# Do you think a dressage frame is important?



## Spyder (Jul 27, 2008)

First...who said that a "dressage frame" is mandatory for every discipline out there?

By the questions you are asking I feel you truly don't understand the difference between a horse that is traveling in a unrestricted manner that only requires it to propel its own body forward and a horse that is being asked to support a rider in a trot in place...or the variations in between.

Certain disciplines require the thrust from the hindquarters to outweigh the support those same hindquarters can give, and that is what will separate the overall position (frame) the horse will naturally give.

I have yet to see a racehorse run and win a race with a head position you will see in Olympic dressage for the requirements of the oxygen exchange and power needed is directed in a totally different manner.


----------



## gottatrot (Jan 9, 2011)

Spyder said:


> First...who said that a "dressage frame" is mandatory for every discipline out there?
> 
> I feel you truly don't understand the difference between a horse that is traveling in a unrestricted manner that only requires it to propel its own body forward and a horse that is being asked to support a rider in a trot in place...or the variations in between.


I realize a dressage frame is not "mandatory," for every discipline, but it seems to be a mainstream thought that without that frame a horse's back is hollow or unable to well support a rider.
So do you feel a horse is required to support the rider more with his back when he is trotting in place than when he is galloping?

But if a horse is merely propelling its body forward and not supporting its rider properly, wouldn't his back become sore, especially over a long distance?
Is every horse that is not in a dressage frame moving with a hollow back or strung out? 
I like what you said about the horse's speed overcoming the possibility of the frame, as in the gallop. That makes sense to me.


----------



## Spyder (Jul 27, 2008)

gottatrot said:


> I realize a dressage frame is not "mandatory," for every discipline, but it seems to be a mainstream thought that without that frame a horse's back is hollow or unable to well support a rider.
> So do you feel a horse is required to support the rider more with his back when he is trotting in place than when he is galloping?
> 
> But if a horse is merely propelling its body forward and not supporting its rider properly, wouldn't his back become sore, especially over a long distance?
> ...



We have to make one assumption in this discussion to be able to focus on the horse's overall position and that is that the rider is positioned in the most perfect position/place ACCORDING to what is being asked of the horse.

That would mean that a jockey will not be in a dressage position or a jumper rider going over a jump. A race horse will have a longer frame and doesn't need the strength in its back that a fully developed dressage horse would because the jockey is distributing his weight differently than a dressage rider. This is a case where thrust (forward) needs to outweigh support to get the job done according to what is expected of it. 




> But if a horse is merely propelling its body forward and not supporting its rider properly, wouldn't his back become sore, especially over a long distance?


I did not say the horse was not supporting the rider PROPERLY but that the horse is using only what it needed to go from point A to point B. If trotting, in equestrian terms this would be called a natural trot and the horse will not have the balance or strength to support the rider if any additional demands were to be put on it.



> Is every horse that is not in a dressage frame moving with a hollow back or strung out?


Forget your perception that a dressage frame is one with an arched neck as you see in the higher levels for in fact the "dressage frame" actually encompasses different positions as the horse gets stronger and more balanced. To have a more open frame can still be considered in balance, not on the forehand and not hollow backed and suits many disciplines besides dressage.


----------



## ~*~anebel~*~ (Aug 21, 2008)

Agreed with Spyder.

Horses who are at the upper levels of dressage and are in this "dressage frame" resulting from the collection required to perform the movements in the test, do not go for marathon rides. The purpose of collection is not to extend the length of time or distance which the horse can go, but rather to use his body to carry himself in a way which makes doing dressage movements less labored and less likely to injure the horse. This means the horse has a limited period of time where his muscles can carry his body in this collected fashion.

In lower level dressage the work is geared more towards general riding. It is more important that the horse is relaxed and carrying himself in a balanced manner than if he is in this so called "dressage frame".
It is important for any horse which is being ridden to be relaxed and balanced - not that he is an upper level dressage horse - but obedient to the aids. These basic requirements of lower level dressage tests are important for a horse at any level of any sport (that he is relaxed, balanced and obedient). However this does not mean that for every discipline that "a little dressage is good - a lot must be better". An endurance horse would not make it very far trotting like Blue Hors Matine.

Hope I helped!


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

gottatrot said:


> I realize a dressage frame is not "mandatory," for every discipline, but it seems to be a mainstream thought that without that frame a horse's back is hollow or unable to well support a rider...


I doubt that is really mainstream thought. How a horse compensates for the rider is based on the sport - what speed, direction changes, jumps, etc.



















The horses are athletic and compensating correctly for the rider's position, based on what their sport requires them to do. I don't think it is mainstream thought that horses need to shape themselves like upper-level dressage horses to have balance or to handle their rider's weight.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

In upper level dressage horses are trained to carry themselves and the rider in a way analogous to the way a ballet dancer does. The dancer is always balanced over her feet, upright and most core muscles engaged to keep her ready to change her balance speed direction at a moments notice without losing her balance. That "frame" keeps her from injurry, too. but she could not keep doing it non stop and certainly wouldn't want to do it over a marathon or a dash race. 
However, the training she has in "self carrriage" for ballet will help to keep her strong and injury free through daily life for many years.


----------



## gottatrot (Jan 9, 2011)

Thanks, I appreciate the logical replies. There are some intelligent and helpful people on this board.
I guess saying the belief that horses need to be in a dressage frame to be carrying their rider properly is "mainstream," was a bit exaggerated. Perhaps I should have said it was something I have run across frequently. Most notably in people (some trainers) who have done some lower level dressage and probably read some books about the principles of dressage. I have read some excellent dressage books and have thought that some were making the point that a rounded back was always the priority and this was only possible within a certain frame, but perhaps I was misunderstanding their point and that they meant the concept to apply specifically to that one discipline. The "circle of muscles" seemed to be an important concept to me.
Some of these people I have run across seem to look at every discipline through the lense of whether the horse is in a dressage frame, so they say people who ride jumpers or endurance or in western classes are building the wrong muscles by letting their horses be strung out or not riding from the hind end or not "collected," as if it is a terrible thing. That is not saying that I don't see a LOT of people riding their horses out of balance and disengaged. But it is nice for me to hear that other intelligent people feel it is not necessary to always have your horse in that frame in order for them to be using their bodies correctly.. 
You have all made some great points and it is helpful to me to have a response when I run across these people who want to tell me my horse should always travel in a certain frame. I do ride my horses in collection sometimes and think it is great for them. But I personally emphasize balance and straightness more, and work a lot on extension too.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

For a horse to work in a dressage frame, it takes more work from them than just going as they would do normally. They would much rather just go along very little changed . It is much easier for them to run around strung out and falling forward. It's much easier for me to slump along as I do than to move as a ballarina does. But the ballarina will last longer physically than I will.

Also, one thing I read recently about "collection" said that as a horse comes to be more and more in a balanced and collected way of going, its' four feet will come closer and closer to each other on the ground. The horse will be balancing itself on a smaller area of contact with the ground.
I find that interesting. Something I never thought about.
So, I am going to start looking at photos and see if there's any truth to that.


----------



## Kayty (Sep 8, 2009)

Just to add to the already excellent replies, I feel from your first post that you are thinking from front to back in terms of collection. There are so many posts on this forum about 'head/neck set' and in all of them you will find that the head and neck position is in fact the last thing to happen - the head and neck position does NOT determine the position of the back and rest of the horse's body. It is in fact the other way around - when the back has been lifted and is swinging, able to carry the rider, the head and neck will naturally come into a more 'arched' position. This 'arched' neck is enhanced at each level of dressage, in the training levels the horse should be in an open frame, the back should be loose and swinging not stiff and hollow, but the head and neck will be carried quite low and not overly 'arched' like you would see in a grand prix horse. 
It takes many many years for a horse to develop the strength of back and hind quarters, to actually be able to correctly maintain what I think you are referring to as a 'dressage frame' with neck high and arched, poll the highest point, head on the vertical etc as you would see in a grand prix test. 


tinyliny, yes the legs are closer together as collection increases, not necessarily because the horse is taking shorter steps, but also because the whole body is shortened/compacted when in collection, creating a closer connection between hindquarters and forehand.


----------



## sarahver (Apr 9, 2010)

In comparing the difference between dressage and endurance, it is important to look at the history of the two sports and how they evolved to where they are today.

Dressage is a very old dicipline and has its roots in military warfare. The Greek warlord Xenophon, born around 430 BC wrote one of the first manuals on such horse training for battle. To be ready for war, the horse had to be supple and balanced in order to carry not only the rider but also the heavy armour and weapons used in warfare. Additionally the horse had to be obedient and maneuvrable in order to change direction in an instant, dodge a sword sideways and to halt or burst forwards without a moments hesitation. So whilst being supple and balanced was crucial, so were obedience and responsiveness.

For these types of movements - forwards, backwards, sideways or halt in quick sucession, the dressage frame was important as it develops the musculature in the horse appropriately for balance AND responsiveness.

Endurance on the other hand has a different history. The horses are used for stamina and ability to survive harsh desert conditions. Of more importance were the ability to ride across rough terrain and carry a rider, at speed sometimes, across great distances. 

The type of musculature necessary for long distance and faster speeds is entirely different to that of precise movements, hence the difference in 'frame' that you see between the two diciplines.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

tinyliny said:


> For a horse to work in a dressage frame, it takes more work from them than just going as they would do normally. They would much rather just go along very little changed . It is much easier for them to run around strung out and falling forward. It's much easier for me to slump along as I do than to move as a ballarina does. But the ballarina will last longer physically than I will.
> 
> Also, one thing I read recently about "collection" said that as a horse comes to be more and more in a balanced and collected way of going, its' four feet will come closer and closer to each other on the ground. The horse will be balancing itself on a smaller area of contact with the ground.
> I find that interesting. Something I never thought about.
> So, I am going to start looking at photos and see if there's any truth to that.


I've got to disagree with you. A ballerina moves very differently than a fullback because she isn't playing football.

I'm a jogger. Not fast, but I've jogged long enough that I started with sneakers, because there was no such thing as a 'running shoe' back then. I do NOT look like a sprinter, but a sprinter wouldn't look like one while running on the trails I use - too many rocks, cactus pieces on the trail, and an occasional rattlesnake to remind you that you are not alone.

I told the OP that it isn't mainstream to think a dressage position is required, but his response was accurate:



gottatrot said:


> ...I guess saying the belief that horses need to be in a dressage frame to be carrying their rider properly is "mainstream," was a bit exaggerated. Perhaps I should have said it was something I have run across frequently. Most notably in people (some trainers) who have done some lower level dressage and probably read some books about the principles of dressage....Some of these people I have run across seem to look at every discipline through the lense of whether the horse is in a dressage frame...


There ARE folks who write books and give lessons saying that a horse isn't balanced unless he's collected per dressage...and that is wrong. But there are books on my shelf that strongly suggest it!

The steeplechase horses in the picture I posted are not strung out and falling forward. They are moving appropriately for what they are being asked to do. The cutting horse in the picture is very balanced and controlled, but he's not doing dressage.

The OP is right - an endurance horse IS balanced and supporting his rider, because you can't carry a rider 100 miles if you are strung out, off balance and out of control. 

I don't want my horse to "be balancing itself on a smaller area of contact with the ground." That would be bad on a rocky trail, and not real wise with a green rider who isn't always balanced himself. A ballerina may move that way, but ballerinas don't play football, or jog on desert trails. There are ideas and principles from dressage that I can incorporate into my riding, but my goal is different - so I need to be careful not to cause problems by taking the wrong parts, when applied to how and where I ride.


----------



## maura (Nov 21, 2009)

It's more important to think about what *produces* a dressage frame, than the outline itself. It's also important to realize that there isn't one "dressage frame", there are many, depending on the horse's level and what the rider is working on at the moment. Most performance horses do need to be pushing from behind and working through their backs, while those two things are building blocks for dressage, doing those two things alone does not mean you are working in a dressage frame. There's also a range from hollow and inverted through working through the back, to actively rounding the back as when a dressage horse goes on the aids. Most performance horses fail in somewhere in the middle of that range, not hollow or inverted, but not as rounded up through the back as a dressage horse.

For these types of discussions I find it useful to be very strict about the use of the word "collection." It's often used casually in other disciplines to mean a shortened, balanced or united gait, when in the dressage sense, collection means the horse is "sitting down" behind, with a lowered croup and increased angulation in its hind joints and has actually shifted their center of gravity rearward and weighted its hind feet more. Very few disciplines other than dressage truly use collection in its strictest sense. Cutting horses and jumpers may collect briefly, sitting down to turn or execute a manevour; but the rest of the time they and other performance horses travel _connected_ - balanced under the rider, pushed from the hind, united and moving through their back, but not in a dressage frame, and certainly not collected. 

There is a tendency that I have noticed among horseman who have recently discovered classical training to be overly enthusiastic about dressage principles, and think it is absolutely the answer to everything. They are partially correct. Correct, obedient flatwork with relaxation, straightness and suppleness IS the answer to most everything, but that doesn't mean every horse needs to travel in a frame, or learn collection in order to do its job.


----------



## ponyboy (Jul 24, 2008)

Paso Finos go around with their necks nicely arched and head on the vertical even though it's supposedly impossible for them to be collected because of their gait. Headset means nothing.


----------



## ~*~anebel~*~ (Aug 21, 2008)

ponyboy said:


> Paso Finos go around with their necks nicely arched and head on the vertical even though it's supposedly impossible for them to be collected because of their gait. Headset means nothing.


 Thank you!!


----------



## Beling (Nov 3, 2009)

No comment really, but I DO think it's a good question. I grew up riding many old, sound horses who never knew a thing about "how to carry a rider." They stayed mostly on the forehand, but their legs were fine. Yet these days I often come across the attitude that your horse will break down if you don't get him rounding his back etc. What I see, though, is a lot of big horses having hock problems.


----------



## xXEquestrianBalletXx (Jan 3, 2011)

Also, if a horse were to be in a dressage frame for endurance, he would tire out much sooner then all the other horses. I think that's what everyone is getting at. If a horse were to have a "dressage frame" when he needed an "endurance frame" then he would tire out much too quickly. It's as simple as that. And the arched neck in dressage is also partly to display the horse accepting conact with the bit in a greater amount then in lower levels of dressage.


----------



## xXEquestrianBalletXx (Jan 3, 2011)

I would like to add something else, everyone else has already said it really, but here's another way to look at it. There are various frames. There is a "correct frame" and there is an "incorrect frame". Something I don't think you are grasping is the the "correct frame" *can* be a "dressage frame" but it isn't *always* a "dressage frame". If the horse is working correctly this is just the "correct frame". A horse doesn't have a true "dressage frame" until much further down the road of the horse's training.


----------

