback is amazing because you get to really feel this. No I don't try to get my horses to look like fancy dressage horses but I do strive for them to move freely and comfortably. Heads NOT thrown up in the air like I see a LOT of gaited horses do...a lot of the times that leads to a stepping pace/pace which is NOT desired. 

I don't really have videos of me riding but I have videos of me in the saddle





LOOSE rein, head down, chugging along, relaxed and happy on a BUSY road.

Not the best video but all I really have! I'm on Jax, my pinto colored twh...bareback going down the trail. If he LIFTS his head up, his back goes down and he gets BOUNCY...because he usually switches to a pace or trot...I give him a reminder and he switches back to a nice little gait. Gaited horses are amazing because literally within 10 strides they can do 4-5 different gaits LOL!





This one shows how he raises his head and you can SEE how I bounce...I give him a little reminder and he switches back to the right gait and his head then comes back down. Sounds like I'm riding the head but I'm more so asking him to focus, bring it down and RELAX and then I ask him forward. If hes moving along relaxed we get a nice little gait and his head will be lower...if hes tense? Its in the air and its not a nice ride.





Lol kind of a goofy video but showing how he handles obstacles. Still cool and collected. Loose rein, his head comes up some but with a little reminder and a nudge forward he'll come back to me.





Jax is as surefooted as they come (well usually), Majority of our rides I have my reins loose, basically on the buckle! He knows his job....he knows to stay calm and if he gets worked up he gets a reminder. We go down the trails in more of a natural frame BUT his head still isn't UP and neck isn't inverted...that leads to him being tense as I said. If your horse is calm and comfortable with what you're doing it will be in a nice natural frame and you can ask for a little more and they SHOULD still stay surefooted and what not. If your horse is tense, nervous...head up waiting for the bears...ya I doubt hes going to see as much as he could or process things as well as he could because hes too nervous to think it through.


----------



## tinyliny

cute hearing the sound of Jax's feet on the concrete; pitter patter.


----------



## evilamc

tinyliny said:


> cute hearing the sound of Jax's feet on the concrete; pitter patter.


I know I LOVE it! I take so many little videos of him lol! Heres one from last month when it was like 20 degrees out.

Again nice and relaxed but still forward for me and on loose rein. Not pulling on my hands or anything to keep him together. There was a LOT of construction going on, pipe line stuff...it was freezing out...this was actually somewhere we've never been too but this is was I always expect of him. We may not START every ride like this but usually within 10 minutes we're there. Hes only 8 and I can go a month without riding and still have this when I get on haha!


----------



## gottatrot

evilamc said:


> If they raise their heads UP UP UP and that ugly neck...I can literally feel the muscles lower under me, they get bouncy...strung out...very uncomfortable to ride. To fix? I give them a reminder with the reins then a squeeze forward and they lower their heads and I feel their back change. Riding bareback is amazing because you get to really feel this. No I don't try to get my horses to look like fancy dressage horses but I do strive for them to move freely and comfortably. Heads NOT thrown up in the air like I see a LOT of gaited horses do...a lot of the times that leads to a stepping pace/pace which is NOT desired.


Not trying to offend or anything, part of discussing/debating is thinking of different perspectives.

What you describe and what is in the videos is that when the horse has a higher head and neck up, the horse is changing gait. So you feel the back change and the gait gets more bouncy.
But that is not the same as finding a difference in how the back is when horse is trotting with a low neck and head, vs the horse is trotting with a high neck and head, and the horse is moving well in both postures. 
For some reason, when your horses raise their head they feel the need to change gait. If this makes you bounce around, it is a good explanation for why the horse might get more tense or brace. Especially bareback, where there is no saddle to distribute some of the pressure better for you and the horse.

*I am definitely not saying you are not riding well. * Your horse seems very relaxed, and you've found out how to make him move well, to be calm, and to enjoy himself. That's great. All I'm saying is your perception that his back is not moving as well when he raises his head might be due to your own comfort level.

Collection can be quite bouncy, and feel rough to ride at times.








As described by @bsms, the forces come up more vertically from the ground. When people say "lightness," that doesn't always mean it feels easy to ride.









You feel the horse moves better and gaits better with the head lower. This might be because of how your horse's conformation is, and that it relates to the natural neck posture and movement the horse is comfortable with. It also might be because the horse has learned to associate a certain head carriage with a certain gait, and changes gaits. If the horse has learned that the cue to gait and go along smoothly (for the rider) is that the rider asks for a lower head, then the rider will feel that the lower head makes the horse move better.
It is also possible that the horse could gait smoothly with the head and neck in a higher position, but he always changes to a pace or trot instead. 



evilamc said:


> If your horse is tense, nervous...head up waiting for the bears...ya I doubt hes going to see as much as he could or process things as well as he could because hes too nervous to think it through.


I don't think anyone who has posted here is advocating that tenseness is something to strive for versus a relaxed horse. I believe horses should be allowed to carry their head and neck where it is comfortable for the gait they are doing. Often that is different if a horse is galloping vs walking or trotting at various speeds. Many horses, however, have naturally high neck sets and are quite comfortable and smooth (and relaxed) going around with their heads held high. Saddlebreds and Friesians come to mind.








A rider would have no reason to try to lower the head and neck when riding the horse in the above photo. He moves well with it in that position. But I know many people who would try to do so.

I agree that it is vague to just say it is desirable to ride the back end of the horse. Basically, everyone does because we all sit there except I've seen a couple friends riding the necks before after a bad jump or a bareback-going-down-a-hill accident.


----------



## Tazzie

So, I was planning to stay away from this thread as it's my discipline that is constantly attacked. However, I was asked to post here as the person felt I could add something to this.

Inverted, to me, is a horse that is bracing and entirely using the under side of the neck for support. Either being tense, or that is how they are asked to carry them (IE, Saddlebreds). To argue that a horse like a Saddlebred should never be asked to do long and low because they are built with a high neck placement is absurd. My best friend rides, trains and shows Saddlebreds very successfully in our area. Every last one of her horses is worked for a period of time in long and low to work their back muscles. To never ask them to lower and properly work their back muscles is to sentence that horse to issues down the road since there would not be an appropriate supporting structure to carry people. Yes, horses may run at liberty high headed, but the stark difference between that and riding is there isn't a 150+ (I used a median number) rider plus tack on their backs.

Round is when a horse is using their supportive structure. The work the muscles from poll to base of their neck, and lift their back. I know some may argue that a horse is not capable of rounding their back, but until you've sat on a horse that does it won't be something you understand. The feeling of a horse engaging (not tensing) their back is not something that can be read in a book. The horse is accepting of the bit and is working from their hind end.

The other argument about a horse shifting their weight back is also ridiculous. Ever see a horse rear? Weight has been shifted to the hind. Buck? Weight shifted to the forehand. Again, this is another feeling that can be felt from reading books. When my mare engages her back and shifts her weight off the forehand, there is no mistaking it to the person riding. A horse riding on the forehand is much, much harder on their front legs. I can hear the difference, as can my husband and my trainer, when Izzie is riding on her forehand to when she's working from behind. On the forehand she is pounding the ground. Working from behind it's very quiet hoof beats.

Here are my two examples. The first video is Izzie's first ever trot off the lunge line when I was breaking her. She is inverted and taking choppy steps. I focused more on allowing her to discover her balance with a rider, and focusing on getting the forward going (not seen here as we went for positive first steps)






This was at our last lesson with my trainer (note: when she says "brace" she's telling me to half halt/squeeze on the outside rein; she is not telling me to pull, hang, etc)






With regards to the nice picture that was posted of what is clearly a Friesian cross, I despise the look of a horse about to land toe first in their trot. This is also setting up for damage later on down the road.


----------



## bsms

Tazzie said:


> So, I was planning to stay away from this thread as it's my discipline that is constantly attacked....To never ask them to lower and properly work their back muscles is to sentence that horse to issues down the road since there would not be an appropriate supporting structure to carry people. Yes, horses may run at liberty high headed, but the stark difference between that and riding is there isn't a 150+ (I used a median number) rider plus tack on their backs.
> 
> ...I know some may argue that a horse is not capable of rounding their back, but until you've sat on a horse that does it won't be something you understand. The feeling of a horse engaging (not tensing) their back is not something that can be read in a book. The horse is accepting of the bit and is working from their hind end.
> 
> The other argument about a horse shifting their weight back is also ridiculous. Ever see a horse rear? Weight has been shifted to the hind....


1 - No one has attacked dressage. Saying it is not the ONLY way to ride a healthy horse is not an attack. Saying it is the only way to ride a healthy horse IS an attack on every non-dressage rider.

2 - The best person to figure out how horses move would be a non-rider. How one's butt feels is irrelevant to what the horse's legs and back are actually DOING. 

3 - The assumption that people who dispute "rounding" have never ridden is ridiculous. Philippe Karl & Jean Claude Racinet were/are dressage riders. Bandit can and will do elevated gaits when he wants to do them. Most horses will - when they feel like it.

4 - Horses move at liberty with a raised head, and can also do so under a rider. The video @Smilie posted, and the one of the jumper, both illustrate that a horse can lift its head while moving well under a rider.

Bandit often raises his head while giving a very relaxed, flowing, easy canter. The idea that he needs to lower his head is silly. He's carried 300+ lbs on his 800 lb body, going fast for 10-15 mile training runs. He did that by bracing, which I dislike. But he shows no sign of back injury.

5 - The shifting weight thing is NOT ridiculous because it is specifically about a horse MOVING FORWARD. A rearing horse obviously shifts all its weight to its rear, but a rearing horse isn't trotting.

When people MEASURE the shift in balance in a moving horse, they get less than a 2% shift. Racinet estimated the total shift backwards to be well under 1 inch. MOVING horses. A stationary horse can also lift its back by contracting the tummy muscles, but it cannot afford to do so while moving.

6 - Horses do not need to 'accept the bit' to move well under a rider. And yes, they CAN move under a rider as if they didn't have a rider - or darn close. But only if the rider LETS them move naturally, instead of imposing an artificial method of motion. That is fundamental to the forward seat approach - free up the horse to use its balance instead of trying to impose one created by humans.

7 - Almost every rider understand that when balance is critical, you give the horse their head so they can save themselves and their rider. What might be ridiculous is the idea that horses can balance themselves when balance is almost impossible, yet cannot when on level sandy ground in an arena.


----------



## evilamc

So here is Jax being silly in the field...TROTTING and head up...pretty floaty trot





Problem is I don't WANT him to trot under saddle. TWH horses are able to walk....flat walk...running walk...trot....broken trot...stepping pace...pace...canter and gallop, thats a LOT of gaits! Because I didn't know what I was doing when I first got him, he got in the habit of bracing/getting tense and doing a stepping pace/pace as he got faster. BAD! Hard on his body and not fun to ride. By asking him to relaxxxx, bringing his head down THEN asking for more I get a nice flat walk or a little faster gait, wouldn't quite call it a running walk yet we aren't that fast yet. Problem is I have to retrain his muscle memory and build up the strength of THOSE muscles for him to be able to hold that and get faster. He ends up bracing/lifting his head and switching to a steppingpace/pace because its HARD. Doesn't mean I'm going to let him. Sure I could and do post to it but why do that when I can get him to move better.

I never said there is anything wrong with trotting horses bouncing. They're doing a two beat trot where as my gaited horses are doing 4 beat (well supposed to) so it shouldn't be bouncy, if it is something is wrong so I have to fix it! Thats also why a collected gaited horse doing a correct gait isn't bouncy, its 4 beats! Only reason I even brought up the bounciness is because with gaited horses you DONT want that and they're moving incorrectly, its not how they're bred to move.

Now my horses can and do gait in a more natural frame or lower head but thats ebcause I've been teaching them to, retraining their muscles after letting them get away with pacing/trotting around inverted for so long under saddle.

I do NOT want to ride this going down the trail. Hes bracing against me, doing a stepping pace, pulling at my hands its just all around BAD but thats what HE will try to do if I don't set him up.





Now we can't go gaiting along all day yet, we're still building up strength and stamina so he will try and break gait when hes getting tired. So I correct him THEN bring him down to a regular walk. He could probably do that horrible stepping pace all day long if I let him though...doesn't mean I'll let him.

Heres a video from the 3 day clinic we did, I learned so much, learned what I was doing wrong and how to help him.





Ivy is a pretty big trainer in the gaited world now and her thing is a relaxed horse is a happy and comfortable horse. Before the clinic if I asked Jax for any speed he'd hop into something and throw his head up. Now I half halt/give a little reminder and ask for him to bring his head down...head down hes thinking and focused...but I'm not holding it in by any means we ride on loose rein unless I need to correct him..then I ask and he'll move off calmly and evenly. In the video of the clinic we'd only get a few strides at a time, he had to learn what we wanted and how to do it/work muscles hes not used to working.

A LOT of trainers actually advocate teaching a head down cue, when a horse is nervous or tense, heads up, asking them to lower their head has a calming effect on them. Most of my horses when I ask them to lower their head when they're nervous its like they let out a big exhale "Ohh it really is just fine". So I ask for the head down...thinking horse...then for gait.

Again collection in trotting horses is quite different then in gaited horses, how they move feels different because they perform different gaits. Doesn't mean applying the same/similar methods to both types of horses can't improve them.

I don't know I feel like I'm just rambling on at this point. I know what I FEEL, especially when bareback. No my bouncing isn't what causes the initial change in gait/bouncing, its him not being strong enough to HOLD the correct gait I'm asking for so he switches. It takes time to retrain their muscles and I've seen such an improvement in the way he moves down trails since teaching him this. Maybe its not right for everyone and you're welcome to argue its not natural because its not how he moves in the field....but thing is he DOES SOMETIMES move like that in the field...but when hes excited or nervous? Yeah He'll trot or pace out there, doesn't mean I have to ride that.


----------



## updownrider

Gotta-where do you get your examples? I wish you would source them. The picture above that you say ‘collection is bouncy’ I do not believe is just a collected canter.. To me, that horse is doing a lead change or a transition or perforfoming a movement. I can’t tell what because it is a moment time, but the horse and rider are doing something more than a collected canter.


----------



## Smilie

When a horse moves using himself correctly, which does not automatically mean in what is considered a collected frame on the flat, where head carriage is part of that picture, and level due to conformation, but rather with what is the criteria used for athletic movement.
That scoring, was used in hand, trotting young horses (yearlings and two year olds, on a large triangle, in hand at the Alberta horse Improvement program.The handler had to be able to trot that horse out , and why I had to have others run my horse when my knees were bad.
Athletic movement:
-impulsion
- lightness
rhythm
length of stride
Correctness

After those fundamentals, you can add collection, ,athletic movements, depending on disciplines.

Also, as I have mentioned many times, the choice is not collection, versus hollowed out, with the former desired at times, esp in show ring maneuvers, and the latter, never desired.
There is also allowing ahrose to move in natural frame.I do this trail riding all the time. My horses go on a totally loose rein, carry their head where it needs to be, depending on what we are doing
yeah, I can ask for collection, as I might do at times, counter flexing past an obstacle of concern, but I don't ask the horse to carry me that way, over all kinds of terrain, as a horse is way more sure footed on all kinds of ground, can move to his best ability to cover ground, moving in a natural frame


This is just natural, and comfortable for Carmen. She walks out really well, and that is where she likes her head. Of course, she will raise it to look at something, in the distance, like any horse, as that is how horses can best focus on something off in the distance


----------



## Tazzie

bsms said:


> 1 - No one has attacked dressage. Saying it is not the ONLY way to ride a healthy horse is not an attack. Saying it is the only way to ride a healthy horse IS an attack on every non-dressage rider.
> 
> 2 - The best person to figure out how horses move would be a non-rider. How one's butt feels is irrelevant to what the horse's legs and back are actually DOING.
> 
> 3 - The assumption that people who dispute "rounding" have never ridden is ridiculous. Philippe Karl & Jean Claude Racinet were/are dressage riders. Bandit can and will do elevated gaits when he wants to do them. Most horses will - when they feel like it.
> 
> 4 - Horses move at liberty with a raised head, and can also do so under a rider. The video @Smilie posted, and the one of the jumper, both illustrate that a horse can lift its head while moving well under a rider.
> 
> Bandit often raises his head while giving a very relaxed, flowing, easy canter. The idea that he needs to lower his head is silly. He's carried 300+ lbs on his 800 lb body, going fast for 10-15 mile training runs. He did that by bracing, which I dislike. But he shows no sign of back injury.
> 
> 5 - The shifting weight thing is NOT ridiculous because it is specifically about a horse MOVING FORWARD. A rearing horse obviously shifts all its weight to its rear, but a rearing horse isn't trotting.
> 
> When people MEASURE the shift in balance in a moving horse, they get less than a 2% shift. Racinet estimated the total shift backwards to be well under 1 inch. MOVING horses. A stationary horse can also lift its back by contracting the tummy muscles, but it cannot afford to do so while moving.
> 
> 6 - Horses do not need to 'accept the bit' to move well under a rider. And yes, they CAN move under a rider as if they didn't have a rider - or darn close. But only if the rider LETS them move naturally, instead of imposing an artificial method of motion. That is fundamental to the forward seat approach - free up the horse to use its balance instead of trying to impose one created by humans.
> 
> 7 - Almost every rider understand that when balance is critical, you give the horse their head so they can save themselves and their rider. What might be ridiculous is the idea that horses can balance themselves when balance is almost impossible, yet cannot when on level sandy ground in an arena.


1. It's extremely well known you despise of Dressage, and it would take very little for me to find where you have bashed it excessively. I have never once stated Dressage is the only way to ride. Otherwise Evilamc and I would not be best friends considering she rides with no contact. What IS harmful to a healthy horse is allowing them to drop/weaken their back and the rider not realizing the damage it is causing.

2. What I am saying is someone who only reads will not understand the feeling. My husband has ridden my mare, and can feel the difference. He is, as you proclaim, a non-rider and all the riding he has done has been since he met me.

3. You put words in my mouth. What I stated was that one can not just read about rounding. It is something one must feel. Something you clearly have never felt as there is a stark difference. And a Dressage rider who does not understand the mechanics of Dressage, is not someone I would ever want to clinic with.

4. You 100% missed the ENTIRE point I was stating. Yes, a horse CAN move under saddle with a rider with it's head in the air. The point I most definitely made was that a horse moving free at liberty will not have the weight of someone on his back, on the cradle of muscles there. Stop putting words in my mouth. It is ridiculous you took that comment and tried to imply a horse COULDN'T be ridden with it's head up. My POINT, that you CLEARLY missed, was that riding with their head like a giraffe is harmful to their back. How often do you think jumpers actually school over jumps? Do you really think that is all they do? Even one of the most famous jumper clinicians stressed the importance of flat work. Working the horse long and low over their back to create a stronger base for a rider. And Bandit is still young. Hit me up in 10 years and tell me his back is still sound.

5. If you could actually ride a Dressage horse, you'd understand the feeling. :icon_rolleyes: Clearly this rider you think so highly of didn't make it far. True, he preached lightness. Which a well trained horse SHOULD be light REGARDLESS of discipline. This is not just a Dressage thing.

6. And there is your bashing of my sport. Acceptance of the bit is NOT just doing as they are told. They move with a relaxed body and a happy mindset. There is no artificial movement in Dressage. There is bringing to light what is there in the horse, but NOTHING is artificial. If it's forced, it's fake.

7. Hit me back up when you break your first horse and tell me how perfectly balanced they are on a level, sandy arena with their first rider. Since horse riding IS unnatural, NO horse is going to come right out and be perfectly balanced at all times in the beginning stages. Balance isn't even something I need to work on with my mare because I laid a solid foundation for her.


----------



## sarahfromsc

tinyliny said:


> we are just having some fun thinking into the small details of how horses move. jsut saying "I ride the back end" is vague. you might know what that means or feels like, but just that statement by itself would not be enough to teach someone how to ride that way.
> 
> And, bsms does have a point in that in order for the horse to shift toward the back, to compact his motion and bring it more vertical, he must slow the front IN RELATION to the rear. . However, JUST slowing the front will likely just dump the hrose on the front end. Slowing the front, and adding impulsion to the rear is what helps the horse come up in front, and get that lightness you speak of.


I know what it feels like, hence I why I said it, with my OWN words and from my own personal experience. Unlike some who google, cut and paste, paraphrase what someone else wrote, I writing from what I have felt. The good. The bad. The pretty. The ugly. And a handful of times, the brilliant.

As for slowing the front end to engage the rear. How does a horse, out in the field, do a flying lead change at a gallop? I see no slowing down of the front end when my horses do it out playing.

Maybe I am blind. 

I will go goggle.


----------



## sarahfromsc

Tazzie said:


> 1. It's extremely well known you despise of Dressage, and it would take very little for me to find where you have bashed it excessively. I have never once stated Dressage is the only way to ride. Otherwise Evilamc and I would not be best friends considering she rides with no contact. What IS harmful to a healthy horse is allowing them to drop/weaken their back and the rider not realizing the damage it is causing.
> 
> 2. What I am saying is someone who only reads will not understand the feeling. My husband has ridden my mare, and can feel the difference. He is, as you proclaim, a non-rider and all the riding he has done has been since he met me.
> 
> 3. You put words in my mouth. What I stated was that one can not just read about rounding. It is something one must feel. Something you clearly have never felt as there is a stark difference. And a Dressage rider who does not understand the mechanics of Dressage, is not someone I would ever want to clinic with.
> 
> 4. You 100% missed the ENTIRE point I was stating. Yes, a horse CAN move under saddle with a rider with it's head in the air. The point I most definitely made was that a horse moving free at liberty will not have the weight of someone on his back, on the cradle of muscles there. Stop putting words in my mouth. It is ridiculous you took that comment and tried to imply a horse COULDN'T be ridden with it's head up. My POINT, that you CLEARLY missed, was that riding with their head like a giraffe is harmful to their back. How often do you think jumpers actually school over jumps? Do you really think that is all they do? Even one of the most famous jumper clinicians stressed the importance of flat work. Working the horse long and low over their back to create a stronger base for a rider. And Bandit is still young. Hit me up in 10 years and tell me his back is still sound.
> 
> 5. If you could actually ride a Dressage horse, you'd understand the feeling. :icon_rolleyes: Clearly this rider you think so highly of didn't make it far. True, he preached lightness. Which a well trained horse SHOULD be light REGARDLESS of discipline. This is not just a Dressage thing.
> 
> 6. And there is your bashing of my sport. Acceptance of the bit is NOT just doing as they are told. They move with a relaxed body and a happy mindset. There is no artificial movement in Dressage. There is bringing to light what is there in the horse, but NOTHING is artificial. If it's forced, it's fake.
> 
> 7. Hit me back up when you break your first horse and tell me how perfectly balanced they are on a level, sandy arena with their first rider. Since horse riding IS unnatural, NO horse is going to come right out and be perfectly balanced at all times in the beginning stages. Balance isn't even something I need to work on with my mare because I laid a solid foundation for her.


 BRAVO chica! Is it to yearly for a toast?


----------



## sarahfromsc

When people say "lightness," that doesn't always mean it feels easy to ride.

Easy to ride than it is to achieve in my life, and perspective.


----------



## updownrider

sarahfromsc said:


> I know what it feels like, hence I why I said it, with my OWN words and from my own personal experience. Unlike some who google, cut and paste, paraphrase what someone else wrote, I writing from what I have felt. The good. The bad. The pretty. The ugly. And a handful of times, the brilliant.
> 
> As for slowing the front end to engage the rear. How does a horse, out in the field, do a flying lead change at a gallop? I see no slowing down of the front end when my horses do it out playing.
> 
> Maybe I am blind.
> 
> I will go goggle.


Good point. TB racehorses do lead changes at a gallop. They don’t slow down in a race to do them.


----------



## tinyliny

sarahfromsc said:


> I know what it feels like, hence I why I said it, with my OWN words and from my own personal experience. Unlike some who google, cut and paste, paraphrase what someone else wrote, I writing from what I have felt. The good. The bad. The pretty. The ugly. And a handful of times, the brilliant.
> 
> As for slowing the front end to engage the rear. How does a horse, out in the field, do a flying lead change at a gallop? I see no slowing down of the front end when my horses do it out playing.
> 
> Maybe I am blind.
> 
> I will go goggle.



Dont take offense. I also ride by feel. But, the entertaining part of the discussion is taking time to consider what IS happening when what we feel happens. what IS happening, in actual terms.


I horse does not need to collect in order to change leads. they can be barreling forward, without any compression in front and they can change in front, rather than lefiing off the hind to change leads, as a person in dressage would want. 

Also, I think that the WAY a horse puts his feet down is different when you ask him to collect, meaning, you ask him to contain the front and work from the back into the front. I mean, bsms says that there is greater lloading when you ask the hrose to collect, on the front legs. Maybe, but the way the feet land when the horse is asked to collect and work more from back to front feels . . . . well . . lighter. it makes less of a slapping sound, so perhaps it is landing more in a controlled manner. There still might be more force due to the pushing off, but the landing seems less of a 'slapping down' feel than a horse that is running along strung out in front.

yeah, it's 'feel', not science.

without any containment, the front legs will land faster, more


----------



## Golden Horse

sarahfromsc said:


> BRAVO chica! Is it to yearly for a toast?


I’ll raise a glass and toast that..

I do wish that people would not take some terms so literally. 

I KNOW when I ride I can feel the energy being harnessed, I never could until this year, now I can.

I have know for a long time about lightening the front end, again never really felt it until this year. I have felt a horse getting light, sure, when it was going to nap, baulk or stand up, but never knew how to ask for it, or knew how it felt.

Going back to the question,

Inverted is not good, I have ridden inverted horses, I have ridden horses who inverted at the first sign of trouble. It is so true that a horse with its head in the air, has rolled its brain out of its head  It is a great way to keep them focused is to keep the head down. I am NOT talking about seeking any sort of collection, not even contact, but having a horse ‘level headed’


----------



## sarahfromsc

tinyliny said:


> Dont take offense. I also ride by feel. But, the entertaining part of the discussion is taking time to consider what IS happening when what we feel happens. what IS happening, in actual terms.
> 
> 
> I horse does not need to collect in order to change leads. they can be barreling forward, without any compression in front and they can change in front, rather than lefiing off the hind to change leads, as a person in dressage would want.
> 
> Also, I think that the WAY a horse puts his feet down is different when you ask him to collect, meaning, you ask him to contain the front and work from the back into the front. I mean, bsms says that there is greater lloading when you ask the hrose to collect, on the front legs. Maybe, but the way the feet land when the horse is asked to collect and work more from back to front feels . . . . well . . lighter. it makes less of a slapping sound, so perhaps it is landing more in a controlled manner. There still might be more force due to the pushing off, but the landing seems less of a 'slapping down' feel than a horse that is running along strung out in front.
> 
> yeah, it's 'feel', not science.
> 
> without any containment, the front legs will land faster, more



And feel can be so individual. When I ride a lead change, I can feel a coiling, a rounding, a gathering of power in the hind end. When I really watch the Arab putting on a show in the pasture, I can see a gathering, or coiling of power when he does a flying lead change. You have to watch for it, but it is there. Unlike when he is streaming for the f nice and does a roll back. The this coiling or gathering of power is very noticeable.


----------



## Smilie

updownrider said:


> Good point. TB racehorses do lead changes at a gallop. They don’t slow down in a race to do them.


There are two types of flying lead changes= the first is just one done naturally, at speed, as out in pastures, with change of direction, horses jumping a course, or horses just changing out of speed and direction-like a race horse, rounding a corner, or even a pole bending horse, a horse playing polo, ect
It si also sometimes referred to as a 'cowboy change and you can do one pretty easily on a fairly green hrose, with speed and direction change
We neither teach hroses to do flying lead changes, nor lope/canter transitions. They do them all the time

What we do teach them, is to do them on cue, at an exact spot, independent of direction or speed, and those are collected flying lead changes.

If all you have is 'natural flying changes on a horse, at speed and direction change, that horse will not be able to do a series of straight line flying changes
Two different levels of training entirely


----------



## Smilie

In fact, one of the very first clinics I took, was with pat wise, who was a follower of Monty Foreman and his principles of 'balanced ride. I had never in my life at that point, taught a collected lead change, and my hroses just changed, as I ran patterns, ect Never had shown at that point.
So, Pat had everyone doing flying lead changes, that weekend, as hroses either changed or fell down! He would have us come across center, step into the old lead stirrup, as we headed at speed towards that wall, , make sure door wsa open on new lead side, having leg and rein off, and then just change direction, coming at that wall. 
Well, almost any horse, in the least bit athletic, will change like that!

Then I took some reining clinics, and then western riding clinics, and I learned how to set a horse up for lead changes, esp in western riding, so the hrose could do then with cadence, without direction change and without changing speed or topline, and that my friends, requires a collected lead change, out of body control!


----------



## gottatrot

tinyliny said:


> But, the entertaining part of the discussion is taking time to consider what IS happening when what we feel happens. what IS happening, in actual terms.


I know the feel of it, what I want to understand is the science and what is truly happening. I've finally been convinced by reading many books and articles, and thinking about horses that do endurance and other athletic maneuvers for many hundreds of miles while never rounding over or creating a supposed cradle of muscles - that the head and neck posture do not relate to back problems or soundness.

I believe that it is the exact opposite. The head and neck carriage will often reflect whether the horse is carrying himself properly or not. A horse lifting and tensing is compensating for something. Perhaps, as we have sometimes seen, he is just newly under saddle and those muscles have not developed at all yet. He may not know how to balance himself, or he may have body issues.

For my own horses, when I rode them with more contact and worked them long and low, they developed better bodies than when they were started. But when I stopped doing that and focused on athletic, balanced movement instead, their bodies became even better and muscled more evenly and they were able to perform better.

I've known many horses that never had back issues but were always ridden with the head and neck held high without any long/low work, some into their 30s. 

As far as the powerful (I called it bouncy) feeling of a horse that has a lot of impulsion and collection, I remember the first couple of times I rode a horse doing one tempi flying changes and I did think I might lose my seat and fall off. A very collected horse can spring high into the air and switch the legs, and when you land your weight is shifted quite a lot to the other side (for those who haven't felt it). The rider really has to get with the motion and feel it or you may get thrown up out of the saddle. It can be the same with a very collected trot that goes high in the air with each stride, especially if you are trying to sit it.

A very collected horse can be quite difficult to ride, especially if they start doing something you haven't asked for. The more vertical their motion, the more they gain the ability to move in any direction in a moment, sometimes unexpectedly. Often they come up smoothly under your seat, and lift you nicely. Sometimes they come up under your seat, and then a second later come up somewhere else you forgot to follow them.

Trying to understand the biomechanics of what horses are doing when collected and how it affects the back and neck is not bashing dressage. Also, my point in debate is not trying to change minds of people who believe strongly in what they have been taught and agree with it. It is first to help myself understand, and secondly it may help people in the future who are learning and trying to understand some of this for themselves. 

People should be able to hear different perspectives in order to decide for themselves what seems logically (or scientifically) most right. Those who prefer to go by how they feel about things are free to do so.


----------



## Smilie

What are a series of flying lead changes?
Nothing more that opposite lead departures, without breaking gait.
Leads start in the back, not the front, thus to change correctly esp when not using speed and direction change,a horse has to drive up on the correct lead from behind.If the hrose is correct behind, he will be correct n front.
The opposite is not true, when someone just tries to force a lead change, concentrating on the front end, the hrose can change in front, but drag that hind lead.
Horses naturally want to take the correct lead (inside_) when working in a circle (baring horses that have a physical problem and have become one leaded), because it is 'natural and easier
In fact, asking for the counter canter, it can be difficult to keep the hrose on that outside lead, as he naturally wants to do a flying change onto that inside lead
Perhaps, riding some very elevated movement, can make that collected hrose feel more 'bouncy, hard to ride, BUT in general, a horse moving collected, is way smoother then a horse pounding around on his front end, jabbing those front feet into the ground.


----------



## gottatrot

Kudos, y'all are better riders than me if you feel one tempi flying changes are smooth because the horse isn't pounding on the front end.
I can find multiple videos on Youtube showing many people flying around during their flying changes, as I've found myself doing at times. :smile: It can feel almost like going over a series of jumps and landing on a different lead each time.





(FYI, photos linked from search engines will take you to their source if you right click and choose "find this image on Google," etc. If you would like to know the source of pictures not attached on this site. Since the source is available, it doesn't seem necessary to add that information to the length of the post. All embedded videos also have linkback info.)


----------



## evilamc

Part of me feels like shes exaggerating it, maybe hes new at it so shes exaggerating the cue? Or to help viewers see what shes doing?


----------



## Smilie

I admit to not riding dressage, thus not doing one temp lead changes, but they sure are smooth on a good western riding horse
I also said that a horse moving collected, not necessarily changing leads, is a smoother ride then a horse trotting/jogging or cantering/loping around on his front end.
All I expect from a series of flying changes

Nice, relaxed, on a loose rein


----------



## Smilie

You are also again, comparing apples to oranges, far as that dressage hrose, doing every stride lead changes, as you would not even be able to do lead changes like that , UNLESS the horse is collected
Yes, you going to feel it, as the hrose is going to have to change leads, drive up from behind, every stride
How do you purpose to do changes like that, without the horse being collected?????
So, lets compare collected, catering along or trotting, against a horse cantering or trotting un collected, on his front end


----------



## gottatrot

evilamc said:


> Part of me feels like shes exaggerating it, maybe hes new at it so shes exaggerating the cue? Or to help viewers see what shes doing?


Her body is exaggerated, but just look at what the horse is doing and see if it looks smooth and easy to ride to you. It's easier to see on a less expert rider. But if you watch the horse here too, you can see how much a collected horse can throw a rider around:





But possibly this mainly applies to horses with less sprinting type muscles, if you read the comments below:

@Smilie, yes, I've ridden some single lead changes that are very smooth on a collected horse and also on a non-collected horse. Do they do more than one change in a row in western riding? Just curious. I am wondering if it requires more lift to do several in a row. 

I won't offend you by saying "downhill" posture, but the different posture that stock horses are able to collect in where the pelvis obviously coils under just as surely as a dressage horse does but is less elevated seems to make the movements much smoother. 

I'm wandering off into speculation here, but we know quarter horses have more fast-twitch type muscles and therefore are capable of the fastest sprinting speeds. That would mean their muscles are capable of more explosive power than other horses with a different muscle type. 

I always thought their movement in collection (it took me a long time to understand that they are indeed collected, thanks for your help with that) was about using less muscle power. But I think now it actually requires more power. They are probably capable of collecting at slower speeds and in a lower outline than other horses are, because they do have such powerful muscles that are capable of both pushing and braking harder than other horses. 

Watching Arabs in the same type of classes, they must go higher and bounce more in order to pull off the same thing. You can see in an Arab WP class that the riders are bouncing more than in the stock horse WP classes. Arabians (and many other breeds) seem to need more upward and forward motion in order to collect, to make up for the lack of fast-twitch/anaerobic type muscles.

No matter how we're told a horse learned to do something, even by supposed "natural" gurus, I think we should take it all with skepticism. We've been told that top horses learn things through slow, gradual training - in many disciplines. But I've seen so many tricks and gadgets used on horses along with methods that I've been told work the long and slow way but was unable to make no progress with. So I think it's good to have a healthy skepticism and critical eye on every discipline we participate in with horses.


----------



## TXhorseman

The smoothness or roughness of a horse’s movements depends on several factors: conformation, how the horse uses its muscles (and thus, the rest of its body), and how tense the horse is in general. How the rider perceives the effects of a horse’s movements also depends on similar factors regarding his own body. You might also factor in the surface on which the horse is moving.


----------



## updownrider

gottatrot said:


> Kudos, y'all are better riders than me if you feel one tempi flying changes are smooth because the horse isn't pounding on the front end.
> I can find multiple videos on Youtube showing many people flying around during their flying changes, as I've found myself doing at times. :smile: It can feel almost like going over a series of jumps and landing on a different lead each time.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RC-k4B15Z1M
> 
> (FYI, photos linked from search engines will take you to their source if you right click and choose "find this image on Google," etc. If you would like to know the source of pictures not attached on this site. Since the source is available, it doesn't seem necessary to add that information to the length of the post. All embedded videos also have linkback info.)


Right click doesn’t work on an iPad. Please tell me your source. I do not feel I should have to search the Internet.


----------



## updownrider

Charlotte is TEACHING the horse changes in that video. The changes are not perfected. The other video and the many you find on YouTube may not be perfected, either. I could prove there are bad jumpers out in the world by searching YouTube for a 5year old child in their first jumping lesson. But if I want to show the beauty and smoothness of a jumper, I look for an Olympian performing in the Olympics. I am not quite sure you do not do the same with your examples.


----------



## gottatrot

updownrider said:


> I could prove there are bad jumpers out in the world by searching YouTube for a 5year old child in their first jumping lesson. But if I want to show the beauty and smoothness of a jumper, I look for an Olympian performing in the Olympics. I am not quite sure you do not do the same with your examples.


Pardon me, but I am not sure you are thinking through whether collected flying changes are actually easy to ride or not, on most horses, regardless of being finished or not. That was the question.

It would seem helpful if people questioning a video or photo illustrating a point would provide illustrations or videos that show otherwise. Otherwise it feels as though the argument is only to distract from the point or throw red herrings at it. It doesn't seem like good debate to me if someone posts a photo and rather than looking at the horse to see if it supports the point or not, the photo is criticized. If someone says, "Look at the shape of the ears on this horse," it doesn't disprove the point about the ears to say, "But that horse is brown."

For your perusal, a finished horse. Would also feel quite tough to ride for your average rider.
No one has to believe me, but I'll say that in my experience, when the horse flips to the next lead, it throws you up and in one direction, and then when you hit the other lead, it throws you up and in another direction. It is a skill to learn how to be ready and move with that action, and not just get tossed off balance.




What I am guessing is that for me personally, riding a huge mover like these top level horses would be a challenge and I might fall off. I doubt they are smooth. Similarly, I may gallop horses quite a lot, but I think if I hopped on American Pharaoh, I might fly off the back as he came through the starting gate. Yet I also think that for many riders, any horse coming from a standstill to a gallop would be a challenge until you learn how to ride it (I went over the back of the saddle at least twice while learning), and ditto for a big moving collected horse.

I am trying to figure out why it is important for some to argue that collection makes a horse easier to ride...? Is that really the point of collection? It doesn't appear to me that Olympic level riders are searching for an easier or smoother ride. Rather, it appears to me they are looking for a more brilliant one.

I guess if evidence seems to show collection is not easier on a horse's body, then there needs to be some other reason why a person would want to do it. 
It doesn't seem wrong to me to want to teach a horse collection because it is fun, or because you enjoy the feeling of a powerful horse springing into the air underneath you. Maybe you want to rise to the challenge of riding those tricky flying changes, or you think it looks beautiful. If the horse enjoys it and you enjoy it, I see nothing wrong with that. 

My only issue is with people who try to convince others that having the horse move in this certain way is better for the horse's body and will make them fit to carry a rider, and less likely to break down. There is no proof that any of that is true.


----------



## updownrider

I never said collection is easy. It is an advanced movement in dressage that, to do correctly in Dressage, takes years of training. 

This is my all time favorite ride. Robert Dover is not bouncing. He is moving with his horse, as I believe Charlotte was in the last video you posted.


----------



## ApuetsoT

I think some have different ideas of what smooth means. A engaged dressage horse is not going to have a flat motion like a gaited horse. You still have to work your butt off to stay with them. What they do have is a consistant rolling motion that you can sit into easier. It becomes pretty clear if you try to sit a big trot without having the horse engaged, vs having them engaged. Rider still has to work hard though. 

As for keeping horses sounder, I'll leave a piece of anecdotal insight. Before I started with my current trainer, I would have a chiro of 3-4 times a year for my horses. After having my trainer teach both of us how to ride straight and engaged, I haven't needed one in 3 years. Proper dressage supports longevity and soundness, evidenced(anecdotally) by the field of retired show horses at my barn which are still sound despite their long, active careers.


----------



## bsms

Smilie said:


> ...I also said that a horse moving collected, not necessarily changing leads, is a smoother ride then a horse trotting/jogging or cantering/loping around on his front end...





gottatrot said:


> ...What I am guessing is that for me personally, riding a huge mover like these top level horses would be a challenge and I might fall off. I doubt they are smooth...
> 
> I am trying to figure out why it is important for some to argue that collection makes a horse easier to ride...? Is that really the point of collection? It doesn't appear to me that Olympic level riders are searching for an easier or smoother ride. Rather, it appears to me they are looking for a more brilliant one...
> 
> ...My only issue is with people who try to convince others that [it] is better for the horse's body and will make them fit to carry a rider, and less likely to break down...


There is a continuum of movement, running from heavy on the front and stiff in body through a natural movement on to mild collection and eventually into competition-level collection on horses bred for that movement. At either extreme, it is not an easy ride.

No one wants a stiff, heavy on the front horse - but it is EASY to get past that if you just let the horse be a horse. HORSES don't like being stiff and heavy on the front. Given freedom, they will seek - as humans do - to adjust their gait into something comfortable and easy. When I first cantered on Mia, in the open, she was extremely far over on the front, to the point I thought we might flip. Her cantering experience had all been in a corral. She had never lived on a pasture or out in the open. Without a fence turning her, she didn't know HOW to canter a straight line.

The first couple of times, I pulled her head up and then stopped her. After a few tries, she wasn't too bad. After a couple of rides of practice, she cantered fine. I didn't teach her. I didn't put her in any kind of contraption and try to create a good canter. I merely gave HER a chance to practice, stopped her when it got too scary, and she taught herself. 

Horses do. Horses do not enjoy being unbalanced. They scare themselves. And then THEY adjust. They adjust on their own into a natural frame - natural depending on their breeding and build.

If you want a "handy" horse, one who can move easily over certain terrain, then all it takes is exposing them to that terrain. Start small, work up. Do turns and transitions in that terrain, starting with small hills, for example, and working up. The HORSE will learn how to do it with a rider.

But the horse, unlike a human, will do so based on the totality of its movement - accounting for how much effort it is for him, how it feels to his feet, how it feels to his back, how secure he feels on various types of ground. No human alive knows how it FEELS to the horse. But the horse knows!

If you stick to arena sports and compete, then you will need to push the horse past anything natural to him. You cannot win at the extremes with a "normal" horse. And once you get into the show part of dressage, it has nothing to do with efficiency, protecting the horse's back and legs, comfort to the rider - because at the top, it is about winning. And you don't win by being "good".

Once you move beyond a natural frame and into a competition-winning frame, it is much harder on the horse. How anyone can watch an Olympic dressage horse - or jumper, or reining - and conclude it is easier on the horse than walking and trotting down a trail is beyond me. It is like pretending ballet or pro football is easier on the body than walking around the block. It is silly. 

Which is easier on the horse?








​ 







​ 
Try putting a weight on your back and leaping around versus walking steadily. Of course, you don't need to try the experiment because you already know the answer. Horses do as well.

Now...if you enjoy competing, and like training in dressage, or jumping oxers, or reining or WP, and if your horse doesn't mind, have at it! *Enjoy!*

But don't pretend it is "better balanced", either. These are untrained riders - who literally had never touched a horse before being hired - on ranch horses who have never seen the inside of an arena:








​ 
Just before the picture was taken, a couple of sheep went down to the lake. One of the riders - the guy on the left - went over the edge on his horse, went down to the lake, let his horse take a drink, then moved the sheep up that side, riding behind them. Jumping doesn't prepare a horse for that. Dressage doesn't prepare a horse for that. Reining doesn't prepare a horse for that. A summer of riding in the mountains does.

To get cell phone reception, they would ride to the top of this hill to make their call. Then come back down.








​ 
A horse doesn't go up a hill like that by pulling with his front legs. But the untrained riders on untrained horses did it weekly, on that hill and others like it, for their weekly calls home.

The horses aren't really untrained. They are taken out as foals and follow their mothers for a few seasons of sheep herding. Before anyone gets on their back, they have lived going up and down and around and through terrain like that. They know how to pick through log piles, push through branches, and climb up mountainsides that I wouldn't try on foot. Once broken to ride, they only need to learn how to do it WITH a rider. And after a year of doing that with an experienced rider, they are ready to take beginners up and down those hills. And they do. Trooper was raised like that. He might not know how to sidepass, but he moves sideways just fine.

If you had to choose between riding Trooper up one of those hills or a champion dressage horse, I recommend taking Trooper. He has no flash in an arena. He has no concept of jumping. But he'll go up and down and around. If he balks, listen. He was bred, raised and taught to take beginning riders across rough terrain. But don't waste time asking him to try this. It has no meaning in his world, or mine:










From The Robert Dover Horsemastership Week on YouTube

_"The next balance we want from the horse....then they take it forward into art....we're seeing the whole think like a movie in our minds...that looks ridiculous of me...you have to do this incredible extended canter....and you say "Under, under, under!_"​ 
The guy seems like a good guy, and he is honest about his goal - incredible movement for a show. It isn't how one jogs to cover terrain. It takes more effort. Neither horse nor man does an "incredible extended canter" for efficiency or to reduce stress on the body. Ballet is not hiking, and neither is wrong - when done in the right setting.

There is no such thing as "better balance" until you define "better for what". There is no such thing as "proper riding" until you define "Proper for what".


----------



## jaydee

There always seems to be a lot of confusion on threads like this because people refuse to remove their blinkers.
The first mistake is to compare what horses do at liberty - in a field with no human interference and what they do under saddle.
The only reality in that is that there's nothing we do with a horse when we ride it that they can't do when at liberty - the huge difference in the two is that we're training them to do these things when cued and we as a rider are an interference to them, whether just by adding our weight into the scenario or by the way we ride. You put someone with busy hands, seat and feet on a highly trained sensitive horse and you have a wreck waiting to happen.
What I see as misunderstandings that result in pointless argument
1. No one has said that dressage will make a horse easier to ride but the basics of dressage will make any horse more responsive to ride.
2. Dressage is not all about collection. Collection is right up there at the top of the training pyramid
3. Contact isn't collection


If you look at the lower level dressage tests in any country you'll see working and medium trot/canter being asked for - not collected trot/canter


The reason those couple of dressage horses look 'bouncy' in lead changes is because they're purpose bred to be naturally uphill and elevated so when you 'compress' them in a collected gait to increase contained energy and impulsion what can't go forwards goes upwards into even more elevation. 
You'll see exactly the same 'bounce' in collected trot and because they ride 'big' they're not going to be so easy to sit on as your typical TB even if they never do a days dressage training in their life
If you look at this dressage pony doing 2 time flying changes its a lot smoother simply because of its different breeding. 
It's exactly the same difference that I see/feel when I compare our WB to our IDSH who's mostly TB.


----------



## bsms

ApuetsoT said:


> ...I would have a chiro of 3-4 times a year for my horses. After having my trainer teach both of us how to ride straight and engaged, I haven't needed one in 3 years. Proper dressage supports longevity and soundness, evidenced(anecdotally) by the field of retired show horses at my barn which are still sound despite their long, active careers.


My horses have never seen a chiro. No sign of needing one, either. 14.3 hand & 875 lb Trooper carried a 6'5" male who had never touched a horse on a 3 hour ride in the desert, including pavement, dirt road, trails and off trail. Walk, trot, canter. I rubbed his back - Trooper's :smile: - after the ride. If he was sore, he hid it well. The new rider took Motrin.

Bandit arrived with some serious issues. He was using his left front leg at a 45 degree angle, his feet were too small, and he slapped his front feet down wherever he went. Shoes off, good trimming, and his feet went from 4.5" to 5+". It took 6 months for him to figure out how to straighten his leg, although I think it still affects his concept of canter. Gave up slapping his feet down long ago.

The ranch horses from my previous post tend to die of cancer, blindness (too common in Appies), heart failure. The ranch doesn't have a problem with them going lame or having bad backs. Bunch of trail horses in the area around me. Same thing. Not a lick of dressage training in any of 'em. Just trail horses & self-taught riders.

"_1. No one has said that dressage will make a horse easier to ride but the basics of dressage will make any horse more responsive to ride._" - @*jaydee* 

More responsive to taught cues? Maybe. If one defines a set of mandatory taught cues, then horses taught those cues will be more responsive to them than a horse who has not been taught those cues. But if one wants to ride between cactus, I suggest letting the horse know where you wish to go, then letting him do it. Not sure how much more responsive a horse can be than one that reads its rider's mind - and LOTS of horses do that, just by being ridden by the same person. 

If I wiggle the reins in my one hand a little, and Bandit moves at an angle and then threads his way between some cactus, twisting to do so, in what sense is he not "responsive to ride"? Well, if I tried to keep him between hand and leg and ride him, he'd be clueless. Not responsive to that at all. But then, one doesn't DIRECT a horse thru cactus. Basic dressage makes a horse responsive to basic dressage cues. Basic WP teaches a horse to be responsive to basic WP cues. Nothing wrong with either. But neither horse is thus more responsive to cues, unless you define what set of cues one wants them to respond to!

Try giving Bandit a half-halt, and then use inside and outside rein to turn him and try to bend him around your leg, and you are going to be as frustrated as Bandit. Let him take a look at the cactus and terrain ahead, then accept responsibility and take you across, and he "responds" fine. DIFFERENT STROKES. Neither wrong. Just different.


----------



## jaydee

bsms - Dressage training starts by teaching a horse to be obedient to cues. To respond correctly to the bridle, walk, trot, canter, back up whoa, turn to command and to be balanced in itself so it can better carry the weight of its rider.
I personally think its useful if a horse can go a step further and understand some lateral work, at least a leg yield and turn on the forehand as those things are useful if you have to open and close gates and maneuver on narrow tracks but you can get by without them
If your horses can do all of those things then you have completed your basic first dressage training
If all you want to do is trail ride then that's all you need but a lot of riders are into something competitive and for that they need a bit extra.
If you google Charlotte Dujardin or Carl Hester hacking you'll find photos of them just out riding like any other normal person does, relaxed rein, not piaffeing around the countryside. If you look at their Facebook pages there was a video before Christmas of them cantering across a field with a few dogs in tow


If you're using your own unique cues to train your horse to listen to you then you're still using cues. The problem with using things like a 'wiggle' rather than standard cues is that the horse is going to be totally confused if you ever sell him to someone who doesn't use your 'wiggle' cue
You don't need to use a half halt to ask your horse to ride between two cactus plants


----------



## bsms

jaydee said:


> ...If all you want to do is trail ride then that's all you need but a lot of riders are into something competitive and for that they need a bit extra...


And that is fine! I've repeatedly said folks are welcome to compete in any sport they wish.

But training for that sport does NOT create a better balanced or more responsive horse, except for that particular sport. It doesn't make the horse live longer or stay sounder. If one gets in a tough spot for balance, I still suggest giving the horse his head and letting the horse save the rider. Because horses know more about how they balance than riders do.

And, to the point of the thread, a horse may move balanced and efficiently with head raised or lowered. Or move badly either way. The horse's balance and athleticism isn't determined by head or neck position. Feel the back instead of looking at the head.

"_The problem with using things like a 'wiggle' rather than standard cues is that the horse is going to be totally confused if you ever sell him to someone who doesn't use your 'wiggle' cue._"

Odd, then, isn't it, that Cowboy and Trooper regularly carry new riders, and do so successfully. Bandit is headed that way. And around here, a horse who can carry a new rider thru the desert is easy to sell. Mainly because their owners don't want to sell them...


----------



## Smilie

Trottin, yes, western riding hroses do a series of flying changes, both just going across the arena, between those plyons and also on the one long side, changing halfway between them, set fairly close together.
In fact, my one stallion, who found flying changes very easy, would try to throw in extra changes, which of course, were scored down
I would have to agree that every other stride lead change is not seen, as a 'natural' way a horse would change at liberty, but then many things we ask a horse to do, are not that 'natural', but exhibit level of training and athletic ability


This is Impassible, shown by his non pro rider, in western riding, starting with the pylons along the long side. No, 'we' don't ask for every other stride lead change, but a smooth change between those pylons, an don a loose rein, with the horse keeping topline on his won


----------



## updownrider

bsms said:


> Odd, then, isn't it, that Cowboy and Trooper regularly carry new riders, and do so successfully. Bandit is headed that way. And around here, a horse who can carry a new rider thru the desert is easy to sell. Mainly because their owners don't want to sell them...


I have ridden in the desert in Arizona. There is no sport involved and should not be compared to horses in sport. You have successful horses for their purpose. I do not understand what you are arguing in this and other threads like it.


----------



## Tazzie

Yup, us pansy Dressage riders *never* leave the arena










Squeezing through tight spaces just wouldn't be acceptable since all we do is arena work










God forbid we find any water










Or let someone who doesn't ride hardly at all ride your fine tuned Dressage horse, particularly on a TRAIL










To think that all us COMPETITORS do is school, school, school in an arena is incredible. Never mind the fact the only arena my horse even sees is when we are at a show.

My horse is a very plain mover in comparison to the flashy Dressage horses of today. Her dam was an APHA registered mare. She has A LOT of Quarter Horse in her. She will NEVER move with the added flash that is hot in the ring. And to attempt to make her that would be artificially creating her gait. What she gives me is what is there. She has piaffed in the field. I've seen her passage. Flying changes are sharp and clean. She HAS everything I want in her. It takes me as a rider to help her realize she CAN do it under saddle. Heck, I've seen her do a pirouette at liberty as well.

I know without a doubt I could haul my horse to wherever you claim is horrible and have her handle it all exceedingly well. Just because she is a competition horse does NOT mean her brain has turned off. She's never balked at a thing I've done to her. I even put terrifying equipment on her (terrifying to typical horses that is) and ask her to gallop to applause, and she revels in it. Ears up, happy as a clam galloping in a ring with tassels flipping all around her.

It's also a *VERY* broad statement to imply *ALL* Dressage horses are worked in some form of gadget to create a false headset. Aside from exceedingly loose side reins that only engage if SHE wants them to, my mare has NEVER worn anything to create a headset. That is the opposite of everything I have ever learned growing up, and not something I'd be starting in my adult life. My friend tried a running martingale once. Once. My mare told her what she thought of that, and it was never done again. She goes into the contact as that is what she's wanting to do. There is zero force. It's all a set of mechanics in how I ride her in what is proper for MY discipline.

Ps, that top picture was taken in Colorado in the Rawah mountain range.


----------



## ApuetsoT

bsms said:


> My horses have never seen a chiro. No sign of needing one, either. 14.3 hand & 875 lb Trooper carried a 6'5" male who had never touched a horse on a 3 hour ride in the desert, including pavement, dirt road, trails and off trail. Walk, trot, canter. I rubbed his back - Trooper's :smile: - after the ride. If he was sore, he hid it well. The new rider took Motrin.
> 
> Bandit arrived with some serious issues. He was using his left front leg at a 45 degree angle, his feet were too small, and he slapped his front feet down wherever he went. Shoes off, good trimming, and his feet went from 4.5" to 5+". It took 6 months for him to figure out how to straighten his leg, although I think it still affects his concept of canter. Gave up slapping his feet down long ago.
> 
> The ranch horses from my previous post tend to die of cancer, blindness (too common in Appies), heart failure. The ranch doesn't have a problem with them going lame or having bad backs. Bunch of trail horses in the area around me. Same thing. Not a lick of dressage training in any of 'em. Just trail horses & self-taught riders.


Trail horses and horses who have shown internationally all their lives(like the ones at my barn) cannot be compared in terms of soundness. Try and take a horse who has not been taught to engage and build those supporting muscles, compete them year after year, then see how sound they are. You repeat that 'collection' is harder on the horses bodies and keep trying to compare them to your trail horses, but the work competition horses are being asked to do is far more strenuous. It's dishonest not to acknowledge that. I'm not speaking of just Dressage horses, but dressage principles are present in all disciplines.


----------



## bsms

updownrider said:


> I have ridden in the desert in Arizona. There is no sport involved...I do not understand what you are arguing in this and other threads like it.


Simple: 

1 - The head and neck position of a horse have very little to do with how engaged the back is or is not, and reveal almost nothing worthwhile about its balance and health.

2 - A horse is not "better balanced" nor "properly ridden" when "round" - in part because the horse cannot round up in an arch, and partly because a horse has no need to be on the bit in order to efficiently carry a rider.

3 - That "_...the first rule of good riding is that of reducing, simplifying and sometimes, if possible, even eliminating the action of the rider. If the hands are used to turn and check a horse, and the legs to make him move forward and to give him resolution and decisiveness this is enough...

If natural work is required of a horse [field work] and not artificial [manege work] he will be better able to make use of his impulses, instincts and his natural balance..._"

I've posted videos about how "rounding" is needed to protect the horse, and how it and it alone makes it possible for a horse to carry us without injury. That, along with the idea that head position reveals how the back works, is what I'm arguing against.


----------



## bsms

ApuetsoT said:


> ...You repeat that 'collection' is harder on the horses bodies and keep trying to compare them to your trail horses, but the work competition horses are being asked to do is far more strenuous. It's dishonest not to acknowledge that...


Really? Your riding in an arena is more work & causes more wear & tear on the horse than carrying a rider 20+ miles a day in rough country? No, I don't normally do that - but I know folks riding Trooper's brothers who do. If what a person does in an arena is more likely to damage the horse than riding out for hours, would that make it cruel?

If so, then that is an argument against competing on horses. 

I'm NOT making the argument, but it kind of follows...:think:


----------



## jaydee

bsms said:


> Simple:
> 
> 1 - The head and neck position of a horse have very little to do with how engaged the back is or is not, and reveal almost nothing worthwhile about its balance and health.
> 
> 2 - A horse is not "better balanced" nor "properly ridden" when "round" - in part because the horse cannot round up in an arch, and partly because a horse has no need to be on the bit in order to efficiently carry a rider.
> 
> 3 - That "_...the first rule of good riding is that of reducing, simplifying and sometimes, if possible, even eliminating the action of the rider. If the hands are used to turn and check a horse, and the legs to make him move forward and to give him resolution and decisiveness this is enough..._
> 
> _If natural work is required of a horse [field work] and not artificial [manege work] he will be better able to make use of his impulses, instincts and his natural balance..._"
> 
> I've posted videos about how "rounding" is needed to protect the horse, and how it and it alone makes it possible for a horse to carry us without injury. That, along with the idea that head position reveals how the back works, is what I'm arguing against.



Since the horse's skeleton is all connected by muscles and ligaments what one part does will always impact another part.
Rounded does not = arched back
'On the bit' = correctly responsive to cues. If the horse isn't responsive to cues it isn't going to be safe, willing ride. A horse requires a lot more than being happy for someone to sit on its back to qualify it as being a riding horse
The hands alone aren't used to turn a horse. If you pull on your left rein and do nothing else then chances are if the horse has been taught to give to pressure it will just turn its head and neck to the left. 


If I ride my horse at a gap between two trees then its most probably going to walk between those trees without me doing anything fancy' because its got the intelligence to do that on its own. My paddocks have trees in them, my horses don't go around walking into those trees when they're turned out.
You can't compare the type of riding you're doing with competition riding. 
Its nice that you're happy doing what you do and getting pleasure from your horses but unless you're willing to try upping the game and doing something more challenging then you really can't give an informed opinion on the difference dressage training can make to the competitive sport horse


----------



## farmpony84

@Tazzie... What exactly is your point?




























Wait! Don't throw things at me! It was a joke! See... ha ha... I was kidding!


PS - My horses only see a ring in lessons or shows too... I have grass, woods, and gravel roads... I'm not rich like all them fancy pancy dressage riders...


----------



## Tazzie

@farmpony84, haha! Good one! Yes, forgot about lessons... I think I made it to four of those last year? Maybe? I can’t remember now!

And I wish I was one of those rich Dressage riders! I clearly missed that memo!

I ride in the top of their pasture when I school as that is the flattest land I can find, and it’s not that flat. It’s a ridge with a giant hillside (Kentucky has some incredible hills here :wink: ) trees in the pasture is why I don’t clip Izzie and blanket her. She goes through all sorts of trees and brush daily. And she’s never said no to go down a hill, even if it requires sitting on her haunches and sliding down.

But whoops. She’s a competition horse, a double Regional champion even. She really shouldn’t do that... 

Honestly, training a horse outside of what they do daily is good for them. I’ve always been a firm believer in it. And I know Carl and Charlotte believe it too as Valegro was recently taught to jump. Izzie kept up with @evilamc’s walking horses her first real trail ride off the farm (the farm is where I can slide down to the riverbank), and I wasn’t pushing her. She enjoys her job BECAUSE we do trail ride. She’d be needlessly bored just mosing down a trail, but it’s not good for her sanity to only school (I don’t drill; anyone who has had an Arab or cross knows drilling doesn’t work).

Sorry, now I am rambling. My horse and I love everything we do, and she’s never been told not to have an opinion. We discuss during ever ride, and she knows I will never push her beyond her capability.


----------



## updownrider

bsms said:


> Simple:
> 
> 1 - The head and neck position of a horse have very little to do with how engaged the back is or is not, and reveal almost nothing worthwhile about its balance and health.
> 
> 2 - A horse is not "better balanced" nor "properly ridden" when "round" - in part because the horse cannot round up in an arch, and partly because a horse has no need to be on the bit in order to efficiently carry a rider.
> 
> 3 - That "_...the first rule of good riding is that of reducing, simplifying and sometimes, if possible, even eliminating the action of the rider. If the hands are used to turn and check a horse, and the legs to make him move forward and to give him resolution and decisiveness this is enough...
> 
> If natural work is required of a horse [field work] and not artificial [manege work] he will be better able to make use of his impulses, instincts and his natural balance..._"
> 
> I've posted videos about how "rounding" is needed to protect the horse, and how it and it alone makes it possible for a horse to carry us without injury. That, along with the idea that head position reveals how the back works, is what I'm arguing against.


Years ago an anonymous person on this forum told you something about better riding for your trail riding. I don’t know why you put so much weight into that person’s opinion. No one in recent months has said your horses must go like a sport horse. Ride your horses however you want, but do not keep arguing the term round. A horse is not a ball, we know know. Read the article I posted after the jumping video. It explains a lot.


----------



## updownrider

bsms- your #3 was written for training military field horses. While I do not disagree with the idea of keeping riding or training as simple as possible, it is not an answer as to why you argue against horses in sport. It makes me wonder if you understand horse sport.


----------



## sarahfromsc

I am wondering why one has to steer a horse around cacti? I may not ride in the desert, but we do have trees here. Lots and lots, and LOTS of trees. Some upright and some down. We have avoided every single upright tree. And cross over the down ones. And, as he has gotten older with many more trail miles, he gives room for my knees to clear the tree. No steering involved.

If he ran smack into a tree, or any other obstacle, what good would he be as a trail partner?

Not sure if he is a competition horse or a ‘normal’ horse............


----------



## AnitaAnne

jaydee said:


> If you really believe that a horse like this one got this much agility, precision and athleticism without a lot of correct collection work to tone those muscles then I think perhaps try to ask a horse that's been 'left to sort itself out to try the same test and see how they get on
> working equitation speed test. Beja 2008. By www.lusitanopassion.dk - YouTube


I have been reading this thread for a while without commenting (hard as that was for me, lol) and I still haven't quite finished reading everything. 

I paused her because I didn't want this video to get lost. 

The original thread speaks of "round and hollow" which honestly are just terms to identify a position. IMO it doesn't matter if all of the spine bends or to what degree; the work under saddle is to train the mind and the muscle. 

However, the issue of "collection and contact" continues to come up over and over again, and that is what I would like to address here. 

The training scale in Dressage ends with collection and self carriage. Before that comes other levels, including, impulsion, contact and straightness. Many, many people quote these terms and talk about the training scale yet really don't understand it. It is difficult to understand for even those people who are quite advanced (Dressage) riders. 

So I accept there is much misunderstanding. 

*I challenge each of you to watch this video that @jaydee posted, paying particular attention to the following details:

*1) *Notice how light the horse is in front*; This horse can turn on a dime! He could easily do some of the highly collected airs above the ground as do the horses of the Spanish Riding School are able to do. 

2) *Notice how straight this horse moves*; even on very tight turns he is Straight and upright. Dressage teaches us that the way to straightness is by doing circles. This horse is straight!

3) *Notice how this horse is Collected and in Self Carriage*; look carefully at the position of the bit in the horse's mouth. The bit is not cranked back, the shanks are in fact in a resting position in the horses mouth. This horse is *Light in the Bridle*. 

4) *Notice how much Engagement (of the hocks) and Impulsion* this horse has; with the barest of movement of the rider this horse springs into an extended canter or comes back to a highly collected canter. 

In conclusion, this horse in this video is displaying all of the traits one desires in a Dressage Horse. 

BASIC Dressage training, which IMO is beneficial to any horse, is not at all the same thing as this very advanced riding. This rider, IMO could go ride him out on a trail ride, but I do not believe most riders would be able to ride this horse without a lot of instruction. 

Anyway, I am going to continue reading this thread, and I hope all of you re-watch this very nice horse and rider team again _with an open mind_.


----------



## bsms

updownrider said:


> bsms- your #3 was written for training military field horses. While I do not disagree with the idea of keeping riding or training as simple as possible, it is not an answer as to why you argue against horses in sport. It makes me wonder if you understand horse sport.


How many times do I have to write, "_If you enjoy dressage, *do dressage and have fun!*_*"* before people will stop accusing me of being anti-horse sport?

Now...IF riding in the arena is harder on a horse than 20+ miles of mountain riding, THEN one might question the sport.

"_Since the horse's skeleton is all connected by muscles and ligaments what one part does will always impact another part._" - @jaydee

Hmm...moved my right arm, didn't affect my left.

Now...if a horse lifts its head to the point of stargazing, then yes, it will invert the back. But a horse can lift its neck, tilt its head well enough to see where it is going, and NOT invert its back.

If that statement is not controversial, what are y'all arguing about?

I'm NOT the one saying horses need to be on the bit, or carry their heads vertically, or be contained between the driving and restraining aids - kept between the hands and legs - to be balanced. So if y'all agree, what are you arguing about? If you don't, then where is your evidence?


----------



## Smilie

Well, I also ride the horses I show out on trails, but I have to admit, I also show with many people that never ride their show hroses out, and some that won't even ride a show hrose from the barn to the arena, but lead that horse there.

Thus, I under stand why the image of a show horse, to many people is a horse that is only comfortable riding in an arena

I don't take my show horses on pack trips, where they need to be leg picketed, but they sure spend time being ridden out, as it is great for their minds

Smilie on mountain holiday


----------



## Smilie

Charlie being atrail horse


----------



## Smilie

places I prefer not to take my show hroses, although that is my old reining mare in the first picture
It is not that my show hroses can't handle that terrain, but I rather not risk taking them where they need to picket, where we are packed in on hunting trips, as I have horses that I just trial ride. While I don't want to have a scar on any horse, makes sense to avoid that possibility on a show hrose, if you have other horses to take on pack trips instead


----------



## AnitaAnne

Golden Horse said:


> :rofl::rofl:
> 
> Maybe it is one done with plenty of clothes on, thus protecting modesty...
> 
> 
> While we are on odd gaits, can someone explain what a 'shortened walk" is?
> 
> If you are already doing a collected walk, what it is shortened?
> 
> 
> Before G
> Working walk
> Turn left
> Shorten the walk
> 15 G


Don't know if this has been answered already, but for what its worth...

At that level you are riding a working walk, then asked to shorten the walk. It is a beginning to a real transition within the walk, thus a shortened stride while keeping the tempo of the working walk.


----------



## mmshiro

AnitaAnne said:


> *I challenge each of you to watch this video that @jaydee posted, paying particular attention to the following details:
> *


*

Thanks, your commentary was very helpful!*


----------



## gottatrot

AnitaAnne said:


> The training scale in Dressage ends with collection and self carriage. Before that comes other levels, including, impulsion, contact and straightness. Many, many people quote these terms and talk about the training scale yet really don't understand it. It is difficult to understand for even those people who are quite advanced (Dressage) riders...
> 
> ...In conclusion, this horse in this video is displaying all of the traits one desires in a Dressage Horse....
> 
> ...Anyway, I am going to continue reading this thread, and I hope all of you re-watch this very nice horse and rider team again _with an open mind_...


Yes, and an open mind includes wondering - did the horse end up moving like this due to training, or did the horse come out of the womb like this? Here is an example of a 2 year old Lusitano. There is a reason they select this breed to do working equitation.




Here is a 3 year old only under saddle for two weeks.




To me the videos illustrate how little work it can take with certain breeds to achieve the desired look. 

The horses are very well trained, and do amazing maneuvers. The road to get there with the physique and temperament in place is short - and it would be impossible to get the same thing from horses not specifically bred with these capabilities. Most top dressage horses from non-Iberian breeds would not be able to do these movements in the same way - their bred-in extravagance of movement would prevent the low height of motion and slowness. Quarter horses and Morgans are often built with the right musculature and temperament to also pull it off.

@ApuestoT: Your horses are staying sound, they are moving properly, that is great. Non-anecdotally (statistics from vet clinics online), dressage horses are at least as prone to injuries as horses in other demanding sports.
Why is Lameness so common in Dressage Horses? | The Horse Magazine



> *Apuesto*: Try and take a horse who has not been taught to engage and build those supporting muscles, compete them year after year, then see how sound they are.


If long term soundness had anything to do with head and neck position, it would seem endurance horses would be most affected since most are allowed to move naturally. Yet some like Tulip rack up thousands of miles (Tulip over 22,000). You can see many examples of photos of horses going "inverted" in photos in the Endurance News magazine, yet these are horses that have awards from competing for a thousand miles or more. 
So engagement and building supporting muscles *must* be unrelated to the round outline of a horse.











> *@Jaydee:*
> Dressage training starts by teaching a horse to be obedient to cues. To respond correctly to the bridle, walk, trot, canter, back up whoa, turn to command and to be balanced in itself so it can better carry the weight of its rider.
> I personally think its useful if a horse can go a step further and understand some lateral work, at least a leg yield and turn on the forehand as those things are useful if you have to open and close gates and maneuver on narrow tracks but you can get by without them
> If your horses can do all of those things then you have completed your basic first dressage training


Perhaps some like @Smilie who don't train dressage would take issue with that being called "dressage," since all horses are trained with these basics for any discipline. Or perhaps like some I've talked to, they would proudly state that they train "dressage," when all they are doing is starting a horse. 

Very nice pictures of people on the trails with happy horses. 
I believe everyone agrees it is great to ride horses out of the arena, and I believe many serious show people do. 
Many well trained arena horses that have not been on the trail yet will need to also be trained to deal with trail riding. Things like wild turkeys and elk will never be encountered in an arena. Many people also do not ride their show horses outside of arenas. A show horse that goes seamlessly out of the arena and right into water and over mountain trails again is operating partially on training but also highly on temperament. Many horses need exposure to things before they will be calm about them. I've ridden extremely well trained arena horses that spooked and reared their first few trail rides.

@sarahfromsc, I've ridden many horses on forest trails and been along on rides with many more and various riders. A horse that does not run your knees into trees or cacti is quite unusual. Most horses do not have a concept of anything beyond the width or height of their own body. Your horse is abnormal in a good way if he can conceive of your width as well as his own.


----------



## Smilie

Good basic training is good basic training, and does not need to be dressage.
In fact, while body control, lateral movement and all those basics are desired on any well trained hrose, the basic training varies, far as rein contact, in working towards a horse eventually being ridden one handed,on a loose rein, and a horse that is always ridden with some contact and two hands
Quite agree that certain horses have been bred to excel in dressage, but at the same time, there needs to be recognition that there are also hroses bred to excel in disciplines besides dressage, and not everyone wants to ride dressage patterns
Yes, there are Appaloosas that do well in Dressage, and there are Iberian horses that work cattle, esp bull fighting, but that does not mean one would pick an Appaloosa as an Olympic dressage prospect, nor an Iberian hrose to win a major cutting or reining event

We also seem to be going over and over on level of head carriage, as being some absolute, when it comes to collection or even preferred just for general riding, and that is simply not so. Level of head carriage depends on how that neck ties in and the natural topline of that hrose
For ahorse, moving natural down the trail, with a higher head carriage that is natural for him, is NOT a detriment, far as longevity of soundness, nor is it part of moving hollowed out
ONlY when the head is carried higher then normal for that horse, and with that horse bracing, stiff neck, often also stiff in jaw, resistant in poll, consequently not tracking up, is that horse hollowed out That is when damage is done

PS TRottin, always wondered on what breed I should blame that rat tail on, far as Appaloosas! Some of those Spanish horses had Appaloosa coat patterns, that were brought to the new World, and apparently, rat tails also!


----------



## Smilie

A course like this, not easy to ride, esp on aloose rein, but all the elements are there,


----------



## AnitaAnne

gottatrot said:


> Yes, and an open mind includes wondering - did the horse end up moving like this due to training, or did the horse come out of the womb like this? Here is an example of a 2 year old Lusitano. There is a reason they select this breed to do working equitation.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8G43wCq1bY
> Here is a 3 year old only under saddle for two weeks.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBmhDHCKk9k
> To me the videos illustrate how little work it can take with certain breeds to achieve the desired look.
> 
> The horses are very well trained, and do amazing maneuvers. The road to get there with the physique and temperament in place is short - and it would be impossible to get the same thing from horses not specifically bred with these capabilities..


The Road to "get there" i.e. to the level of riding demonstrated in the video I quoted is definitely not short!! It takes at least 5 years to develop a top level Dressage horse, if done correctly and carefully. One must develop the mind, the muscles, and the bone (density). It is those ones that rush through the levels, skipping important skills that cause the damage to the horse. 

I actually find it a bit harder to train a very talented prospect in some ways, because they learn fast but the hours still must be put in to achieve proper development 

Those videos of the young Lusitano horses show promise of ability, but that isn't a guarantee of anything. Innate ability is a good start, but that is all. 

Most endurance horses do not travel in a "hollow" manner. Just because a horse is not moving as an upper level Dressage horse does not mean they are moving "hollow" or "not round". Many horses travel in a "round" manner, not just Dressage horses! Reining horses, WP, HUS, all are moving "round" but not "Dressage round".


----------



## Smilie

Here is Rugged Lark, AQHA super horse. While not in'classic dressage form, he does some basic dressage moves, and also seems to know the difference, when asked to do a reining type turnaround
He is being ridden with just a garland. To me, he is a well trained horse with a great disposition, the kind I like to ride


----------



## Smilie

For all serious dressage riders, I found some links to ponder. As a disclaimer, I am making no judgements, just interested in hearing input, as one can always learn, even in disciplines outside of their own

Functional Anatomy


Reasons why we do not use sidereins


----------



## gottatrot

Interesting links, @Smilie.



AnitaAnne said:


> The Road to "get there" i.e. to the level of riding demonstrated in the video I quoted is definitely not short!! It takes at least 5 years to develop a top level Dressage horse, if done correctly and carefully. One must develop the mind, the muscles, and the bone (density). It is those ones that rush through the levels, skipping important skills that cause the damage to the horse.


The top horses are of course excused from the usual longer, slower road that others are told is necessary. That idea comes from the German/modern dressage tradition. 
A horse like Valegro was showing already at 4, and the top horses might be showing Grand Prix at 8. 
An explanation:


> The guideline for their training differs slightly from average horses for two reasons. First, these horses have a tremendous amount of natural balance. With such horses it doesn't take as many years to develop their musculature to be able to do high-level movements. Modern breeding lines facilitate this, producing longer front legs with a less massive heart girth as opposed to big bodies and shorter front legs which makes dressage training difficult.


They are also excused because their riders are good.


> Second, these elite athletes are trained by expert riders (professionals) who have ridden horses to high levels before. These riders are better able to balance the horses they ride, causing fewer injuries and resulting in less overuse. Their training approach is extremely focused and effective...Their clear-cut approach causes their horses to learn and develop faster. It's not the number of hours spent under saddle, but the quality time.


So somehow the quality of the rider speeds up the supposedly long period required for muscle development.
It is also pointed out that top riders combine levels in order to speed up the process, so will be showing at two different levels in one show year. 
https://dressagetoday.com/learn-by-levels/road_to_grand_prix_080610
Not bashing dressage here, this type of double standard is common in every discipline where fame and money are involved.

It doesn't take five years to develop muscle or bones, regardless of what you are doing. Bones, tendons and ligaments can be strengthened for the hardest work in about six months - to be safe, endurance riders will often train for a year before doing the most difficult riding. 











AnitaAnne said:


> Most endurance horses do not travel in a "hollow" manner. Just because a horse is not moving as an upper level Dressage horse does not mean they are moving "hollow" or "not round". Many horses travel in a "round" manner, not just Dressage horses! Reining horses, WP, HUS, all are moving "round" but not "Dressage round".


If all these horses are traveling just fine, that supports the idea that we can drop the concept altogether.

In my book by Racinet, he has a chapter on why it is false to think that lifting the neck is bound to hollow the back. He points this out:


> ...the lifting of the neck has always been seen as a key element of collection. Isn't it surprising that all the good authors who so virtuously condemn the elevation of the neck, arguing that it is a source of "disunity" of the horse, have nothing to say about it when it comes to collection? Why are they suddenly mute;
> are they aware of the contradiction?


He discusses how it seems illogical to believe that the end result of a lifted, round neck would come from first having the horse travel long and low. Why would the end result of lifting the withers come from first lowering them (the studied result of lowering the head and neck)? How will that make the muscles that lift the withers stronger?
He feels that what collection tries to do is restore the horse to his original height without a rider. 
Since the only way to lift the withers involves raising the neck (as seen in all the end results of trained collection), we should start with getting the horse moving properly with the neck at a natural height. 
Pulling the nose in whatsoever seems irrelevant to me since it is the jaw of the horse that needs to be relaxed and giving to the rider, and the nose position does not relate to anything at all. As with the neck, the horse can be completely braced in the jaw and have the head all tucked in nicely.


----------



## Golden Horse

Smilie said:


> For all serious dressage riders, I found some links to ponder. As a disclaimer, I am making no judgements, just interested in hearing input, as one can always learn, even in disciplines outside of their own
> 
> Functional Anatomy
> 
> 
> Reasons why we do not use sidereins



I do not use side reins, ever.......will have to read the first link later...

I do have to wonder though, maybe I should start having a temper tantrum at people ‘having a go’ at Dressage, lumping every form, level and type of rider together as being somehow abusive, when at least the very foundation of our sport is forward and straight, both I see as desirable. Western Pleasure however looks abusive to me with its lack of forward and sideways crabbing motion!


I still don’t know why it always seems to be the same people arguing against the whole foundation of Dressage, when some have never tried, and those who may have seem to have had bad instruction.

Dressage at its basics is just training, even before I knew anything about Dressage I was doing those fancy, dancy moves, without knowing it, you know reining back, side passing, shortening and lengthening strides...without ever knowing it.


----------



## gottatrot

Golden Horse said:


> I do have to wonder though, maybe I should start having a temper tantrum at people ‘having a go’ at Dressage, lumping every form, level and type of rider together as being somehow abusive, when at least the very foundation of our sport is forward and straight, both I see as desirable.


Do you really see the discussions on this thread as being anti-dressage? If something has a good foundation, does that mean every part of it is good? Does practicing or enjoying Dressage mean a person must accept every part of it and only support, never criticize? 

I love endurance riding too, and the foundation of endurance is good and desirable. Some terrible things have been done in endurance at the FEI level that need to be highly criticized. That is not having a go at endurance, it is opening our eyes to problems because we love a sport and we want it to be good for horses, not detrimental.

Rather than seeing criticism of one or two methods as bashing, I would wonder why every form, level and rider would have to accept all methods and never criticize anything being taught. That would seem rather "cult" like and not a sport for thinking people. I believe Dressage is meant to be a sport for thinking people, which means those who participate should be questioning and using logic and trying to analyze what is being taught. Those who are questioning the most are/were people who have been heavily involved in dressage for many years, such as Racinet, Karl and Cornille. 

That being said, the premise of this thread is not about dressage. The idea that horses need to move with the head and neck lowered and rounded over in order to properly use the back muscles has transcended dressage and entered every other discipline including trail riding. Even endurance. Therefore all of us as riders need to understand the truth of the matter.

We also should understand that some things such as long and low and the training scale are modern constructs of the much older tradition of dressage. The "timeless" training scale was first published in the 1980s. Warming a horse up in the long and low frame was first started in the 1970s, and soon became popular, then was taught as a method for training. Before that, horses were ridden in a more upright posture from the beginning.
The Horse magazine has a good series on the history of Dressage:
Riding as Art: A history of Dressage: Part one ? Antiquity | The Horse Magazine


----------



## Golden Horse

@gottatrot yes I DO see many attacks on here, usually by people who don’t understand the Discipline in any meaningful way. No, not every part of high level Dressage is good, and part of my frustration comes from things like autocorrect keeping capitalizing Dressage when I want to write dressage.

Because it is the difference between

Definition of Dressage

: the execution by a trained horse of precision movements in response to barely perceptible signals from its rider


And 

dressage 


The art of riding and training a horse in a manner that develops obedience, flexibility, and balance.


It always feels that there are those who believe that dressage in all forms is evil, and bears no relation to ‘real world’ riding, but who wouldn’t like their trail horse to be obedient, flexible and balanced?

So yet again we return to the original concept, I still maintain that an inverted horse, with its head way in the air, is an unresponsive and uncomfortable is not a pleasant ride. Now that does NOT mean that I want my horse to be round at all times, or even in contact, just don’t want them inverted!


----------



## gottatrot

Golden Horse said:


> It always feels that there are those who believe that dressage in all forms is evil, and bears no relation to ‘real world’ riding, but who wouldn’t like their trail horse to be obedient, flexible and balanced?


This is not me. I believe much of dressage is very good.



Golden Horse said:


> So yet again we return to the original concept, I still maintain that an inverted horse, with its head way in the air, is an unresponsive and uncomfortable is not a pleasant ride. Now that does NOT mean that I want my horse to be round at all times, or even in contact, just don’t want them inverted!


I don't want to ride any horse carrying their head above their natural head carriage in order to avoid the bit, or trying to deal with body issues, or bracing due to imbalance or pain. 

Where we perhaps differ is that I don't believe the first solution is to make the horse put the head lower, but rather I want to find the source of the problem, get the saddle fit right, work on getting the horse to be comfortable with the bit, work on the body issues, help the horse get stronger and more balanced. I don't believe that the head carriage is the cause of the problem or the solution.


----------



## AnitaAnne

gottatrot said:


> A horse like Valegro was showing already at 4, and the top horses might be showing Grand Prix at 8.
> An explanation:
> 
> They are also excused because their riders are good.
> 
> So somehow the quality of the rider speeds up the supposedly long period required for muscle development.
> It is also pointed out that top riders combine levels in order to speed up the process, so will be showing at two different levels in one show year.
> 
> Not bashing dressage here, this type of double standard is common in every discipline where fame and money are involved.


Its not really a double standard. 

Valegro was showing at 4 to get him out in front of the judges; this is common for professional riders to show the horse and let the horse get a lot of time in front of judges so they can watch the progress. These are professional riders with high level students (usually also professionals) and yes, they know how to train a horse from years of practice. Grand Prix at 8 is still 4 years of development, that is still a good amount of time. 

They know what a horse has to do to reach the top, so can train more effectively. I am sure any horse sport is the same; an experienced endurance rider can find (and maybe even are offered) better innate prospects and know how to train that horse to a competitive level easier. 

Showing at different levels is a way to "warm up" the horse and let him experience the arena. Commonly seen is riding some of the First level tests and the Third level. This is why there is an Amateur division, so the non-pros can be judged separately. 

Part of the score in Dressage is the horse's natural ability, so the selection of a good horse is important to be able to reach the upper levels. 



gottatrot said:


> If all these horses are traveling just fine, that supports the idea that we can drop the concept altogether.


ALL the horses are not traveling just fine...if there is emphasis made to endurance riders to focus on roundness in their horses; then that tells me that the more successful horse/rider teams are using their back effectively, which can be taught. 

*please, roundness can be seen and does not mean the same as neck position. Horses can be round with the neck in different positions, but there are certain positions of the neck to encourage a horse to work over their back at different stages of training. It is not a one size fits all occasions.


----------



## Golden Horse

AnitaAnne said:


> Don't know if this has been answered already, but for what its worth...
> 
> At that level you are riding a working walk, then asked to shorten the walk. It is a beginning to a real transition within the walk, thus a shortened stride while keeping the tempo of the working walk.



Thanks, makes sense now we are starting level 2 moves, shorten the walk, then turn on the haunches......more of that mythical transfer of weight and energy from front to back.


----------



## Smilie

Golden Horse said:


> I do not use side reins, ever.......will have to read the first link later...
> 
> I do have to wonder though, maybe I should start having a temper tantrum at people ‘having a go’ at Dressage, lumping every form, level and type of rider together as being somehow abusive, when at least the very foundation of our sport is forward and straight, both I see as desirable. Western Pleasure however looks abusive to me with its lack of forward and sideways crabbing motion!
> 
> 
> I still don’t know why it always seems to be the same people arguing against the whole foundation of Dressage, when some have never tried, and those who may have seem to have had bad instruction.
> 
> Dressage at its basics is just training, even before I knew anything about Dressage I was doing those fancy, dancy moves, without knowing it, you know reining back, side passing, shortening and lengthening strides...without ever knowing it.


I think you are being sensitive, as I don't think anyone, myself esp, is arguing against dressage.
I appreciate a good dressage horse, like any other horse, good in his discipline, and have watched some very impressive dressage demos at Spruce Meadows.
Nope, my only argument, is when classical dressage is stated to be necessary for any basic good training program, and then it is held up as being the 'golden example, with any other discipline or training methods regarded as being 'less', and with any western training program, being put in the same league as those jerk and spur western cowboy movies
Any good program, be in dressage or western, gets that body control, those basic lateral movements, the turn on haunches, turn on forehand, lightness, impulsion - after that they differ some, depending on job expectations and way of going.


----------



## Smilie

Golden Horse said:


> @gottatrot yes I DO see many attacks on here, usually by people who don’t understand the Discipline in any meaningful way. No, not every part of high level Dressage is good, and part of my frustration comes from things like autocorrect keeping capitalizing Dressage when I want to write dressage.
> 
> Because it is the difference between
> 
> Definition of Dressage
> 
> : the execution by a trained horse of precision movements in response to barely perceptible signals from its rider
> 
> 
> And
> 
> dressage
> 
> 
> The art of riding and training a horse in a manner that develops obedience, flexibility, and balance.
> 
> 
> It always feels that there are those who believe that dressage in all forms is evil, and bears no relation to ‘real world’ riding, but who wouldn’t like their trail horse to be obedient, flexible and balanced?
> 
> So yet again we return to the original concept, I still maintain that an inverted horse, with its head way in the air, is an unresponsive and uncomfortable is not a pleasant ride. Now that does NOT mean that I want my horse to be round at all times, or even in contact, just don’t want them inverted!


 No one, that knows anything about hrose training, wants an inverted hrose.
I already stated as to what the criteria for that is-and it is NOT simply a horse carrying his head in a relaxed normal position that might not be ideal when he is asked to perform in the discipline he was trained for, but where that horse is not bracy, resistent, but will give softly in face and poll when asked, and is 'using himself correctly
For some reason, in this thread, the assumption is being made that a natural higher head carriage is equal to a horse moving hollowed out, stiff in neck and poll, head elevated resisting soft rein cues, and that simply is not so.
Take level of head carriage out of that equation, far as inverted, and apply the manner that the horse is moving, with a higher head carriage, and one, that often is higher then is natural for that horse, out of RESISTENCE

If we get over that fact, then we would get rid of all the examples of endurance hroses , staying sound, even when they have a higher head carriage, moving in a natural frame, down that trail, a head carriage higher, then that might be desired, asking that same horse to move in frame and collected, as some sort of pointless argument, as those horses are nOT moving inverted


----------



## Smilie

Charlie moving with head carriage, as desired in the show ring, for her discipline


Second pic. Charlie just moving out down a trail.

She is inverted in NEITHER picture


----------



## sarahfromsc

@Gottotrot it certainly didnt happen in a year or two or even three or even four. After many years together and many miles he just does it. Nothing I did on purpose.

Also, I didnt say he would give two-shakes about me if a grizzly popped up or some big cat. I better be able to hang on, or I am the slow down bait.......lol


----------



## AnitaAnne

gottatrot said:


> What is happening with Valegro during piaffe and passage?
> Is the rider feeling lifted and light because he is rounding up his back under her, or is it because he is resisting elongation and pushing her up with increased vertical forces using the release of energy from the muscles and tendons in his legs?
> 
> Is she recycling the energy from the bit through his hind end, or has she taught him how to use the energy in his legs to create more upward force than forward motion?
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzOjPQNv0gQ


Again you are confusing "round" and "collection". Valegro is round throughout this entire ride. He has the muscle development and self carriage in place. 

All the gaits are not collected...he is moving between the collected gaits and the extended gaits. The impulsion that was developed with this horse can be used in an upward motion (collected gaits) or in a forward motion (extended gaits).


----------



## jaydee

The term 'Dressage' originates from the France and means 'training'. This fact has been pointed out many times already so I apologise for being repetitive.
Dressage tests are simply 'training tests' 
With that in mind no rider, English/European, western or whatever else should feel offended when told that that if they're doing correct training they're doing dressage.
There are more people who compete in dressage up to and in Prelim stage than there are people who compete in the higher levels where increasing degrees of collection and lateral movements are required. 
It doesn't require a purpose bred WB to compete at those levels
An example here of a Prelim Test with judges comments.




You could put an English saddle on a western horse that's been properly trained and understands direct reining and it could do this test. I had a WP horse for a short while and rode her 'english' and in light contact and she could do a test like this one with no extra training.


I totally 'get' that some riders don't see a need to have a horse trained beyond basic level and if someone wants to train their horse to turn left or right by flicking it on its respective ears then that's fine by me too but you can't dismiss something that is extremely useful to many riders in many disciplines simply because you don't want to do it


To give a very simplistic comparison from a debating point of view - if I was to ask for opinions on whether Brand A of chocolate was better than Brand B of chocolate even allowing for personal taste I would expect people responding to have tried both brands.


----------



## AnitaAnne

This might confuse the issue some; but for those doing lower level work in Dressage, one can study a video like this to understand why the horse needs to go round and be on contact for the advanced movements. 

I like this video as it shows the change in frame from a lower to upper level frame and one can see clearly why the lower level frame (_what most riders are attempting to achieve when one's instructor says "needs to be rounded up" or "more round"_) is taught to the horse.


----------



## AnitaAnne

This one, where she describes the work/life balance of her 18 horses...

Charlotte Dujardin is probably one of my all time favorite riders 






Ps - she is continuously trying to get his nose out more; he is still tense and being a hot horse makes it hard for him to relax at the slower gait, walk, that she was offering him so had to go back to trot. This is a great example of the rider listening to what the horse needs.


----------



## bsms

"_The term 'Dressage' originates from the France and means 'training'. This fact has been pointed out many times already so I apologise for being repetitive.
Dressage tests are simply 'training tests' 
With that in mind no rider, English/European, western or whatever else should feel offended when told that that if they're doing correct training they're doing dressage_." - @*jaydee* 

Utterly false. If you went to a place that advertised itself as a "dressage barn" and found everyone riding western pleasure, you would feel deceived. If you bought a book on dressage, and it discusses barrel racing, you would feel cheated.

Dressage teaches, even at the lowest levels, techniques meant to set you up for success at riding a horse a certain way. The dressage seat is not identical to a forward seat, and you would not be happy if someone taught you a forward seat and then dumped you into a dressage test.

In the video you posted, there were comments about the horse & rider's sustained contact, and the horse coming "above the bit" - ie, looking ahead. That is utter CORRECT for dressage. It is irrelevant to western riding. Why? Because western riding emphasizes self-carriage and slack reins. Yes, western riders DO use contact at times, but the goal is to train the horse away from relying on contact all the time.
_
"I totally 'get' that some riders don't see a need to have a horse trained beyond basic level and if someone wants to train their horse to turn left or right by flicking it on its respective ears then that's fine by me too but you can't dismiss something that is extremely useful to many riders in many disciplines simply because you don't want to do it..._"

Really? Trooper isn't trained beyond a basic level because he doesn't know what a half-halt is? He can take a guy who had never touched a horse in his life out into the desert, spend 3 hours while the guy learns about walking, trotting and cantering, on roads, dirt roads, trails and off trail - and that is BASIC? Well, maybe. *But it is hard to buy such a basic horse where I live* because people who have done the work to get them that "basic" don't tend to sell them later! Trooper is going blind in one eye. If he wasn't, I could sell him easily and for a lot more than I paid for him.

Bandit arrived having spent his life on the Navajo Nation, where a horse can look 10+ miles in all directions. He knew nothing about paved roads, neighborhoods, brush, going down a slippery slope, or picking his way between cactus. It has taken a lot of work to TRAIN him to do those things. And frankly, a rider cannot train the horse to do those things without taking risks. Until you've watched a Teddy bear Cholla slide inches from your horses thigh, you don't know if he can be trusted to do it. When you first had to pull your own leg up around the saddle horn to get clearance, you realize just how vulnerable you are. If he doesn't pass the test, you are screwed!

The last time I got to where I thought we were at a dead end, there was a shift in Bandit's back and I knew HE thought we could squeeze through. It wasn't passing between two cactus, but needed threading back and forth between many. But when he said he was willing to try, I let him. And he did, although I still don't know how.

Now...what was my cue? He looked at the way ahead. He sniffed. I looked at it. I thought it was too hard. But HE felt otherwise. It was like a car that has been put into gear and is waiting for the clutch to be released. So I gave him a wiggle of the reins to tell him he was free to try, and he went.

For you to characterize that as "_flicking it on its respective ears"_ or some other such put down is repulsive. I have NOT attacked dressage. *I have repeatedly said anyone who wants to pursue it and whose horse is willing is welcome to do so and to have fun. I have NOT in any way said it was bad riding.* Jean Claude Racinet is one of my favorite authors on riding, and he was a dressage rider. Philippe Karl wrote a good book - on dressage. VS Littauer IS my favorite author on riding, and he rode English. I have nothing against it.

But where I live, a good trail horse is TAUGHT to become a good trail horse. But not by teaching them anything that looks like dressage. _Vive la différence_!

If I rode Bandit like this in a dressage test, we would not score well:








​
I've had people on HF tell me it is bad riding, that his back MUST be hollow, etc. But his back was fluid, and looking where he is about to go is a survival skill. 

Millions of western horses are ridden effectively and for long & healthy lives without ever being given a half-halt. I've never actually met - in person - a western rider who knew what a half-halt was. I told a couple of life-long ranch riders in their 80s about a half-halt and they looked at me as if I had come from Mars! 

At some point, English riders need to open their eyes and look at how millions of western horses are ridden, and accept that horses can be ridden well, ridden happy, ridden controlled, and ridden for a long & healthy life, without "dressage". Dressage as in "dressage barn" or "dressage book" or "dressage trainer".

*If what dressage riders do in an arena keep them and their horses happy, I'm happy for them. But it is not the ONLY way to ride.
*
BTW - Every time you hear "rounded horse", think of this picture. This is as round as a horse can get:








​


----------



## AnitaAnne

@bsms Western riders do half halts on a regular basis; they just don't recognize that term because it is part of the Dressage jargon. Western riders call it a "check"; as in "Check him up" (at least that is what we used to say, times do change though) (Maybe @Smilie can chime in on the term)

When @jaydee says that the basic training everyone does is beginning Dressage, it means that the training has the same core principles in any "language". The way to start any horse to be a success in any discipline is to put the basic fundamentals on the horse. Really doesn't matter what saddle you put on their back...so long as it fits. 

The horse needs to be moving freely forward at all three gaits with rhythm and regularity (w/t/c or w/j/l or w/g/c).

You are arguing semantics, for no reason I can understand...a rose by any other name is still a rose...


----------



## AnitaAnne

Here is a barrel racer talking about the need for "roundness" and "engagement" of the hind end for more efficient turns...


----------



## Golden Horse

jaydee said:


> The term 'Dressage' originates from the France and means 'training'. This fact has been pointed out many times already so I apologise for being repetitive.
> Dressage tests are simply 'training tests'
> With that in mind no rider, English/European, western or whatever else should feel offended when told that that if they're doing correct training they're doing dressage.
> There are more people who compete in dressage up to and in Prelim stage than there are people who compete in the higher levels where increasing degrees of collection and lateral movements are required.
> It doesn't require a purpose bred WB to compete at those levels
> An example here of a Prelim Test with judges comments.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6JRHvRRbZ8
> You could put an English saddle on a western horse that's been properly trained and understands direct reining and it could do this test. I had a WP horse for a short while and rode her 'english' and in light contact and she could do a test like this one with no extra training.
> 
> 
> I totally 'get' that some riders don't see a need to have a horse trained beyond basic level and if someone wants to train their horse to turn left or right by flicking it on its respective ears then that's fine by me too but you can't dismiss something that is extremely useful to many riders in many disciplines simply because you don't want to do it
> 
> 
> To give a very simplistic comparison from a debating point of view - if I was to ask for opinions on whether Brand A of chocolate was better than Brand B of chocolate even allowing for personal taste I would expect people responding to have tried both brands.


Great post especially the last part.

I’m not sure why this is still being debated......especially by those who know nothing about the feeling of a well trained horse, someone who refuses to acknowledge that ALL BASIC TRAINING is dressage....I really, really struggle to understand why there is such a push back in learning how to actually ride in a way that allows you get the best out of any horse.


----------



## updownrider

Golden Horse said:


> Great post especially the last part.
> 
> I’m not sure why this is still being debated......especially by those who know nothing about the feeling of a well trained horse, someone who refuses to acknowledge that ALL BASIC TRAINING is dressage....I really, really struggle to understand why there is such a push back in learning how to actually ride in a way that allows you get the best out of any horse.


The answer is simple. Using jaydee’s example, those same people do not like chocolate.


----------



## Golden Horse

updownrider said:


> people do not like chocolate.


WHAT? Say it isn’t so!

Especially if they have tried it....I mean everyone knows the UK recipe Cadbury chocolate is best, but that doesn’t stop me sampling others, rather than just reading the label.....


----------



## AnitaAnne

updownrider said:


> The answer is simple. Using jaydee’s example, those same people do not like chocolate.


I love chocolate; so much so I bought a Chocolate horse :rofl:


----------



## updownrider

Golden Horse said:


> WHAT? Say it isn’t so!
> 
> Especially if they have tried it....I mean everyone knows the UK recipe Cadbury chocolate is best, but that doesn’t stop me sampling others, rather than just reading the label.....


Now, now. Europeans may have been breeding, I mean making chocolate for centuries, but Americans had ideas of their own...


----------



## farmpony84

I'm so confused....


----------



## tinyliny

AnitaAnne said:


> @*bsms* *Western riders do half halts on a regular basis; they just don't recognize that term because it is part of the Dressage jargon. Western riders call it a "check"; as in "Check him up" *(at least that is what we used to say, times do change though) (Maybe @*Smilie* can chime in on the term)
> 
> When @*jaydee* says that the basic training everyone does is beginning Dressage, it means that the training has the same core principles in any "language". The way to start any horse to be a success in any discipline is to put the basic fundamentals on the horse. Really doesn't matter what saddle you put on their back...so long as it fits.
> 
> The horse needs to be moving freely forward at all three gaits with rhythm and regularity (w/t/c or w/j/l or w/g/c).
> 
> You are arguing semantics, for no reason I can understand...a rose by any other name is still a rose...


I had to reply to the part quoted, in bold. I have watched Western pleasure riders "check' their horse, and it is NOT a half halt. not really. It is more of a jerk on the reins, reminding the horse to keep his head down. I don't see that as a half halt at all because it doesn't really connect to the feet, certainly not to the back feet. 

A well executed half halt in dressage acts to ask the horse to pause slightly in front, and step deeper underneath; to gather together. I don't see that happening in the 'check' . Admittedly, perhaps a good western pleasure rider is applying the rein, and waiting to feel the horse make a change through his entire body, . . .to hesitate and gather up. But, what I mostly see is a snapping of the rein, basically reminding the horse to keep his head in a set position, no matter the speed.

I see those as quite different.

but, maybe it's just more silly bantering about of semantics.


----------



## farmpony84

tinyliny said:


> I had to reply to the part quoted, in bold. I have watched Western pleasure riders "check' their horse, and it is NOT a half halt. not really. It is more of a jerk on the reins, reminding the horse to keep his head down. I don't see that as a half halt at all because it doesn't really connect to the feet, certainly not to the back feet.
> 
> A well executed half halt in dressage acts to ask the horse to pause slightly in front, and step deeper underneath; to gather together. I don't see that happening in the 'check' . Admittedly, perhaps a good western pleasure rider is applying the rein, and waiting to feel the horse make a change through his entire body, . . .to hesitate and gather up. But, what I mostly see is a snapping of the rein, basically reminding the horse to keep his head in a set position, no matter the speed.
> 
> I see those as quite different.
> 
> but, maybe it's just more silly bantering about of semantics.


Well.... They do that "jerk" for headset but they also do check them by pulling back and up in a smooth quiet motion. That jerk is.... well... It does happen a lot.


----------



## Smilie

AnitaAnne said:


> @bsms Western riders do half halts on a regular basis; they just don't recognize that term because it is part of the Dressage jargon. Western riders call it a "check"; as in "Check him up" (at least that is what we used to say, times do change though) (Maybe @Smilie can chime in on the term)
> 
> When @jaydee says that the basic training everyone does is beginning Dressage, it means that the training has the same core principles in any "language". The way to start any horse to be a success in any discipline is to put the basic fundamentals on the horse. Really doesn't matter what saddle you put on their back...so long as it fits.
> 
> The horse needs to be moving freely forward at all three gaits with rhythm and regularity (w/t/c or w/j/l or w/g/c).
> 
> You are arguing semantics, for no reason I can understand...a rose by any other name is still a rose...



Yes, basic training is basic training, but it does matter far as whether that training is base towards the horse eventually being ridden one handed, on a loose rein or not
Yes, you put the same basic movements on them, BUT if you want ahrose that eventually rides one handed, on a loose rein, you need to put a great western foundation on him, not dressage, and not because either is better, but for the purely simple reason, that western, you have to work towards that eventual one handed riding, without bit contact
You only get there, that while you are putting those basics on a horse, you also lay that foundation,
If you don't give the horse a chance to stay correct, dropping rein contact when he is correct, going at the speed you want, picking him up again, soon as he falls apart, building on that, you will get a good dressage hrose,but you won't get what is known western as a 'bridle horse'

You also work, during that snaffle bit stage, for the hrose to learn to work off of that indirect rein, eventually by itself

I can only see where some one who have never ridden a western horse off of seat and legs alone, to rate speed to have him keep topline, never needing to go to two hands, while showing (which is a DQ ), might assume that a dressage foundation, would work as a basic foundation. It is not the maneuvers, but how rein contact is used, is always used to some extent, with the horse always ridden with two hands, for that final product.


----------



## Smilie

AnitaAnne said:


> Here is a barrel racer talking about the need for "roundness" and "engagement" of the hind end for more efficient turns...
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKswbLhHISI



Never even watched that video, as you miss one very important fact, and that in barrel racing, you can use contact, two hands on the reins, whatever.
So, it hardly serves as an example of expectations in any western judged,m and not timed event!


----------



## Smilie

Golden Horse said:


> Great post especially the last part.
> 
> I’m not sure why this is still being debated......especially by those who know nothing about the feeling of a well trained horse, someone who refuses to acknowledge that ALL BASIC TRAINING is dressage....I really, really struggle to understand why there is such a push back in learning how to actually ride in a way that allows you get the best out of any horse.


Have you taken a horse just ridden English, never mind dressage, and then just tried to show it one handed, and on a loose rein?
I can tell you it does not work!
Would you consider a reining basic program, good for all horses, English or western?
Both types of horses are well trained, but trained towards the way they will be eventually ridden and shown., and it sure is more then they type of saddle, far as difference !
Checking a horse, taking up brief contact, is not the same as a half halt
I agrre, that if you just wish to ride with contact, going to two hands , when ever you feel the need, then a basic dressage program will work for any horse, BUT you can't expect ahrose to eventually ride off the indirect reina lone, and without bit contact, through all maneuvers and gaits, if you don't train towards it in that basic program


----------



## Smilie

jaydee said:


> The term 'Dressage' originates from the France and means 'training'. This fact has been pointed out many times already so I apologise for being repetitive.
> Dressage tests are simply 'training tests'
> With that in mind no rider, English/European, western or whatever else should feel offended when told that that if they're doing correct training they're doing dressage.
> There are more people who compete in dressage up to and in Prelim stage than there are people who compete in the higher levels where increasing degrees of collection and lateral movements are required.
> It doesn't require a purpose bred WB to compete at those levels
> An example here of a Prelim Test with judges comments.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6JRHvRRbZ8
> You could put an English saddle on a western horse that's been properly trained and understands direct reining and it could do this test. I had a WP horse for a short while and rode her 'english' and in light contact and she could do a test like this one with no extra training.
> 
> 
> I totally 'get' that some riders don't see a need to have a horse trained beyond basic level and if someone wants to train their horse to turn left or right by flicking it on its respective ears then that's fine by me too but you can't dismiss something that is extremely useful to many riders in many disciplines simply because you don't want to do it
> 
> 
> To give a very simplistic comparison from a debating point of view - if I was to ask for opinions on whether Brand A of chocolate was better than Brand B of chocolate even allowing for personal taste I would expect people responding to have tried both brands.



Correct, and in fact, that was the type of patterns we rode, whether English or western, at the Alberta Horse Improvement Program, riding either western or English (3 year old hroses )
Also very true that all western horses in any good program, understand contact. I also know dressage means training
In fact, my score on Smilie, only had one point difference between the English and western judge
HOWEVER the converse is not true.
You can't take a horse that has ONLY been ridden with tow hands and contact, no matter how light, and then ride a pattern one handed and on a loose rein. That is my point!


----------



## Golden Horse

Smilie said:


> Have you taken a horse just ridden English, never mind dressage, and then just tried to show it one handed, and on a loose rein?
> I can tell you it does not work!
> Would you consider a reining basic program, good for all horses, English or western?
> Both types of horses are well trained, but trained towards the way they will be eventually ridden and shown., and it sure is more then they type of saddle, far as difference !
> Checking a horse, taking up brief contact, is not the same as a half halt
> I agrre, that if you just wish to ride with contact, going to two hands , when ever you feel the need, then a basic dressage program will work for any horse, BUT you can't expect ahrose to eventually ride off the indirect reina lone, and without bit contact, through all maneuvers and gaits, if you don't train towards it in that basic program



No I have not taken a horse ridden English and tried to show it one handed Western, not sure why I would. I ride my English trained horse one handed in a curb some of the time, thinking about showing her this year but don’t expect to be pinning.

Basic reining training, well here is the thing, yes I see that as basic dressage training....as in we are getting a horse moving forward, with a rhythmic gait, and showing obedience to the rider. I will admit to only having ridden a few reiners, but so looking forward to the summer when I will get to ride one again. The same Reiner who has been pinning very well, having been dragged back into work and showed Western Dressage...I have to admit that his sliding stop at X had us giggling for weeks, well until the last show of a 3 show series, when he showed up a few Dressage horses.

All horses at our barn are started Western, training horses coming in are started Western, it is only when they have a month on that they swap to English if that is their final goal. To be honest I don’t see a lot of difference in those early days, they are all ridden in soft giving contact, until they have established balance and forward, straight and a little bend.

Once again, for the umpteenth time by me and others, there is a vast difference between the basics of dressage, training for the horse, and Dressage the discipline. The latter takes the building blocks of the former and develops them to a higher degree.

It is amazing what you can teach a horse.....Fergies old owner thought she would never go Western, but she does. Wills, the English broke mare I had, sold her to someone who jumped her, successfully. She was sold on again and is now cleaning up under Western tack at 4H....her basic Dressage training has not held her back from trying many things.


----------



## AnitaAnne

tinyliny said:


> I had to reply to the part quoted, in bold. I have watched Western pleasure riders "check' their horse, and it is NOT a half halt. not really. It is more of a jerk on the reins, reminding the horse to keep his head down. I don't see that as a half halt at all because it doesn't really connect to the feet, certainly not to the back feet.
> 
> A well executed half halt in dressage acts to ask the horse to pause slightly in front, and step deeper underneath; to gather together. I don't see that happening in the 'check' . Admittedly, perhaps a good western pleasure rider is applying the rein, and waiting to feel the horse make a change through his entire body, . . .to hesitate and gather up. But, what I mostly see is a snapping of the rein, basically reminding the horse to keep his head in a set position, no matter the speed.
> 
> I see those as quite different.
> 
> but, maybe it's just more silly bantering about of semantics.


Never said it was a Dressage half-halt...it is a western style check (half-halt) but essentially used for the same purpose. 

I have had many kinds of chocolate throughout my life...The English, The Western, The Games, The Jumping, and even The Driving kind...I like them ALL 

Currently teaching my Chocolate pony a verbal half-halt after hearing one used by a very successful Endurance rider I know and admire :wink:



farmpony84 said:


> Well.... They do that "jerk" for headset but they also do check them by pulling back and up in a smooth quiet motion. That jerk is.... well... It does happen a lot.


Ah yes; you speak of the big difference between a "check" which is a light little movement and a "check 'em up" which has a lot more energy...

Instructor: Ok, now ride down the fence line; he's getting a little fast check him; TOO FAST Check 'em UP 

Like we say y'all and _all y'all_


----------



## AnitaAnne

Smilie said:


> Have you taken a horse just ridden English, never mind dressage, and then just tried to show it one handed, and on a loose rein?
> I can tell you it does not work!
> * Would you consider a reining basic program, good for all horses, English or western?*
> _Yes, actually I would! Could have a reining horse going in a Dressage test no problem. Why do you think there are so many of those shows that have the reining rider and the Dressage rider changing horses?
> _
> Both types of horses are well trained, but trained towards the way they will be eventually ridden and shown., and it sure is more then they type of saddle, far as difference !
> *Checking a horse, taking up brief contact, is not the same as a half halt*
> _Yes it is, that is the essence of a half-halt _
> 
> I agrre, that if you just wish to ride with contact, going to two hands , when ever you feel the need, then a basic dressage program will work for any horse, *BUT you can't expect ahrose to eventually ride off the indirect reina lone, and without bit contact, through all maneuvers and gaits, if you don't train towards it in that basic program
> *_Yes, you can. That is why western horses are started in a snaffle bit with two hands. Because that is just like the beginning Dressage_


 @Smilie I bolded some of your statements and put my replies in red. Honestly I was a bit shocked that you didn't right away see the similarities...maybe you haven't had any really good English Chocolate...

To everyone reading this thread, would like to say something. I truly wish more people would make as much effort to see the ways in which we are all similar instead of looking for ways we are different. That is the main reason that those demonstrations showing the Western Reining horse and rider and the Dressage horse and rider exist; to show that a good foundation is a good foundation, and to show that we are more alike than different. 

Why all the fighting over semantics? Would any of you tell someone of a different nationality that they don't know how to speak because they use different terms? 

A Rose by any other name is still a Rose...


----------



## AnitaAnne

Smilie said:


> Never even watched that video, as you miss one very important fact, and that in barrel racing, you can use contact, two hands on the reins, whatever.
> So, it hardly serves as an example of expectations in any western judged,m and not timed event!


Too bad you didn't watch it; the reason I linked that video was not "how many hands do you use on the reins". The reason that I linked that video is because the speaker was talking about getting a horse to work with engagement and roundness. 

Is barrel racing not a Western style of riding? They wear cowboy hats, western boots, and western saddles with horns...How much more "western" do they have to be???


----------



## Smilie

Having started many colts over the years, western, you are preaching to the choir, far as western horses understanding contact, used in that snaffle bit stage, and it is way easier to show a young stock horse HUS, then to get him shown western, as a jr horse, even riding with two hands
You seem to miss the point though, that a good western training program works towards that hrose learning to stay correct on a loose rein
They cannot learn that, if they are always held between legs and reins. Also, there, is a huge difference in just riding any hrose down a trail, using one hand, and riding a complicated pattern
THEREFORE< if you ever wish to have that hrose learn to keep topline, rate speed, totally off a loose rein, while in the snaffle bit stage, when the horse is moving correctly, you MUST drop rein contact, and Expect the horse to stay the same. At first, you only get astride or so, before you must take up contact again, while driving with legs, but you build on that.
Is it then so difficult to see there must be some modification of that basic training, that allows/expects the horse to continue to rate , move collected, in frame and on a loose rein, building on when contact is first needed most of the time, and working towards the hrose learning to stay correct longer and longer without that bit support?

Yes, I also have seen those demos where a reiner and a dressage rider switches horses, and because both parties know how to ride with that total body control, can ride each other;s horse BUT you are not putting a curb on that dressage horse, and suddenly riding him one handed and on a loose rein

The reining horse would do fine, ridden with two hands and contact, as that is used in beginning training, and whenever else it is needed, to correct/school a horse

I do ride my all around horses, also HUS, after they are solid western, as it is easy to ride them two handed, with some contact and lengthen stride, as it is part of their training background
However, you can't just take a horse that was only shown HUS, give him a loose rein, and have him rate in a class, and it is also harder to ask a horse that has always been ridden,with contact to suddenly show without it

Now on to half halts. There is a big difference to me, taking slack out of the reins,. maybe just lifting them,riding with a curb, to check a horse, and with bit contact just made, to adding more bit contact to a horse already ridden with bit contact.

I once had a trainer (did not know her background, whether she was English or western ), as she just came to some Appaloosa shows to watch for possible prospects for her students
At that time, I was considering selling Smilie, if the right situation came,so I invited her to come out.
Knowing she was a trainer, I put Smilie's usual show curb on. Well, that trainer gets on, and proceeds to do a series of half halts, with that curb. taking sudden slack out of the reins. Smilie reacted like she was being punished, which she was, so I told that person to get off my horse, and that she was not for sale!


Far as any games horse, First let me say I have run games on some of my all around horses in the past, and know that SOME games people get body control and finesse on those horses, BUT that does not negate the fact that bits, not legal elsewhere are used in games, that many of those horses are ridden with two hands,strong contact, a tie down and severe curb,s., so to compare them against any English training with finesse , representing standard good western training, is not even possible, and that is why I found that video irrelevant.

I rode Smilie with two hands in that HIP, as she was three, and with more contact then I would use , before I considered her ready to show western, as I did not have her yet at the point where she would stay correct, through the whole pattern on a loose rein.
That was fine, as it was not a stock horse show, and we rode the pattern the same day as the Morgans and Arabians.
I have also shown her open English, at alarge open show, against More 'traditional English horses (Arabians, Morgans, TBs) and won under a judge from a dressage background
Yes, dressage teaches very good basics, BUT if you really want a competitive western horse, you must have him in a program where the eventual goal is to ride that horse one handed, on a loose rein, no matter the pattern or maneuver
That is why, just a basic dressage training, for a western performance horse, does not work
Also did not say a horse cna't learn to go either way, but he has to be taught BOTH ways
Contact and two hands, forms part of a western horse;straining program

Riding one handed, on a loose rein is not part of any dressage program that I know of, and in fact, is why western dressage has vacillated between riding with two hands on a curb or not

"We'(western) at many open type shows, offer green hrose any age horse classes, where that green older horse can be ridden two handed. There is a reason for this


----------



## Smilie

AnitaAnne said:


> Too bad you didn't watch it; the reason I linked that video was not "how many hands do you use on the reins". The reason that I linked that video is because the speaker was talking about getting a horse to work with engagement and roundness.
> 
> Is barrel racing not a Western style of riding? They wear cowboy hats, western boots, and western saddles with horns...How much more "western" do they have to be???


It is nOT a western show judged event, Equipment rules that apply elsewhere, and way of using that equipment does not count
It is against the clock, not judged
You hardly need to apply a training program that creates ahrose who travels correct, on a loose rein, riding with contact,on ahorse who is often ridden with severe bits, using gag bits , chain mouth pieces, two hands on those reins-give me a break! 

Are you going to compare some outfitter, because he wears a western hat, that uses a running W, as an example of western training, and how to put a good stop on a 
horse?

How about prince Philip games and polo being compared to dressage training? Race hroses also ride with an English saddle. Lets get real.
Try riding those games horses in trail, pleasure, reining, or working 
cowhorse or an equitation pattern Tack and clothes do not the rider or horse make!

Elementary !

Lets leave speed events, out of either discipline, far as comparing any training methods, or expectations. You might as well throw in rodeo riders, using that kind of reasoning!
Yup, that barrel horse is going to ride a western riding pattern, on a loose rein,collected, keeping topline and cadence, executing smooth flying lead changes
By the way, not that it matters, but bats are also only legal in games
By your very comment, concerning hat,boots and saddle, I see you , as looking at all western riding and training as a jerk and spur sort a good ole boy training club!Only gotta get us a grizzly to rope!


----------



## AnitaAnne

Smilie said:


> It is nOT a western show judged event, Equipment rules that apply elsewhere, and way of using that equipment does not count
> It is against the clock, not judged
> You hardly need to apply a training program that creates ahrose who travels correct, on a loose rein, riding with contact,on ahorse who is often ridden with severe bits, using gag bits , chain mouth pieces, two hands on those reins-give me a break!
> 
> Are you going to compare some outfitter, because he wears a western hat, that uses a running W, as an example of western training, and how to put a good stop on a
> horse?
> 
> How about prince Philip games and polo being compared to dressage training? Race hroses also ride with an English saddle. Lets get real.
> Try riding those games horses in trail, pleasure, reining, or working
> cowhorse or an equitation pattern Tack and clothes do not the rider or horse make!
> 
> Elementary !


The thread is not about a "western show judged event" the thread is about Roundness; all the examples of "roundness" posted seemed to be from a Dressage book or some such. 

The term "round" is not limited to Dressage, as this video shows. Barrel racing *is* a western event, and they too want the horses working round and engaged for the top scores. 

Polo ponies are started with basic dressage training too. Race horses are only taught how to race until they get off the track at which time they are reclassified as OTTB and retrained how to use their bodies in a round manner. 

Trail horses are typically thought of as "western style" and for many years that is all one saw out on the trails. However several trail riders now use English tack. 

Maybe we need an English/Western dictionary for converting between the "languages". 

What about those Australian riders? Do they care about "round"? 

Holy Moly


----------



## Smilie

English saddles

The point being, you don't need to teach round in a games hrose There are a few games hroses that receive a good basic training, but it is far from the norm, and there is a reason,the show hrose people, when the games people rolled in (games were always run after the judged part ) would often remark, \here comes the jerk and spur crowd'
Barrel racing is part of rodeo ,open shows and their own circuit, and has pretty much disappeared from breed shows


----------



## AnitaAnne

Smilie said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DL3MUBXk8ik
> 
> English saddles
> 
> The point being, you don't need to teach round in a games hrose There are a few games hroses that receive a good basic training, but it is far from the norm, and there is a reason,the show hrose people, when the games people rolled in (games were always run after the judged part ) would often remark, \here comes the jerk and spur crowd'
> Barrel racing is part of rodeo ,open shows and their own circuit, and has pretty much disappeared from breed shows


Have lived all these years and didn't know about this event!! What a heap of fun that was just watching! So wish I had been able to do that when i was a young child! So much more fun than those ballet lessons...

As a former barrel racer, maybe I should be offended that y'all didn't want us around, but somehow I really don't care 

Again you have missed the point; for high scores the barrel racers DO want the horse "round and engaged", thus the reason for that video. 

Going to watch this video again you posted; lucky kids!!!


----------



## Smilie

Yes, and I ran games, so what!
I ran flag picking,barrel racing, pole bending, keyhole
The point being< this thread has so many tentacles that the original concept has long been lost
First, we got the 'classic ; idealogy, far as what engaged, collected, should look like, on the flat. 
I think regardless of discipline, it is accepted that you then ride with more legs then hands, driving the hrose up, having him stay light in your hands.
That is not what happens in barrel racing.

wEll, yes, running patterns a horse has to engage that rear end, but the principle of riding with more legs then hands, staying out of that horse's mouth, goes out the window,esp at speed
I have no problem with kids running games, bUT ONLY after both they and the hrose have learned to ride equitation, that kid learning to stay soft with his hands, to have the horse trained to run those patterns out of body control, versus being jerked and spurred around those obstacles.

If you think that is the norm,far as a broke hrose being ridden by a rider with good hands at gymkanas, you need to go to a few of those shows
There is also a reason, you will never see a barrel horse ride a NRHA pattern at a upper end reining venue,nor a reiner run in games, that is beyond local breed or all breed
There are two ways for a horse to use his end hind-through cues, giving him a chance to set up correctly, and by being ridden with a lot of hands .
Yes, a barrel horse has to learn to rate, seek those 'pockets' around a barrel, but that rider is going to be way more into that horse's mouth then is ever desired in a performance pattern, and why, I don't think taking lessons from a barrel horse trainer has application for general western riding.

That is not saying they do not need to use their hind end, that it is not desirable to have a great basic foundation on them first, before ever running a pattern, but It will also compromise as to how that horse will ride in judged events that require calmness and precision,and,even as to how they will trail ride. I have ridden with very few games horses, including my own, that were calm relaxed trail hroses

The point of this thread , was inverted, versus round, and a horse that is not round, is not necessarily inverted, as was implied at the beginning. There is natural frame.
Engagement also is not related to head carriage, unless that neck is stiff and bracy, horse resistant in the mouth
Yes, my son also ran games, when he was a teenager, because it was ;fun'

Just do with your horse what you want, take clinics from however you wish, just ride recreationally,, and all you need to know, is the difference between when a horse is moving willingly, using himself correctly,whether collected or in a natural frame, and when that horse is moving inverted
beyond thaT you refine, according to discipline and expectations

Me, in a different life time. Unfortunately, i only have this pole bending pic scanned in, but have lots in old photo albums of also barrel racing, flag picking and key hole


----------



## Golden Horse

AnitaAnne said:


> Have lived all these years and didn't know about this event!! What a heap of fun that was just watching! So wish I had been able to do that when i was a young child! So much more fun than those ballet lessons...
> 
> As a former barrel racer, maybe I should be offended that y'all didn't want us around, but somehow I really don't care
> 
> Again you have missed the point; for high scores the barrel racers DO want the horse "round and engaged", thus the reason for that video.
> 
> Going to watch this video again you posted; lucky kids!!!




That is one box of chocolates that every kid should try! Us English folk are raised riding small shaggy ponies doing speed events like that.....not much good equitation shown, but you learn so much about staying on, having fun, and sportsmanship!


----------



## Golden Horse

Smilie said:


> You seem to miss the point though, that a good western training program works towards that hrose learning to stay correct on a loose rein
> They cannot learn that, if they are always held between legs and reins


And many of us can’t understand why you consistently miss the point, the STARTING point for many disciplines is the same.....deep down the basics are very similar.

You see the further I go in my Dressage journey, the more I understand about contact, or the lack of it, and it is NOT at all what I thought, even this time last year, when I thought I understood it.

You can watch all the videos you like, read all the books in the world, but until you actually try something, and manage to do it with some ability, you just really cannot understand it.

This was really brought home to me by my ride on a top class reiner, I had played on a couple of others, watched plenty of videos, thought I understood. That one ride opened my eyes to the fact, took me 5 minutes to learn a pattern, and basic commands, it would take me a lifetime to perfect that...
@AnitaAnne has it so right, we should look for similarities rather than trying to prove that every discipline is somehow ‘special’ and surely everyone enjoys a horse who is soft and responsive, who can go forward straight, turn corners, and move off the leg? Doesn’T matter if you are performing at high level in front of a Dressage judge, or trying to get a gate open and closed on the trail, the basics are the same.


----------



## Spanish Rider

I am tip-toeing on eggshells here, but I would like to add my two-cents worth here (probably worth less than one)...



> the STARTING point for many disciplines is the same.....deep down the basics are very similar.


GH has a very good point here. For lack of time to search for a better definition, Wikipedia states: "Western riding is a style of horseback riding which evolved from the ranching and warfare traditions brought to the Americas by the Spanish..." In Spain, our traditional riding style is called "Doma Vaquera", which literally means "Cowboy Dressage". Wiki defines this discipline as: " Doma vaquera (Spanish pronunciation: [ˈdoma βaˈkeɾa]) is the traditional working riding discipline of Spain,[1] from which all the working riding styles of the Americas and many of those of Europe appear to derive."

_Dressage Today_ states "Doma vaquera horses show everything that dressage horses show: shoulder-in, half pass, pirouettes, flying changes, collected canter. However, everything is performed with more speed and impulsion than in competitive dressage. Horses are expected to break into explosive gallops from the halt and do extremely quick stops, rollbacks (half turn on the haunches) and pirouettes. If dressage is ballet for horses, doma vaquera is flamenco!"

In essence, historically the bases for Western riding and Dressage are the same, derived from Southern European (and some would argue Northern African) roots. Geographically, these riding traditions travelled to the New World directly from Spain with the Conquistadores to the Americas (lets not forget that the Southern and Western US were first settled by the Spanish, who brought the first horses to the Americas), while these riding traditions were interpreted by Baroque-era central Europeans into what we now consider Dressage.


----------



## gottatrot

AnitaAnne said:


> To everyone reading this thread, would like to say something. I truly wish more people would make as much effort to see the ways in which we are all similar instead of looking for ways we are different. That is the main reason that those demonstrations showing the Western Reining horse and rider and the Dressage horse and rider exist; to show that a good foundation is a good foundation, and to show that we are more alike than different.
> 
> Why all the fighting over semantics? Would any of you tell someone of a different nationality that they don't know how to speak because they use different terms?
> 
> A Rose by any other name is still a Rose...


Saying someone is arguing semantics is essentially saying the the meaning of the term does not matter.
If the meaning of "round" or "inverted" do not matter, then there would be no discussion at all here. But they do matter, because what you believe these terms mean, and whether they are positive or negative for horses affects how you ride and train all the horses you deal with.

For example, @AnitaAnne's definition of "round" is far different from the one in the USDF glossary, which refers to the topline of the horse being convex and the trajectory of the limbs moving in a circular fashion. This could never apply to a barrel horse, as in the video posted, despite what is being touted. So I have to conclude that for @AnitaAnne, the definition of round has more to do with the hindquarters of the horse. Which some people would refer to as engagement or impulsion.

The USDF definition of round is only necessary for competitive dressage horses. The debate from the beginning of the thread was about what constitutes a horse moving properly and whether the idea of "round" actually had anything to do with a horse being more fit to carry a rider.

I've concluded that most of those arguing that a horse must move in a "round" posture in order to carry a rider actually do not mean "round" as in the dressage definition, but actually simply mean a horse moving around well, relaxed and not clenching every muscle in their body. I've come to this conclusion because the horses that have been called "round" have run the gamut from horses in fully extended trots to running barrels to gaiting horses. 

I'm guessing that what most people who have commented perceive as a "round" horse is one that appears to be reaching well under with the hind legs and reaching forward with the neck rather than telescoping it back.








But in my opinion, a horse that appears like the one above has some serious body issues somewhere that cannot be addressed simply by making the horse carry the head and neck in a different posture.

I think that most disciplines do have some shared similarities, in trying to get a horse responsive to cues. However, I don't think any one discipline should have the right to claim they are the basic foundation for all others. It does not offend me personally if someone says that basic training is dressage training. But I know people who find that offensive, because they believe their _own_ discipline should be the basis for all good training. Natural Horsemanship and Vaquero training come to mind. 


> In a perfect world horses would all be trained the old traditional vaquero way...
> 
> Vaquero Horsemanship


Now someone will say that Vaquero_ is_ dressage, but all good training does not have to fall under the label of dressage IMHO. We've become sensitive to different cultures having different identities in the modern age, but still all good training must be called dressage? (posted at the same time as Spanish Rider so just read the post above...perhaps then Dressage should be called Vaquero, if it supposedly came first...or maybe each discipline can call itself what it wishes).

I agree with @Smilie that a horse can more easily go from ridden with no contact to contact versus the other way around while still performing all maneuvers requested. 
A horse that was started out with direct reining in a snaffle, taught to use his body well and then later trained to move off the seat and legs on a loose rein will be able to go back to following direct cues when necessary, even if taught at some point to turn to the right by touching the shoulder with the finger or using a word command. That is a horse with more advanced training, not less.

This is where I believe people sometimes feel dressage riders get snobby, although I think it is just a perception problem most of the time. There is this disconnect where people say that what they are doing with lower level dressage is the basis for training all horses. So a person takes a horse, does that basic training, then takes the horse out on the trail and adds more advanced training. That person then is perceived to have a horse with less training than the person who keeps on training basic dressage in the arena. Even though the person progresses to having the horse work well through the body on a loose rein, with lighter signals, with less help from rider aids. 
A horse can have more advanced training while deviating from dressage training, or a horse can get more advanced at dressage. The horse that deviated may end up at a higher level of training than the horse that kept drilling but never advanced beyond first level dressage.

Although many people take their horses out of the arena for work, they often see what they are doing in the arena as being the difficult work, and what they do on the trails as being recreation. What I've learned is that if I want a horse to be really good at arena work, I will take him out and have him do the required movements without a ring to help, without perfect footing, and with more distractions. This improves the arena work tremendously whenever I go back inside. I've had horses that couldn't do perfect circles in the arena until I took them out and taught them perfect circles outside the arena. Same with all kinds of lateral work, flying changes, extension and collection. 

I like many things about dressage, and am idealistic. It is my belief that all riders should be very critical of all styles of riding and their own riding and training. If you use critical thinking to analyze what you are doing, you will find out many ways you are wrong. This leads to improvement.
A couple interesting links:
The Veterinary Basis of Correct Training | The Horse Magazine
Paul Belasik: Why are fundamental problems persisting in elite dressage? Part Two | The Horse Magazine


----------



## updownrider

I can’t determine soundness of a horse by just looking at a neck. Did you crop that photo to make a point?


----------



## gottatrot

updownrider said:


> I can’t determine soundness of a horse by just looking at a neck. Did you crop that photo to make a point?


No. It came that way from Google. Would there be something wrong with cropping a photo to make a point? You could still argue the point was wrong if it was not based on anything substantial. Or ask for more information, which in this case does not seem needed.
The point is that if he is moving that way under saddle, something is very wrong. He also could be in pain from just having been slapped, I suppose, but you can assess him using the pain faces scale for horses without seeing the rest of his body. Yes, being technical you can make a case for him being in pain temporarily rather than unsound. But then he wouldn't be moving that way consistently.








I guess this could bring up a question:
Has anyone ever seen a horse that kept moving inverted and braced with no body issues, in a saddle that fit well, with consistent and fair handling and training? I have not. Which to me begs the question, why are people worried about trying to get a horse out of this type of posture by training?


----------



## Golden Horse

> I'm guessing that what most people who have commented perceive as a "round" horse is one that appears to be reaching well under with the hind legs and reaching forward with the neck rather than telescoping it back.


This is the crux of the whole debate.......you GUESS, as do I, what a person means when they talk about the difference between inverted and round.

I guess it is some kind of continuum, if we go from the nose way in the air, head up, neck looking like a crescent, back in a dip, kind of inverted, which is what I am thinking.....to the very rounded Dressage horse, packaged up, which is NOT what I am thinking when I talk rounded, i’m Picturing level, but soft, neck not inverted....back level....

Maybe this is where the confusion comes from, so many assumptions.


----------



## gottatrot

Golden Horse said:


> This is the crux of the whole debate.......you GUESS, as do I, what a person means when they talk about the difference between inverted and round.
> 
> I guess it is some kind of continuum, if we go from the nose way in the air, head up, neck looking like a crescent, back in a dip, kind of inverted, which is what I am thinking.....to the very rounded Dressage horse, packaged up, which is NOT what I am thinking when I talk rounded, i’m Picturing level, but soft, neck not inverted....back level....
> 
> Maybe this is where the confusion comes from, so many assumptions.


We are limited, of course, not having actual horses in front of us.
I guess Gerd Heuschmann thought Philippe Karl's horses would have stiff backs, but when he checked them in person he said they were supple.
Heuschmann said:


> For me a classical rider is able to train his horse for what he wants to do, without damaging the horse’s body or mind. A good cowboy can be a classical rider, if he is a good cowboy…


I like the proposed rule changes for dressage from Philippe Karl from a few years ago:


> 1. Auxiliary reins connected to the bit are forbidden, whether on the longe or under saddle. The longe should always be attached to a cavesson.
> 
> 2. Tight nosebands are forbidden, both in daily training and competition. (In addition, it is permissable to present a horse without a noseband.)
> 
> 3. The horse's mouth must be checked immediately prior to every test or performance. Any injury leads to disqualification.
> 
> 4. Any horse showing injury from spurs to be disqualified.
> 
> 5. Overflexion (nose behind the vertical) in any movement to be punished with a mark of at most 3.
> 
> 6. Blocked jaws, tongues pulled up or hanging out and grinding of the teeth in any exercise to be punished with a mark of at most 4.
> 
> 7. Neck extension (long position in which the mane is nearly horizontal, the nose keeping in front of the vertical) becomes a part of every dressage test, in all three gaits and on both reins.
> 
> 8. The walk is reinstated as a fully-fledged part of each dressage test, representing up to 30% of total marks possible, at least in tests on E, A, L and M level.
> The lateralisation of the walk (horse comes close to ambling) leads to disqualification.
> 
> 9. In tests for young horses as well as auctions, the young horses must be presented in neck extension in all three gaits, with the rider rising to the trot.


Regardless of the continuum, dressage has taken the concept of roundness way too far, and it has also taken over most other riding disciplines. Because of this, many people are speaking up about it and asking - where is extension? Why has flinging the front legs forward replaced a horse that extends his frame in extended gaits? 


> The thing is that our dressage competition world could be something supple and nice, there is no need for the stiffness that we have. We have the wrong idea about contact: contact is misinterpreted from the basic to the top sport. We don’t have a good word in English for stellen – the lateral flexion in the poll, this is a must in a horse that is really over the back and supple – look at the big competitions, the horses are like a piece of wood, no lateral flexion. Since I visited Mr Karl and understood his philosophy about the poll and the chewing – the biomechanics – it all fell into place. We make them flex at the poll, and then when the back goes down, we push to get suspension, and it is out of a stiff back. Suppleness, this word doesn’t exist any more, it’s gone. If you read the HD12, the mother of our German Principles, then you find the flexing of the poll, you find the Baucher work for the mouth – Baucher is a person we have to think about, we don’t like him at all, but he has very interesting opinions about the contact question. It is wrong to say Baucher is 100% rubbish – because there are things there that we should talk about. _Gerald Heuschmann_


----------



## sarahfromsc

Sweet Jesus. The cropped photo he doesn’t look like he is being ridden. And the facial expression looks for much like mine after I just wormed him. In fact most of those pictures look like two of mine making faces at each other through the bars of the stalls at feeding time. And the grey is my Arab exactly when he spies the worming tube.

Not all facial expressions are due to pain. Now, if those pictures were under saddle pictures, I would have a different opinion. But since those all look as if they were taken inside a stall. Nope. Not buying.


----------



## Tazzie

Golden Horse said:


> You can watch all the videos you like, read all the books in the world, but until you actually try something, and manage to do it with some ability, you just really cannot understand it


This right here. A true rider, one that can appreciate ANY style of riding, would jump at the chance to try something different. Not just holler that they don't ride that way.

I've ridden a park horse and found out I hated it, but I did it and I can appreciate the work that goes into it.

I've ridden a five gaited horse in a hunter frame, and LOVED him.

I've driven a Hackney pony, and seriously loved every minute of it (even though I'd need A TON of practice to show it)

I've jumped horses, and it's not my cup of tea but it won't stop me cross training Izzie on it.

I've trotted Izzie around barrels and poles, and with the right rider I'd be she could easily learn how to do them.

I wouldn't turn down the chance to ride a reining horse, a western pleasure horse, a barrel horse, a pole bending horse, etc. All are different from MY discipline, but that doesn't mean I lack the knowledge they are all difficult in their own way.

I like calling all the disciplines chocolate. I enjoy sampling a lot of chocolate, even something coated in dark chocolate (least favorite). I wouldn't stick my nose up at something that may be delicious covered in a chocolate I didn't like.

So I don't get why so many people feel the need to bash a discipline just because it isn't their flavor. And yes, there IS bashing going on. Perhaps not always on this thread, but there have been quite a few posts from a member or two that loudly proclaim Dressage is terrible.

Just because I don't choose to hack around on a loose rein doesn't mean I hate people who do, or think less of what they do. It's just something I like as a brain break for my horse because every horse deserves time to just hack around and think of nothing aside from don't hit that tree, rock, etc.


----------



## gottatrot

gottatrot said:


> Regardless of the continuum, dressage has taken the concept of roundness way too far, and it has also taken over most other riding disciplines.


Well, hopefully no one thinks I personally am bashing dressage, which I'm not, just questioning practices within it that are also questioned by many great and wonderful dressage riders at the top levels. 
I noticed the above quote could be construed in a different way than it was meant. It would be clearer to read "dressage has taken the concept of roundness way too far, and the concept of roundness (not dressage) has also taken over most other riding disciplines.
This is my personal observation from many riders I know, not on this forum. Also from observing many top placing riders, some great and some not so great.


----------



## Spanish Rider

> perhaps then Dressage should be called Vaquero, if it supposedly came first


Actually, the use of the word "Vaquero" is grammatically incorrect. "Vaquero" simply means "cowboy". The correct term would be "doma vaquera", doma = training/dressage. In Spain, we differentiate between these two training methods by calling one "doma vaquera" (cowboy training/dressage) and the other "doma clásica" (classical training/dressage). Here, the operative word is "doma", meaning dressage.


----------



## Golden Horse

lol, @Tazzie still the most fun I ever had was playing reiner, but I can’t afford to buy and support a competitive reiner.

I’ve hunted, ridden TB’s and OTTB’s, jumped, cross countried, ridden totters, WP horses, trail horses, all sorts. All were fun, all taught me something, I still maintain that a great trail horse is a gem, but to me a great trail horse isn’t prancing along with it’s head in the air, it’s level headed, so I can see what is coming. A great hunter, I mean a proper field hunter, does not have it’s head up in the air, nor does have it’s head curled under, it will have a fairly neutral carriage, again, so you can see what is coming up.

Dressage is now what I choose to do, but , like banging my head on a wall, I repeat, it isn’t what many people here argue it is.....i’m Not sure how many Dressage riders there are on the board, but i’m fairly sure that the number doing upper level will be counted on one hand.


----------



## gottatrot

Golden Horse said:


> Dressage is now what I choose to do, but , like banging my head on a wall, I repeat, it isn’t what many people here argue it is.....i’m Not sure how many Dressage riders there are on the board, but i’m fairly sure that the number doing upper level will be counted on one hand.


I don't think anyone here is trying to categorize dressage as a whole, but discuss movement in every discipline. I've said multiple times that horses' necks and heads are pulled over into a round outline in many disciplines. 

The upper levels of dressage are being discussed because that is where you sometimes see the end result that can occur from focusing on the front end of the horse and trying to get an artificial movement rather than the best truly balanced movement the horse is capable of. We all know that ideally dressage riders focus on a swinging back and riding "through" and connection, but as has been pointed out by other top riders and trainers, you can often see that the horses have been ridden through tight backs into hard contact in order to get the desired suspension.
I've been to lots of dressage shows at the lower levels and seen people who never put their horses behind the vertical, and who ride softly and stay with the horse. But those aren't trying to force the horse into a "round" frame, but rather use the dressage training ladder in actuality instead of only theoretically. I've also seen those at the lower levels trying to emulate the poor form of some poor riders at the upper levels. Do we want to advocate this by supporting all dressage wholeheartedly?

I'm glad some of you have never seen a horse ridden with the neck position of the horse in the cropped photo I posted. I have, and I assure you it is very possible and not a pretty sight. Horses can brace their bodies and hold their necks that way when ridden with a heavy rider in a saddle that pokes, or when in a sharp bit with leverage, or when constantly exposed to jerks on the rein and pokes with spurs. You can see this sight at some organized trail rides where casual riders with poor hands in badly fitted saddles slam up and down as they trot briskly around and yank on their horses. When someone else gets the horse, he will still move that way due to the body issues caused by the treatment, and it cannot be fixed simply by riding the horse in a rounder frame. The neck posture was not what caused the issues, so it is not the solution.


----------



## jaydee

bsms;1970476487
[I said:


> If you went to a place that advertised itself as a "dressage barn" and found everyone riding western pleasure, you would feel deceived. If you bought a book on dressage, and it discusses barrel racing, you would feel cheated.[/I]



Once again you're only identifying 'dressage' with the sort of thing seen in competitions and mostly at upper level and not as what it actually is - good basic training that can be done by anyone. Its a common trap that too many still fall into
If I were to go to a US 'English/European style dressage barn' then I would expect people to be aiming at that discipline but if I went to a showjumping barn I would expect riders to also be learning the same basic dressage skills that a person doing only european dressage would learn because those skills are invaluable in any discipline. You'll find people like George Morris and Jim Wofford saying exactly the same.
If I was to go to a Western barn then I wouldn't be surprised to see people working on Western or Cowboy Dressage.
A lot of people who compete in reining classes cross train and take European dressage lessons because they've found it improves the and their horse. 
A barrel racer needs good balance and has to be very responsive to leg and body cues - something that dressage training improves - same with Gymkhana. I rode a nice little barrel racing horse when I was looking for a replacement for Flo, he had no trouble at all understanding my 'english' leg cues, he knew what contact meant and could put his head wherever I asked him to put it as he'd been taught how to respond to pressure on his mouth so could have easily done a low level European style dressage test.


Dressage = training. Training makes better horses and better riders whatever you do with them.
These are all 'Dressage' tests - prefix is different, style is different but all are called 'Dressage'


















I'm sorry bsms - but you cannot state that you or your horses wouldn't ride better if they had some dressage training without actually trying it for comparison any more than you could tell me that you preferred Brand A chocolate to Brand B without even trying Brand B


----------



## Tazzie

gottatrot said:


> The upper levels of dressage are being discussed because that is where you sometimes see the end result that can occur from focusing on the front end of the horse and trying to get an artificial movement rather than the best truly balanced movement the horse is capable of. We all know that ideally dressage riders focus on a swinging back and riding "through" and connection, but as has been pointed out by other top riders and trainers, you can often see that the horses have been ridden through tight backs into hard contact in order to get the desired suspension.
> I've been to lots of dressage shows at the lower levels and seen people who never put their horses behind the vertical, and who ride softly and stay with the horse. But those aren't trying to force the horse into a "round" frame, but rather use the dressage training ladder in actuality instead of only theoretically. I've also seen those at the lower levels trying to emulate the poor form of some poor riders at the upper levels. Do we want to advocate this by supporting all dressage wholeheartedly?


The above made me think of the following article. This is WHY all of us on here are consistently saying we work to ride from back to front. If done correctly, the legs should be parallel or close to it when in full extended trot. A lot of horses now are being bred for the flashier movements. But just because some riders at the top of the sport do this does NOT mean all of us that ARE aiming to make it there will be doing it this way.

https://sacredhorse.com.au/leg-movers-vs-back-movers/

Not our best ride, but extended trot, hind leg matches front leg:












jaydee said:


> Once again you're only identifying 'dressage' with the sort of thing seen in competitions and mostly at upper level and not as what it actually is - good basic training that can be done by anyone. Its a common trap that too many still fall into
> If I were to go to a US 'English/European style dressage barn' then I would expect people to be aiming at that discipline but if I went to a showjumping barn I would expect riders to also be learning the same basic dressage skills that a person doing only european dressage would learn because those skills are invaluable in any discipline. You'll find people like George Morris and Jim Wofford saying exactly the same.
> If I was to go to a Western barn then I wouldn't be surprised to see people working on Western or Cowboy Dressage.
> A lot of people who compete in reining classes cross train and take European dressage lessons because they've found it improves the and their horse.
> A barrel racer needs good balance and has to be very responsive to leg and body cues - something that dressage training improves - same with Gymkhana. I rode a nice little barrel racing horse when I was looking for a replacement for Flo, he had no trouble at all understanding my 'english' leg cues, he knew what contact meant and could put his head wherever I asked him to put it as he'd been taught how to respond to pressure on his mouth so could have easily done a low level European style dressage test.
> 
> 
> Dressage = training. Training makes better horses and better riders whatever you do with them.
> These are all 'Dressage' tests - prefix is different, style is different but all are called 'Dressage'
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNJW-sZzGSQ
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdz6SnPcM3Y
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5v3B-m-0yo
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dvORQQStc8
> 
> 
> I'm sorry bsms - but you cannot state that you or your horses wouldn't ride better if they had some dressage training without actually trying it for comparison any more than you could tell me that you preferred Brand A chocolate to Brand B without even trying Brand B


I'd like to "like" this a hundred more times.


----------



## jaydee

@Smilie
Re. the riding a 'pattern' one handed and on a loose rein. 
I would assume that the horses that do this are trained to do it and aren't 'born' able to do it. With that in mind any 'European trained' dressage horse could be trained to do it in exactly the same way that the western horses are trained to do it
European dressage is about using your legs and seat to ride the horse in much the same way that a western rider uses their legs and seat
This rider in the first video shows that a European dressage horse can be ridden one handed




You can ride on a loose rein and have the horse in a European dressage frame at lower levels provided the horse has had the correct basics of training and so has a good natural self carriage but as the higher levels require collection that involves holding the horse between your hand and your leg that wouldn't be possible on a loose rein


----------



## jaydee

@Smilie
Re. the riding a 'pattern' one handed and on a loose rein. 
I would assume that the horses that do this are trained to do it and aren't 'born' able to do it. With that in mind any 'European trained' dressage horse could be trained to do it in exactly the same way that the western horses are trained to do it
European dressage is about using your legs and seat to ride the horse in much the same way that a western rider uses their legs and seat
This rider in the first video shows that a European dressage horse can be ridden one handed




You can ride on a loose rein and have the horse in a European dressage frame at lower levels provided the horse has had the correct basics of training and so has a good natural self carriage but as the higher levels require collection that involves holding the horse between your hand and your leg that wouldn't be possible on a loose rein


----------



## Smilie

jaydee said:


> @Smilie
> Re. the riding a 'pattern' one handed and on a loose rein.
> I would assume that the horses that do this are trained to do it and aren't 'born' able to do it. With that in mind any 'European trained' dressage horse could be trained to do it in exactly the same way that the western horses are trained to do it
> European dressage is about using your legs and seat to ride the horse in much the same way that a western rider uses their legs and seat
> This rider in the first video shows that a European dressage horse can be ridden one handed
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZmmGcEPh-0
> You can ride on a loose rein and have the horse in a European dressage frame at lower levels provided the horse has had the correct basics of training and so has a good natural self carriage but as the higher levels require collection that involves holding the horse between your hand and your leg that wouldn't be possible on a loose rein


That video shows the horse ridden with a lot of contact Riding one handed is not difficult on a well trained hrose, taught to stay between the reins, but it is difficult to rate a horse, on a loose rein, esp with other hroses passing him, as in a rail class, or in riding a tight trail pattern

Yes, I know basic aids are the same, as I use they very same leg aids, whether riding western or HUS.

I also said that dressage training is good basic general training for most horses, BUT if you are serious about how well that horse rides eventually one handed, on a loose rein, you must in that training program, give the horse a chance to move without contact, versus always helping him, and that requires while in that snaffle bit stage, letting him make mistakes, be it speeding up, loosing frame, on a loose rein, then take contact when he falls apart, building on that
I watched that first western dressage test, and yes, good basics for that discipline, and if you were going to show that horse on the stock horse circuit in HUS.
The horse would not do well, at this point, shown western, as a jr horse, as there is constant contact used, to rate that horse

I have also ridden horses in various classes events, from reining, working cowhorse to HUS western pleasure games, riding out from home, riding on pack trips. i took dressage lessons one winter, as I was starting to ride HUS, and there were no HUS clinics near me. 
It worked fine, for HUS, and my horse was first broke well enough western, that the hrose learned to associate tack with expectations of way to go, along with specific exercises one does, at stock horse shows, when moving between western and HUS, or visa versa

If you can always ride a horse on contact, then show him one handed on a loose rein, with that horse rating speed totally of of seat and legs, you are a way better trainer then I am, and that knowledge would sure simplify training programs for those that show a horse eventually on a totally loose rein.
Disciplines require specific training, and that makes not one better then the other, nor anyone of them, a universal base for all disciplines.

Western dressage is a discipline that is somewhere between western and English, allowing a western hrose to be shown with more contact, whether ridden one handed or with two, then would be acceptable in that horse's stock horse shows. Nothing wrong with that, but at the same time, does not mean it prepares that horse to be shown at a breed show in patterns, without some further training where that horse is expected to keep his frame , collection and speed on a loose rein


----------



## Smilie

you are going to have to accept that showing in a pattern like this, on a loose rein, would not be possible if the horse is just well enough broke to be ridden one handed, always ridden otherwise with two hands.
There is some special training involved, whether you wish to see it or not.






This second horse is a jr horse, so 5 and under


----------



## Smilie

far as the half halt, and a horse being checked, the second video shows a slight check,, with the rider just raising his hand a bit, thus ,while principle is the same, way different in degree of application,done correctly


----------



## updownrider

gottatrot said:


> No. It came that way from Google. Would there be something wrong with cropping a photo to make a point? You could still argue the point was wrong if it was not based on anything substantial. Or ask for more information, which in this case does not seem needed.
> The point is that if he is moving that way under saddle, something is very wrong. He also could be in pain from just having been slapped, I suppose, but you can assess him using the pain faces scale for horses without seeing the rest of his body. Yes, being technical you can make a case for him being in pain temporarily rather than unsound. But then he wouldn't be moving that way consistently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess this could bring up a question:
> Has anyone ever seen a horse that kept moving inverted and braced with no body issues, in a saddle that fit well, with consistent and fair handling and training? I have not. Which to me begs the question, why are people worried about trying to get a horse out of this type of posture by training?


I’m not sure the horse is under saddle. The reins are over the head. It’s certainly not reacting to the bit because there isn’t one. If you are searching the whole web I’m sure there are less questionable examples to use.


----------



## Golden Horse

At this stage I am like










I can only imagine that there are others who feel the frustration that I do, at the continued failure of people to grasp what I am trying to explain. 

Of course by the same token others, obviously think the same about their view...


----------



## Smilie

jaydee said:


> @Smilie
> Re. the riding a 'pattern' one handed and on a loose rein.
> I would assume that the horses that do this are trained to do it and aren't 'born' able to do it. With that in mind any 'European trained' dressage horse could be trained to do it in exactly the same way that the western horses are trained to do it
> European dressage is about using your legs and seat to ride the horse in much the same way that a western rider uses their legs and seat
> This rider in the first video shows that a European dressage horse can be ridden one handed
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZmmGcEPh-0
> You can ride on a loose rein and have the horse in a European dressage frame at lower levels provided the horse has had the correct basics of training and so has a good natural self carriage but as the higher levels require collection that involves holding the horse between your hand and your leg that wouldn't be possible on a loose rein



no, horses aren't born able to be ridden one handed, while staying in frame,rating speed on aloose rein.

Of course it takes training, and as I have so often stated, that involves that beginning period of using two hands and contact, BUt there is adifference,modification,if you wish, during that period, where the hrose , when he is ready, is given a completely loose rein,even in that two hand snaffle stage, where he is expected to stay the same, including speed and topline, and where you then spend a lot of time in the beginning, needing to take up contact and 'help the horse' You build on that

I also agree that a well trained horse, taught to stay evenly between the reins and legs, is very responsive tot he aids, can very easily have the reins changed to riding with one hand, BUT that is a long way from that horse able to ride a pattern, that requires that horse able to perform transitions, stops, rate speed,do tight turns, all without picking up mouth contact
I can ride a open show trail pattern, with the amount of contact shown in that western dressage test, but I would not place well at a breed show

That does not make one type of training/way of going,better then the other, but it DOES require basic modification in training, even at that snaffle bit stage

It is also why Smilie was ready to show in that Horse improvement program, where I could ride her as a jr horse, much as in that dressage test, but not at a breed show, as she was not yet consistent enough on a loose rein, to carry herself without any bit aid, through that entire pattern

I am not knocking dressage, as it is a great progressive training program, putting lots of body control on a horse. All I want is some recognition, that perhaps it is not in itself, a total foundation for a horse that is expected to work on a totally loose rein, even though many of the concepts, far as lateral moves, impulsion, straightness, ect,ect are universal.

If you never ride with a completely loose rein, expecting the horse to rate speed, keep topline, do various transitions,maneuvers, without picking up speed, then you will not be able to show that horse that way,,regardless if you can take the reins in one hand and ride some circles and lead changes
Many horses that are well trained, can easily be ridden down the trail with one hand and on a loose rein

That does not mean you can take that horse into a class, have horses passing him,while executing transitions, all one handed and on a loose rein, nor ride a complicated pattern, all on a loose rein, one handed.

There has to be that initial training that includes periods where the horse is given the chance to stay correct, picked up again as needed, working towards when that horse can carry himself longer and longer without needing to have that bit picked up


----------



## Smilie

Golden Horse said:


> At this stage I am like
> 
> View attachment 950319
> 
> 
> 
> I can only imagine that there are others who feel the frustration that I do, at the continued failure of people to grasp what I am trying to explain.
> 
> Of course by the same token others, obviously think the same about their view...


Yah, add me to that list!


----------



## Spanish Rider

Not wanting to beat a dead horse, but...

*Smilie,* I found both videos very interesting. I know absolutely nothing about Western riding, and I had never heard of "trail" competition. My questions are out of sheer curiosity: why is the head carriage so low, especially at the canter (which I believe you call lope)? Does this have an actual theoretical function, or is it just aesthetics? Also, if this is a representation of trail riding, why would you want to have such long reins? I mean, when coming across a wild animal on the trail, my instinct would be to be able to pick up full contact instantaneously.

I find these functional differences quite striking, as Spanish ranchers, while often using only one hand and a garrocha (pole) in the other, never lose their contact, and head carriage is never low. You would never want your horse to take his eyes off of a bull's horns.


----------



## farmpony84

As debates go - this one certainly is a long one! 57 pages at this point and boxers in all four corners. I figure I'll throw in the obligatory - remember the forum rules and conscientious etiquette policy reminder at this point but to be honest... all participants have been flailing fists in a very friendly and easy going fashion - so... continue on with the bantering.


Me on the other hand... I'll take my participation trophy and bow out for now


----------



## tinyliny

gottatrot said:


> I'm guessing that what most people who have commented perceive as a "round" horse is one that appears to be reaching well under with the hind legs and reaching forward with the neck rather than telescoping it back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But in my opinion, a horse that appears like the one above has some serious body issues somewhere that cannot be addressed simply by making the horse carry the head and neck in a different posture.


 @gottatrot excuse me for taking only a small part of your excellent, but lengthy post back there a page or two. I agree with most everything you brought up. 

However, speaking of difficulty being understood, and a lot of misunderstanding going around . . . I would like to see if I correctly interpretted why you posted the above photo, and what you were trying to say . . . 

I think you put that up as an example of how some dressage persons would assume that seeing it move that way, that it was unsound and that making it move with it's in 'a certain position' would miraculously make it sound. That, so to speak, it's 'cure' was in getting it's head down and riding it 'round'.
But, that in reality, that horse's pained expression, stiffly raised neck is perhaps due to something that should be explored (some pain issue) and that just forcing it to move in a dressage frame would not be what it needs.

Is that more or less what you wanted to say? or, have I, too, misunderstood?
(wouldn't be the first time)

I agree that the horse is probably distressed or in pain. whether that's a moment in time, or a habitual way of going is hard to say. That dip behind the withers can become a permanent fixture, as it has in my lease horse, X. that is from too many horses being 'fiddled' back into his own neck, by a dressage person too focused on 'collection' and not enough extension.

However, a person CAN help a horse with a habitual neck and back posture like that with correct riding. you may say that just moving the neck into a different position can't help, but just the action of having a horse drop the head, extend the nose out a bit causes mental relaxation. that is , in part, why teaching a horse to drop their head is a useful tool for getting them to let go of worry. So, riding in 'a certain' position alone CAN help a worried horse change that mental state, even if it's long ingrained. That said, if there are physical pain issues, they must be addressed first. But we ALL know that.


----------



## Smilie

Spanish Rider said:


> Not wanting to beat a dead horse, but...
> 
> *Smilie,* I found both videos very interesting. I know absolutely nothing about Western riding, and I had never heard of "trail" competition. My questions are out of sheer curiosity: why is the head carriage so low, especially at the canter (which I believe you call lope)? Does this have an actual theoretical function, or is it just aesthetics? Also, if this is a representation of trail riding, why would you want to have such long reins? I mean, when coming across a wild animal on the trail, my instinct would be to be able to pick up full contact instantaneously.
> 
> I find these functional differences quite striking, as Spanish ranchers, while often using only one hand and a garrocha (pole) in the other, never lose their contact, and head carriage is never low. You would never want your horse to take his eyes off of a bull's horns.


Stock horses have a natural level topline,thus the topline desired, is different then that of a horse whose neck ties in different, who has a natural more up head carriage
Ideal, at times, in nay discipline is not perfect, and there have been times that head gets too low, but you don't 'kill' ahrose for that, if he is moving true, relaxed and steady
You are also not taking int account the differnce when a stock horse is working at speed, such as in working cowhorse, where head is at the level it needs to be
Working cowhorse, still follows in the Vaquero tradition, creating a 'spade bit horse.While it does retain some of that European foundation, brought tot he new World, it also became modified , far as training,to create a Spade bit horse (two reins,bosal, and eventually up into the Spade bit alone )
That was due in part to the demands of the New World, where cattle where out on the open range, not in close quarters, thus often needing to be roped to be doctored, ect This required a very light bridle horse, able to be ridden one handed with finger tip control
You cannot take one discipline, even within a breed, and set an arbitrary topline desired in all events
Many events are also exhibitions of show ring ability, and do not translate directly to everyday demands, afterall, we no longer ride hroses to war, so don't need airs above ground, unless you wish to kick in the neighbour's head!
You also don't need a reining horse, taht does a series of four fast spins or so, long sliding stops, to work cattle on a ranch, as that cow would be long gone. In either case, it some specific level of training and ability, that may or not be useful in everyday work.
We also don't need a hrose that trots in place, like an engine revving, yet it is an upper dressage move


----------



## Smilie

Far as a horse making eye contact,with that cow, and in fact, working that cow on his own, as there is no time to cue that horse, watch a cutting horse video. That horse is very low, but engaged behind, allowing those legs to sweep sideways with lightning speed
On the range, it is common to help the hrose more with the reins, while show ring cutting ups the bar of difficulity


----------



## tinyliny

I'm going to guess that the whole low headed posture for Western pleasure derives from the stock horses, and the cowboy wants the horse to have a very quiet posture, one where he can move the herd without them feeling threatened, and thus running. They want to move the cows slowly, peacefully.

the other way a low head might be helpful is when the cowboy is 'dogging' a cow, and is looking to throw a rope over it's head, he needs a clear view of the cow, so the horse having a low head might help with this. 

and, once the cow is roped, the hrose backs up and keeps tension on the rope. Don't they usually keep their heads low, as they pull back? would help with not interfering with the rope.

but, a discussion on the merits of Western pleasure postures might be best on a seperate thread.


----------



## Golden Horse

Cross posting from another thread, as @Tihannah so excellently puts it here....




Tihannah said:


> Same here, and I was kinda thrown off rby some of the comments regarding showing, judging, rollkur, etc.
> 
> My mind doesn't jump to that when I think of dressage. I think about the journey and the art and the strength and communication it builds between rider and horse. To me, competition is another topic unto itself and the negatives can be found in any discipline.
> 
> I typically ride 5 days a week, take regular lessons and clinics, but don't really care about showing at all. I may do 1 or 2 schooling shows a year or not at all. For me, it's not about the ribbons. It's about what I can learn and how I can make both myself and my horse better. I enjoy watching upper level riders perform and compete, but my passion and drive is not for the competition.
> 
> P.S. And I'm owned by one of those big, (kinda fancy), moving warmbloods.



For most of us Dressage means basics, not high level competition. Now unlike Tihannah, I do compete, but my joy comes from taking an unlikely candidate like Fergie on a journey, she will never be a higher level horse, I have always thought that she would top out at 1st, but looks like we may dabble in second this year.

Someone asked me what I would do if I won a lot of money, and I genuinely would prefer to invest it in Fergie and my journey, rather than buying a horse who could maybe go higher.

My most successful competition year was the year I leased Troy, it was also the most boring.....


----------



## Golden Horse

Smilie said:


> no, horses aren't born able to be ridden one handed, while staying in frame,rating speed on aloose rein.
> 
> Of course it takes training, and as I have so often stated, that involves that beginning period of using two hands and contact, BUt there is adifference,modification,if you wish, during that period, where the hrose , when he is ready, is given a completely loose rein,even in that two hand snaffle stage, where he is expected to stay the same, including speed and topline, and where you then spend a lot of time in the beginning, needing to take up contact and 'help the horse' You build on that
> 
> I also agree that a well trained horse, taught to stay evenly between the reins and legs, is very responsive tot he aids, can very easily have the reins changed to riding with one hand, BUT that is a long way from that horse able to ride a pattern, that requires that horse able to perform transitions, stops, rate speed,do tight turns, all without picking up mouth contact
> I can ride a open show trail pattern, with the amount of contact shown in that western dressage test, but I would not place well at a breed show
> 
> That does not make one type of training/way of going,better then the other, but it DOES require basic modification in training, even at that snaffle bit stage
> 
> It is also why Smilie was ready to show in that Horse improvement program, where I could ride her as a jr horse, much as in that dressage test, but not at a breed show, as she was not yet consistent enough on a loose rein, to carry herself without any bit aid, through that entire pattern
> 
> I am not knocking dressage, as it is a great progressive training program, putting lots of body control on a horse. All I want is some recognition, that perhaps it is not in itself, a total foundation for a horse that is expected to work on a totally loose rein, even though many of the concepts, far as lateral moves, impulsion, straightness, ect,ect are universal.
> 
> If you never ride with a completely loose rein, expecting the horse to rate speed, keep topline, do various transitions,maneuvers, without picking up speed, then you will not be able to show that horse that way,,regardless if you can take the reins in one hand and ride some circles and lead changes
> Many horses that are well trained, can easily be ridden down the trail with one hand and on a loose rein
> 
> That does not mean you can take that horse into a class, have horses passing him,while executing transitions, all one handed and on a loose rein, nor ride a complicated pattern, all on a loose rein, one handed.
> 
> There has to be that initial training that includes periods where the horse is given the chance to stay correct, picked up again as needed, working towards when that horse can carry himself longer and longer without needing to have that bit picked up



Again you are not grasping that no one is saying that finishing, heck, developing ANY HORSE IN ANY DISCIPLINE, does not take talent, dedication and discipline specific training, I and I presume everyone else takes that as a given.

All we are saying is that dressage, with that small d, is simply basic training, once those basics are established then we specialize. 

No one, not one person is saying Dressage, capital D is the be all and end all of riding, that would be a crazy thought.


----------



## Spanish Rider

*Smilie,*
Thank you for your explanation. The video is educational, as I had never seen cutting before, and the controlled movements on such a long rein are exceptional. However, I now believe that the difference in riding discipline has more to do with the cows than the horses, because you could never do that with a Spanish toro bravo.


----------



## Smilie

Spanish Rider said:


> *Smilie,*
> Thank you for your explanation. The video is educational, as I had never seen cutting before, and the controlled movements on such a long rein are exceptional. However, I now believe that the difference in riding discipline has more to do with the cows than the horses, because you could never do that with a Spanish toro bravo.


Yes,of course, and I guess I for one hope that the age of bull fighting, as a form of entertainment is in it;s last gasps
Won't go into the use of the sereteta

TinyLiny, agree that western pl can be left for another post which I will try to avoid

The video posted shows trail, and if you try to ride a tight pattern like that, on a loose rein, the hrose needs to be looking at those rails.
I have actually shown in trail, and you are not just doing a series of lope overs, but need to have that horse watch where he puts his feet
Set up a 6 x 6 foot box. Walk or trot into it, without ticking that rail. Do a 360, and then step back out, again without ticking a rail. I don't know as to how you ride it, but I make sure that after the 360,i give a slight check to my horse's head, have him look down at that rail, then step out, versus just plundering ahead

Can\t remember who, Jaydee or Golden, who seems to think I don't get it, when I find it to be the other way around.!
Basic training, with constant contact, does not create the basics for a horse, that right from the time he is started to be shown,, even as a jr horse, must ride on a loose rein
I know it must be taught, first using contact, and I think I have responded to numerous posts, where someone tries to imply that their hrose does not understand contact, as he was ridden western. Of course that is false
However, a horse also does not understand how to rate, stay collected, perform various maneuvers on a loose rein, if that is not part of his training program, soon as he guides well enough , using contact-ie,way before he is close to being shown
How can you decide as to what is compatible, in a training program, if you have never trained or shown in that discipline ?

I mean, there are many western horses trained to upper level in their discipline, be it western pl, trail, working cowhorse, reining, cutting, and have never had one basic dressage lesson. Dressage is not the only basic program that puts all those fundamentals desired on any well trained horse

if there was no difference, you could take a western hrose, for instance, only shown in western dressage, and then ride a trail pattern , a western riding pattern or pleasure pattern, one handed and on a loose rein
Instead, you will find that training, on a horse that is used to riding with contact, difficult


----------



## sarahfromsc

Which has been around longer, dressage, or reining?

Older, dressage or ranch work?

Barrel racing or dressage?

Cutting or dressage.

If you noticed, I used little ‘d’ versus the big ‘D’. 

My point is that the INITIAL training of ANY horse is based in dressage (NOTICE the little ‘d’)......we ALL want relaxation on a green horse, rhythm on a green horse, eventually implosion and self carriage on a green horse. Once those basics are on, what you do with your horse, what direction you go in, contact, no contact, chasing cows, or following letters, rounding barrels, or long haul trail rides, is up to you.


----------



## Smilie

I also am going to bow out of this thread, as it is heading into directions never intended, far as the original thread
The original thread, was inverted versus round.
Those are extremes at either end of the spectrum.
There is the middle ground, where many people, esp trail riders ride, and that is in a natural frame

Moving with engagement, is not related to head carriage,per say, with that head carriage varying depending on activity, speed,discipline, ect.

When dressage first became a training discipline, there was no western , versus English, as all hroses were ridden in that manner. (two hands on the reins and contact
Western riding,by comparison is fairly \new, so established old masters don't date back centuries. The western riding seen in movies and the fact that many people new to riding, without any formal lessons, just ride in a western saddle, makes western riding, to those 'looking in', appear fairly crude, lacking the progressive and structured training, found in dressage,and thus then to many, appears any horse should have a dressage basic training, or he is missing something.
I have given up trying to convince otherwise, as in the end, each of us that rides seriously in any discipline, knows what a foundation it needs

Besides that, none of those discussions really have anything to do with the topic of the post
A horse need not be round, to work engaged, and no one wants to ride a horse that is moving inverted.Inverted has nothing to do with any discipline,whether the horse is moving naturally with a higher head carriage or not
A horse moving inverted is also resistant in the poll, neck and jaw,which causes him to hollow out, unable to track up.
Carry on-I'm done


----------



## Tazzie

Golden Horse said:


> Cross posting from another thread, as @Tihannah so excellently puts it here....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For most of us Dressage means basics, not high level competition. Now unlike Tihannah, I do compete, but my joy comes from taking an unlikely candidate like Fergie on a journey, she will never be a higher level horse, I have always thought that she would top out at 1st, but looks like we may dabble in second this year.
> 
> Someone asked me what I would do if I won a lot of money, and I genuinely would prefer to invest it in Fergie and my journey, rather than buying a horse who could maybe go higher.
> 
> My most successful competition year was the year I leased Troy, it was also the most boring.....


The above is also what I love about Dressage. Taking a horse that people go "that horse will NEVER do that", and having that horse prove them so wrong they'd be first in line to buy your horse (no joke, I have people that said they'd run over other people in a mad dash to buy Izzie.)

This is what I bought when I got Izzie:


















I had friends saying I was an idiot. And yet... this is the end product:


















And she DOMINATES her sport. She's an underdog. She's not some "fancy" warmblood. She's a Half Arab with a lot of Paint/QH/TB in her (Written In The Stars Part-bred Arab). But this isn't a mare held together. GOOD LUCK to anyone that thinks they can force something on her. She is opinionated. She's HARD. A professional would never want to deal with her as she has too many demands. And yet, I get this:


















As well as a horse that could pack kids around at the age of three.










No, hacking around with kids doesn't show she's the perfect Dressage horse. But she's a REAL horse. She's not some sissy arena horse. She will never score 80% at Grand Prix. Heck, I'll be elated to MAKE it there with her. I show, but every ribbon is a hard fought ribbon. It's taking this opinionated creature and getting her to agree to what I want. On the trail? It's her terms. I stay out of her way and let her pick her pace.

There is always going to be downfalls in EVER discipline. The peanut rollers in western pleasure that tied horse's heads up. The barrel racers star fishing. The walking horses and their soring. The hunter/jumpers poling a horse. And the Dressage riders with their rollkur and questionable training practices. But that doesn't mean every last one of us does whatever it takes to reach the next level. If that was the case, we'd be third level right now if I had no regard for my horse. But I do. Izzie will be eight this year, and in some minds she's far behind. And she could be further ahead. But I realize our issues are me and that I have a lot left to learn.


----------



## gottatrot

tinyliny said:


> I think you put that up as an example of how some dressage persons would assume that seeing it move that way, that it was unsound and that making it move with it's in 'a certain position' would miraculously make it sound. That, so to speak, it's 'cure' was in getting it's head down and riding it 'round'.
> But, that in reality, that horse's pained expression, stiffly raised neck is perhaps due to something that should be explored (some pain issue) and that just forcing it to move in a dressage frame would not be what it needs.
> 
> Is that more or less what you wanted to say? or, have I, too, misunderstood?
> (wouldn't be the first time)
> 
> I agree that the horse is probably distressed or in pain. whether that's a moment in time, or a habitual way of going is hard to say. That dip behind the withers can become a permanent fixture, as it has in my lease horse, X. that is from too many horses being 'fiddled' back into his own neck, by a dressage person too focused on 'collection' and not enough extension.
> 
> However, a person CAN help a horse with a habitual neck and back posture like that with correct riding. you may say that just moving the neck into a different position can't help, but just the action of having a horse drop the head, extend the nose out a bit causes mental relaxation. that is , in part, why teaching a horse to drop their head is a useful tool for getting them to let go of worry. So, riding in 'a certain' position alone CAN help a worried horse change that mental state, even if it's long ingrained. That said, if there are physical pain issues, they must be addressed first. But we ALL know that.


Thank you, yes, sometimes we all need an interpreter, LOL. That is what I was trying to say. 

@Tazzie, that is a very nice and correct extended trot from your horse. You have done a great job with her.

I would submit one more thing: for those who say that dressage includes the basic good training that every horse goes through. If that is the case, then it is not a good argument to say someone like @bsms has not experienced dressage, since he obviously has taken his horses through basic good training and improved their bodies and way of going. If we can say western horses with good basics have had "dressage" meaning training, then that would include his horses and riding also. As well, I can't fathom that anyone who has studied so many books about dressage, basic training and riding in balance would have no concept or application of dressage in his riding, intentionally or not.

Yes, we have gone around on many topics, and the thread has grown too long. Especially due to it getting dug back up after being buried for awhile. 

It may be frustrating to some who don't feel they've made their points, but for me debate is not about convincing other people about things, but rather opening the mind to new information you may not have considered, and also when you write about something you really have to clarify what you may not have thought completely through even if you feel you have a grasp of it. In this way, debate is invaluable. 

A case in point, after all this discussion @Spanish Rider mentions that the posture of horses used in western riding vs spanish may have more to do with the temperament of the cows...now that is some food for thought and very interesting.

I would like to say thanks to all who have giving everyone reading this thread some good information to ponder.


----------



## AnitaAnne

Tazzie said:


> The above is also what I love about Dressage. Taking a horse that people go "that horse will NEVER do that", and having that horse prove them so wrong they'd be first in line to buy your horse (no joke, I have people that said they'd run over other people in a mad dash to buy Izzie.)
> 
> This is what I bought when I got Izzie:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had friends saying I was an idiot. And yet... this is the end product:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And she DOMINATES her sport. She's an underdog. She's not some "fancy" warmblood. She's a Half Arab with a lot of Paint/QH/TB in her (Written In The Stars Part-bred Arab). But this isn't a mare held together. GOOD LUCK to anyone that thinks they can force something on her. She is opinionated. She's HARD. A professional would never want to deal with her as she has too many demands. And yet, I get this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As well as a horse that could pack kids around at the age of three.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, hacking around with kids doesn't show she's the perfect Dressage horse. But she's a REAL horse. She's not some sissy arena horse. She will never score 80% at Grand Prix. Heck, I'll be elated to MAKE it there with her. I show, but every ribbon is a hard fought ribbon. It's taking this opinionated creature and getting her to agree to what I want. On the trail? It's her terms. I stay out of her way and let her pick her pace.
> 
> There is always going to be downfalls in EVER discipline. The peanut rollers in western pleasure that tied horse's heads up. The barrel racers star fishing. The walking horses and their soring. The hunter/jumpers poling a horse. And the Dressage riders with their rollkur and questionable training practices. But that doesn't mean every last one of us does whatever it takes to reach the next level. If that was the case, we'd be third level right now if I had no regard for my horse. But I do. Izzie will be eight this year, and in some minds she's far behind. And she could be further ahead. But I realize our issues are me and that I have a lot left to learn.


Lovely, just lovely. You and your horse are indeed a shining example of just how much effective, correct riding can improve a horse (and their topline, lol) 

:thumbsup:


----------



## AnitaAnne

gottatrot said:


> For example, @AnitaAnne's definition of "round" is far different from the one in the USDF glossary, which refers to the topline of the horse being convex and the trajectory of the limbs moving in a circular fashion. This could never apply to a barrel horse, as in the video posted, despite what is being touted. So I have to conclude that for @AnitaAnne, the definition of round has more to do with the hindquarters of the horse. Which some people would refer to as engagement or impulsion.
> 
> The USDF definition of round is only necessary for competitive dressage horses. The debate from the beginning of the thread was about what constitutes a horse moving properly and whether the idea of "round" actually had anything to do with a horse being more fit to carry a rider.


Sorry have to reply to this; I in fact do not think the definition of round has more to do with the hindquarters of the horse. To be round, the horse must be working over their back. The muscles (and brain) are conditioned to reach this stage. 

I have made most explanations basic for ease of clarity. Sorry if I wasn't clear, but these concepts can be difficult to understand. Roundness is developed and teaches the horse how to carry itself in a way that strengthens the back. 

The round "frame" changes as one advances up the levels in Dressage. 

The round "frame" of a barrel horse or a gaited horse (or any other type of language) are not the same as a Dressage horse because the different standards in that brand of chocolate. 

All the different disciplines have one very basic concept in common; inverted is wrong, round is the goal. 




gottatrot said:


> I've concluded that most of those arguing that a horse must move in a "round" posture in order to carry a rider actually do not mean "round" as in the dressage definition, but actually simply mean a horse moving around well, relaxed and not clenching every muscle in their body. I've come to this conclusion because the horses that have been called "round" have run the gamut from horses in fully extended trots to running barrels to gaiting horses.


As mentioned above, round is a goal for all horses, just the outline varies. A horse can be round and moving in extended gaits. Round is not the same as collected...round is the opposite of hollow or inverted. Round is not the same thing as relaxed. A horse can be just hanging out or moving in it's natural state totally soft and relaxed; that does not mean they are moving round. 

When one states: "The horse was moving in a round, collected frame" that is two separate descriptions, not a repeated concept. Round describes the topline of the horse; collected is the "compressed" frame and/or the gait. 

That is why i can state that all manner of horses can be round, no matter what breed or riding discipline. Round describes the topline i.e. muscular development of the horse. 

@Tazzie posted an excellent example of how the correct training can take a horse with a less than ideal back and develop the topline of that horse. That topline is round. Not the same shape as a horse beginning life with a more ideal back, but a fabulous improvement on what Izzie was given. 

@Tazzie has greatly improved the health and value of Izzie by her dedication and correct work. Bravo!!


----------



## Golden Horse

gottatrot said:


> I would submit one more thing: for those who say that dressage includes the basic good training that every horse goes through. If that is the case, then it is not a good argument to say someone like @bsms has not experienced dressage, since he obviously has taken his horses through basic good training and improved their bodies and way of going. If we can say western horses with good basics have had "dressage" meaning training, then that would include his horses and riding also. As well, I can't fathom that anyone who has studied so many books about dressage, basic training and riding in balance would have no concept or application of dressage in his riding, intentionally or not.
> after being buried for awhile.
> 
> 
> 
> .


No, no it is not a good argument at all, for many reasons.


----------



## jaydee

I actually did say that if bsms had used correct basic training methods on his horses so they understood conventional cues and responded correctly too them then they had in fact done some dressage (note lower case 'd') but I got the impression that he disagreed with me on that based on his interpretation of 'dressage'.
Maybe I misunderstood.


To go back to the inverted or round original debate - its all about getting the most out of your horse with the least negative impact on its structure. A horse with well developed muscle will be able to carry a rider better than one without. A horse that carries its head in the right position (allowing for natural conformation) will be easier to control, therefore safer, than one that doesn't. 
Those things are important whether you ride competitively or hack out/trail ride
A horse can be on a longer rein with a light contact and have its head in a position that's safe for the rider and not detrimental to the horse.
Length of rein, amount of contact and collection are relative to what the rider is doing with the horse at any given time. A show jumper or dressage rider that uses contact, a short rein and collection in the ring/arena don't ride like that when they're out on a pleasure ride.
I've attached a block of snipped photos of a horse a tried when I was horse hunting a few years ago. He's an Arabian x hackney with a naturally high neck carriage and was schooled but still green. I didn't buy him because I didn't want such a project at the time, he was very challenging and used 'fake monsters to spook at every opportunity. To start with his head was so high that only the training forks were stopping him from hitting my face when he tried to resist going forwards and avoid contact so he could then spook and turn. I was told that he'd do it. I was also told that he'd try to spook at a,b,c,d,e etc.
When his head and neck were raised higher than the correct position the rein to bit contact was ineffective and he knew it. His body position was 'inverted'
When ridden forwards (very hard work because he'd been allowed to be idle) so he became more energetic, a few half halts here and there and some light action with my left and right hands to encourage him to flex his poll and he immediately started to relax his jaw and drop his head into where it needed to be for me to have control of him. His outline went from inverted to 'rounded' and he no doubt felt more comfortable too. He knew he was in control and worked willingly with no attempts at spooking or evasion.


----------



## AnitaAnne

gottatrot said:


> Saying someone is arguing semantics is essentially saying the the meaning of the term does not matter.
> If the meaning of "round" or "inverted" do not matter, then there would be no discussion at all here. But they do matter, because what you believe these terms mean, and whether they are positive or negative for horses affects how you ride and train all the horses you deal with.


The *Meaning* is what does matter, you were objecting to the use of the *term* "round" claiming _a back doesn't really round so why the term 
_
It is the accepted American terminology for a concept. 

_A Rose by any other name is still a Rose..._


----------



## Zexious

Arguing semantics isn't a suggestion that the meaning doesn't matter, it's asserting that there is more than one accepted definition culturally of a word. 'Rounded' is a colloquialism used in equestrian pursuits. Nothing to lose sleep over :')


----------



## AnitaAnne

evilamc said:


> Part of me feels like shes exaggerating it, maybe hes new at it so shes exaggerating the cue? Or to help viewers see what shes doing?


Yes, you are correct. That rider was stiff and giving a very exaggerated cue. The horse was not throwing her out of the saddle; she was trying to muscle the changes. Poor riding.


----------



## AnitaAnne

Smilie said:


> you are going to have to accept that showing in a pattern like this, on a loose rein, would not be possible if the horse is just well enough broke to be ridden one handed, always ridden otherwise with two hands.
> There is some special training involved, whether you wish to see it or not.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dn2KJLc6hTw
> 
> This second horse is a jr horse, so 5 and under
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKvhdXV6x5c


In the second video, both at 120 and 150 the rider does a half-halt. Watch as he applies leg (spur) and then lift the reins prior to the upcoming poles. The rider is saying "something is coming, focus".


----------



## AnitaAnne

Zexious said:


> Arguing semantics isn't a suggestion that the meaning doesn't matter, it's asserting that there is more than one accepted definition culturally of a word. 'Rounded' is a colloquialism used in equestrian pursuits. Nothing to lose sleep over :')


Good comment to end this!


----------

